Every employer should include "do you believe in the flood myth?" as a question at every job interview. Anyone who believes it is frankly even too stupid to be left on charge of a mop unattended.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Genesis 7:11. Not to mention is also rained on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. The water from the earth would not have been super heated, you merely assert that. Do a little research on the topic, many (if not all) of these questions have been answered.
@ubermechazillatron No, the question was not answered, and many things in the rock strata like limestone formation, volcanic rock layers, craters, etc would pump out vastly more heat. Geology threw out the Imaginary Flood over 100 years ago, read a geology book.
@InternetDarkLord Water stored a few layers under the earth's surface would not have been very hot. Not to mention when this at best warm water burst forth from the deep, it would have mixed with the cool water raining from the sky and kept the temperature neutral. Your point is null and void.
@ubermechazillatron Where is the evidence for fountains of the deep? How did the oceans get under rock? Plate tectonics was proven, we know how fast the seafloors spread and the mountains rise up.
@ubermechazillatron Nonsense, to flood the entire planet would take immense amounts of water, and it would have to go deep because a large percent of the crust would still have to be rock just to support the surface. What you say is out of the question!
@ubermechazillatron "Water stored a few layers under the earth's surface would not have been very hot. Not to mention when this at best warm water burst forth from the deep, it would have mixed with the cool water raining from the sky and kept the temperature neutral. Your point is null and void."
I assume you've done all the calculations to back that assertion up? Or are you-- like all creationists-- just assuming that it is possible based on your infantile understanding of science?
@gregrutz There are flood stories from all around the globe and even rituals (one in South America where a tribe dances around a giant barrel which represents the boat a man floated in during a flood to save humanity) that match the biblical account. Not to mention all the strange fossil formations like a whale graveyard being found in the middle of a desert too far inland unless a massive tidal wave put them there. Your ignorance means nothing.
@ubermechazillatron Well ignorant 'never read a geology book' creatard, since there are so many flood stories, I guess a lot of people survieved the flood not just 8. The Chinese and Egyptians didn't all die.
The whales lived in the ocean and died there, then the ocean floor was pushed up by plate tectonics over millions of years. That is why we have sea beds for the tops of mountains.
Not all sedimetary rock is from water. Floods don't make different kinds of rocks or sort fossils.
@gregrutz LOL! You do realize that Noah's family would have repopulated the earth and that's when these stories would have been written down right? Fail
In a mass whale graveyard? It just so happened that a bunch of whales (and some other creatures like certain fish and dolphin) died in the exact same area all at once or over time? That seems very unlikely. I think a mass fossilization is the best explanation.
Half of these "agruments" go against basic scientific fact. Do you not understand how lakes form? Or are you telling us no new lakes have formed from erosion or runoff from rainfall in the last 10,000 years. There are some good, logical arguments both for and against the flood, but please dont ruin yours with straw-man fallacies and lack of scientific knowledge about lakes and fossil formation.
u are a pretty good debator lol..but i personally still think it was a global flood. Do you believe in God? and do u play on playstation 3?..i kno its a random question but with your name it seems like u may play online games.
@MrTronsformer There was a flood some 10,000 years ago in the giza area the spinx has water damage this is being debated by scholars but a global flood I don't think so
well if u do some research then u will see that u dont need all those dinosaurs. yea theres different species but its mainly jus variations in them that are very small..and noah would of got baby dinosaurs which would of been very small. theres plenty of room on the boat. and God's words dont change.the bible is 95% accurate with the dead sea scrolls. the other 5percent is just a few misspelled words.and there are modern bibles that translate it into simpler words to make it easier to understand
@MrTronsformer No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the OT, not NT, and they are a composite job from a later century, not originals. The NT has 50,000 variations, from spelling errors to entire chapters. The current Bible text is not what the Bible writers wrote.
The variations in dinosaurs include 2 different orders of reptiles, that argument is also wrong.
The flood was global if u dont believe that then u dont believe in God. in case u didnt kno there is more than enough water to cover the earth.the earth crust split and huge amounts of lava poured out on the ocean floor and it catastrophically raised the oceans.the huge amount of steam also caused global showers.God caused the ocean basins to sink and all the water washed off the continents.that is why the oceans are so deep.this triggered erosion which formed the grand canyon.
Millions of people believe in God but not the Flood.
It is obvious the earth's crust did not produce enough steam to cover the earth with water. Water expands over 1,400 times when it turns to steam, that much would scald all life on earth to death, then everything would be crushed by the pressure, then everything would suffocate from the dilution of oxygen....and so on.
@InternetDarkLord hey i know what u are trying to say..but the reason i believe it was a global flood is because God made a covenant with noah to never send a global flood again..if u believe the flood was local then God broke his promise many times..for example hurrican katrina, the 2004 indian ocean tsunami, the recent japan tsunami, and many other floods. for God to have kept his promise the flood has to be global..and they have also found marine fossils on top of all mountain ranges.
@MrTronsformer Limestone forms over millions of years, and so do mountains. Many are still rising.
If God is omnipotent, destroying the earth was unneeded. He could just put all the bad people in a magic prison until they behave. Why have the idiotic flood at all?
@InternetDarkLord hate to bring it to you but the bible shows the earth is actually around 6000yrs old jus like the universe..scientist are wrong about almost everything..its just mans opinions which change constantly unlike the words of God. the eruption of mt. st helens showed that large geological processes can actually happen very rapidly..look this up im not lyin. and scientist think the present is key to the past when actually the past is key to the present. and carbon dating is wrong too.
@MrTronsformer LOL! Not only are scientists more accurate than the Bible, the Bible is reinterpreted to fit science facts. The ancient Hebrews believed the earth was a flat disk, with the underworld below it, and the sun, moon, stars and planets orbiting us in the crystal firmament above us. Water filled the sky above the firmament, and YHWH sat on His throne above that. As science advanced, words and passages like "firmament" were changed to fit science.
@InternetDarkLord LOL i wouldnt say scientist are more accurate..they change there opinions constantly..like the big bang has been modified so much with "man made assumptions that never been observed" matter of fact someone that studied the big bang 25years ago wouldnt even recognize it today. plain and simple the big bang aint real and some scientist realize that and "made up the multiverse theory" i dont believe in almost anything scientist say anymore..ONLY GODS WORDS WHICH DOESNT CHANGE
@MrTronsformer God's words do change. The OT is a composite job of earlier sources. Surviving NT scrolls have 50,000 known differences, from mere spelling errors to entire chapters. The current text is not what the Bible writers originally wrote.
Also, sciences like medicine have changed the most over centuries, so why use lasers or surgery, not leaches or animal sacrifices?
@InternetDarkLord In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. and A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
@MrTronsformer No, when the ancients translated the Bible, they chose Greek and Latin for circle, not sphere, even after it was known the earth is a sphere. Job refers to the circle.
It was believed the sky is a solid firmament for centuries. Kepler argued that the crystals produced music, "mi" and "fa" being the earth's notes. He was merely echoing the Bible
Besides, why not retranslate: talking snakes, magic trees, talking donkeys, etc. Same argument.
@InternetDarkLord and God is not magical thats why he wouldnt use a magic prison. magic is not real. and a flood was a way better way to kill all the sinful people.
@InternetDarkLord well the bible says God protected all on the boat. if you were not on the boat then ur dead. plain and simple..so even if there wasnt much oxygen or whatever God is all powerful and theres no doubt he would of protected all that was on the boat and gave them oxygen to breathe if they needed it. but the steam would of cooled and formed massive amounts of water droplets that would of fell immediantly. so it wouldnt scald everything on earth
I studied evolution in school an then I heard the facts supporting creation. You have to hear both sides before you can understand. Read "Creation Facts of Life" by Gary Parker. He taught evolution and he tells you why he changed his mind about it.
@stephluvzrock There is no creation theory. The first 2 chapters of Genesis list 2 different stories. Job 38 begins another. It pops up in Isaiah and Psalms.
Also there is no explanation for any stories that are used. There is an order life evolved, but no order in which they were created.
Genesis says the pairs of animals were "male and female", but some animals don't have 2 genders.
Genesis says the pairs were 7 for clean, 1 for unclean, so all land life should be inbred, but unclean ones 7 times as much. One could determine the unclean ones by genetic test!
The oldest clonal aspen stand is over 80,000 years old.
The heaviest rain in 24 hours was only about 6 feet, way to little for 40 days to raise the ocean even 100 yards.
love the vid, just the thing about the Koalas, you said they live in West Australia, but your dot was in the east...that's all, good video either way!
See thats my point. If earth is so complex that it has to have a "creator" But the "creator" just simply came out of nowhere and has no creator, but simply just appeared. Thats just as logical as the big bang coming out of nowhere. (actually the theories in science dont say the big bang came out of nowhere, but that is a whole other story)
What about the ridiculously large number of animals, and insects that were supposed to fit onto the ark? I think it's worth mentioning that there's no way all the insects, let alone animals could fit on the boat described in the bible. The genetic bottle neck point is very well taken though.
@jj79tr But it all happened at the almost exact same time period? And each speak of a large boat, I might add, and that the large boat contains animals.
I have a very simple question. if there was a great flood. that wiped out all life on the planet except for the animals on noah's boat. how did noah have time to build a boat, in im guessing the middle east somewhere, assuming the boat is blessed by God and has some sort of TARDIS like bigger on the inside thing happening, sail the boat to all corners of the world collecting the animals of the world for the ark before the flood? also after the flood did he sail around the world for a 2nd time?
Koalas only live in western australia? Mate if your going to make a debunking video get all your facts right or you'll look like and idiot. Putting the dot in estern Australia doesn't help either.
religion will always just be "fate" can't have fate without it working 100% of the time. yes the bible is a good book, it teaches life morals and good stuff. that said, the whole.. god making the wolrd in 7 days is a bunch of (sorry :P ) bullshit. it's just a book. don't belive anything just becuse it's in a book. - buddha
i like the whole buddhism idea, a religion without a god. that just teaches good act.
@TosXMellow The bible is a horrible book of morals. The only reason anyone would ever even think that is if they spent their whole life listening to sermons instead reading the damn book themselves.
@bahremon2170 there's some things in the bible that are retarted yes.
but most of the morals in is it really ture. although i don't belive in this so called "god"
besides that everything in the book is a lie made by people, becuse i don't belive that the book was made by god. he didn't just send a random book for people to follow, people made the book so other people will follow in their religion.
@TosXMellow great I'll remember that next time a woman doesn't yell loud enough to get help while shes being raped we'll need to stone her and that if I'm ever enslaved by another human being I should remain loyal to him no matter how much i'm beaten.
@TosXMellow It would be irrelevant to someone who claims the bible is a good book of morals. Try reading deuteronomy sometime It says very clearly a slave is to take the beatings of his master and remain loyal and that women who don't scream loud enough to get help/attention in a city will be stoned along with the man who raped them. Oh and if you try to tell me that doesn't count because its the "old" testament well then I guess the ten commandments don't count either you fucking idiot.
@TosXMellow Point is christians who supposedly actually READ the bible should have no right to testify that it is a good book of morals let alone someone who supposedly doesn't even believe in the christian god. I don't care if the book says respect your elders if it also says you can kidnap a woman from a foreign country and marry her so long as you shave her head and make her wear sack cloth it is not a book that should be used in the name of morality. good day to you sir!
@bahremon2170 seeing that i've olny read the bible, and not the quran. no kidnaping is wrong. and even if you so negitive. -.- good morals like be fair, and stuff like that. there is no god.
religion makes war, war makes war economy, war makes sarrow, what makes people turn to religion of there god to help them. it's a never ending cycle of hate and pain.
@TosXMellow It's the bible that says all of those things so no you haven't read the bible and you're an idiot for apparently "reading" the bible and not knowing that the book of deuteronomy is in the bible. its only the fifth fucking book. But hey I guess it still counts as reading the bible even if you do skip over all those boring parts like how if someones deathly ill you should call in elders to pray over their body. Btw people STILL die HERE in the usa from that blatant stupidity
@bahremon2170 why when on the dollar bill it says " in god we trust" im olny voicing my opinion. and bible is a bunch of crap and lies put together by some stupid person a long time ago. i thought people where smarter than, to talk to someone who isn't real, it's insanity??
if god wanted a wolrd without hate, he shouldn't even made us. if that where even ture. we didn't get here just becuse some guy in the clouds made it? research how the earth was made. it sure the fuck wasn't made is 7 days.
@TheTruthCC The bible is a book of horrid bronze age morals. If you have ever truly read it you would know that. Unfortunately you grew up listening to preachers who distort the bible by picking which stories they wish to tell. You have gone beyond the age for which you still had the chance to see the truth. You are ignorant and brainwashed and now I bid thee farewell. There's no sense in explaining logic to a fool.
@TheTruthCC Everyone else uses more then one source of information. C14 tests come from many different labs, not just one. If the sky darken, dead bodies were expelled from their graves or rose from the dead, there was an earthquake and the curtain seperating the Holy from the Most Holy in the temple was torn in two, someone other then the Bible writers would have mentioned it.
@RadarKat73080 That's the problem. Multiple sources. The Holy Bible has 66 books in it, all saying one basic thing: either Jesus is gonna come, or Jesus has come. This book was written over a span of thousands of years, and the information in it all matches. How? It couldn't possibly be that you're the stubborn one, and that we DO have a creator, could it? Hmm...
@TheTruthCC Paul claimed that Jesus first appeared to Peter 1 Cor 15:5 I was under the impression that Christ first appeared to Mary Magdelen, in the garden near the tomb. Whom induced David to number the people? God or Satan? The Bible, in two different places, claims both did. Did Jesus die on the day of Passover? If so, why did he tell his Apostels: "I have longed to eat this PASSOVER with you." You haven't proven anything.
Arrah, begorrah and bejaysus, sure 'tis true, it is so it is:
The All Might Be Magic Man gilly-gillied himself into existence before flicking the universe and all therein into reality, on a Sunday while extruding a constipated shite before lunch (pre-created dinosaur eggs).
Mighy man.
Marvellous shit.
Wonderful world.
Hail to the All Might Be Magic Man, the true giver of the life-spark, the all-consuming pre-temporal creator of creators of procreators.
Homer, The Bible, and The Torah all mention a great flood (Homer: The Odyssey, Gilgamesh), how is it that an anti-christian society (Ancient Europe, Homer) talks of a great flood, as well as the Bible and the Torah. Aswell as the Muslim Holy Book from the far east, talk about a flood. Extremely diverse cultures all mention it, something must of happened to caused all to think of a great flood.
@TheEjayProductions probably because ancient people usually lived near rivers and other bodies of water, and as anybody who lives near a body of water today can tell you, they're prone to flooding, and sometimes very heavy flooding, think the Mississippi during the 90s. So, given enough time, every society living near a body of water would have at least one story about the time that a really big flood came and wiped everything out, but some people survived because the god(s) did bla bla bla. Ok?
@TheEjayProductions "The Bible, and The Torah all mention a great flood". The OT is the torah, and the Quran is derived from the same books. The story of Gilgamesh predates Noah. That there are other flood stories means only that there have been other floods not one global flood. Besides there should be only one flood story, should there not?
its funny to me that some people believe they are the ultimate thinkers in life...Mankind is simply unable to comprehend many things in life.An ant can only understand what an ant is like because they are limited.They can only comprehend things in life that they are able to.Do you really think that man is any different?That man is the ultimate intelligence in the universe and"gets it".I think that man IS limited in his understanding and simply some things are beyond our comprehension.....
Did you know that if you carry a small bible in your back pocket then it will protect you from fire, drowning, rabid animals, Ryan Seacrest, earthquakes, and other evils? And that is because of the magic of my God. The same magic God that flooded the earth. Now, you can sit there and try to trick me with your "science" and "logic", bit the fact is you are wrong.
This is an actual equation written out by St. Albert Einstein himself.
This is a very unintelligent video, containing false information. Let me give YOU some questions, shall I?
-If water breaks down the bonds in amino acids that supports life itself, how could life have started in the oceans?
-If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Noah's flood is a real thing that really did happen, my friend.
@TheTruthCC None of these have anything to do with the flood. However, all of these have been answered thoroughly, if you care to read a book (or just watch other YouTube users who have addressed those very questions). There is the question of evidence. The beauty of science is that it accepts hypotheses, and then tests them. Did a flood happen? If so, there should be evidence left of it but we cannot find it. However, there is abundant evidence for happenings before the alleged time of it.
Well, minus the fact that there would have been 12 animals per square foot, and the fact that there are other animals on different continents. Also, Why aren't first nations of Canada mentioned in the bible? Why wasn't that land baron once they arrived to Canada? And why are animals different in Canada then the ones say in africa? Wouldn't that imply evolution even if the animals somehow managed to get to Canada?
@TheTruthCC It seems that you think that things suddenly appear.It is that your mother is the same species as you, if you look further,there is racial differences (made possible by the enmvironmental adaptation)which is in biology a step to speciation,if this would go further you'd get subspecies and species with each child being the same species as his mother but with slight differences,there is no point where hydrogen becomes human,it is just our inhereted classification that makes confusions.
@TheTruthCC Of course, Noah's flood would not account for the variety, for the story's sake made about after the alleged flood. As well, why would certain species be confined to certain continents and why would you have similar looking and behaving species(think of the tasmanian devil in Australia and wolf in Eurasia)on different continents (the point is that they do not have a recent ancestor and have developed to the same eco-niches). It is beautiful in fact, but that is not it's point by far.
@TheTruthCC No-one created cloud formations, but they still exist. Just like life forms. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it was made by someone.
Hydrogen actually already has turned into people. Us. Try to read a book about stars. Or any book, actually.
@TheTruthCC No it did not. Little things like math, chemistry, and physics seem to get in your way. I can look at just one formation of evaporite and say conclusively that such an event did not occur. I'm glad you have an opinion, but that's all it is, your unsubstantiated opinion. I've got facts, dear. Nine trillion cu meters of NaCl.
Many people can't except this because it's nonsense. It's all theory, and if only you would open your eyes and see that Jesus has a plan for your life, then it would be much easier.
@TheTruthCC Yes, it is all based in theory. Quite correct. Bearing in mind that a theory is the highest level of verification in science outside of mathematical proof. And what exactly in that nonsensical statement is accepting Jesus making easier? Believing the bible? So I have to believe in the bible in order to believe in the bible? The circular reasoning makes my head spin.
@TheTruthCC Jesus' plan? WTF?! 1.The main goal for a human is to go to heaven. 2.All humans are born with souls. 3.When a human was a good christian all his life he'll go to heaven. 4.The longer the life, the more chances of failig. =>With an infinite short life there's no time to fail. =>A newborn, only one second old, had no time to fail. When it dies IT WILL GO TO HEAVEN. Right? So why did Jesus not kill all newborns? That way nearly ALL humans would have gone to heaven. Because: LALALALALA!
@TheTruthCC I would prefer a plan from Lenski's escherichia coli as they seem much more adaptible than a caucasian man in a middle eastern half desert. A reincarnated cactus would be fine for that matter, but unfortunately they are confined to America's and thus could not have preached their way into Europe's Middle Ages. . .
@cadnov8 . I have actually seen a site where there were at least a 100 objections from one person alone. Admittedly this included the absurdity of the Ark as well. Forget the facts of radiometric dating and Transitionals (as if these were not enough) try to explain how the fossil record exhibits increasing complexity, the younger the rock they are found in. Why are no mammals found in Cambrian rocks (even if you don't accept the age of the Cambrian)? Creationism is utter nonsense.
@pilgrimpater Wow! One person alone! How impressive!
Are you not paying attention to what you are asking? You asked how I narrowed it (this video) down to 20. I don’t doubt that one site can give at least 100. This video did not.
Your questions are misleading: can you explain how the earliest fossils in the record are complex? Can you explain how life emerged from non-life? No, and no one else can either.
Thank you for continuing to affirm that evolution = ignorance.
@cadnov8 Actually my original question of narrowing down to 20 wass to the author, Excreationist and not you. Earliest records? Easy peasy. Pre Cambrian only single cells, Cambrian sponges etc, Ordovacian - first vertebrates, Devonian first land vertebrates, Carboniferous - first reptiles, Triassic first mammals etc etc. You may argue about the mechanisms but THAT is Evolution no matter which way you look at it.
@pilgrimpater Everything fits so neatly until you look a bit more carefully. What do you think of this quote:
“‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve….The only trouble with what everyone knows,’ says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, ‘is that there is no evidence it's true.’”
By the way, your comment of getting the questions down to 20 being intended for Excreationist is duly noted. Thanks.
@cadnov8 Well obviously you have quote mined him because he is still an Evolutionary Biologist and has not become a creationist. However, there is an even simpler explanation.. The fossil record shows it as i clearly pointed out in my previous post. You really need to address this before you continue.
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” – Todd, Dr. S.C., an immunologist at Kansas State University, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
So, tell me again that science is indifferent to whether God exists or not.
@cadnov8 Thatis correct. Science only deals with the naturalistic. The non naturalistic or supernatural is based purely on faith. You have faith but you have no science to support that faith. Science is indeed totally agnostic towards god or gods, ghosts, aliens etc. And the beauty is that when science does not know it does not fill gaps with any of these unproven concepts.
I'd also suggest you read the article from Dan Mcshea. It's very different from the selectively edited version you presented here and which appears on various creationist sites I found in a Google search;
m . discovermagazine . com/1993/jun/onwardandupward235
He was not arguing the fossil record doesn't show progression from 'simple' to 'complex' which was the point made here. His point was that as a process "evolution does not NECESSARILY drive life toward greater complexity."
@pilgrimpater Yes, I've got some quotes from scientists.
How does this one grab you: “The obvious lesson from the study of fossils is the elementary truth that life even in the earliest times, differed in no way from life today. Further, we observe that the lower types of life that appear in the oldest rocks have persisted through all geological times up to the present day.” – Park, Professor James, Textbook of Geology.
@cadnov8 Who the hell is Professor James? Either you have quoted mined the poor chap or he is totally at odds with 99.999% of modern geologists (yes i tend to side with the majority of experts). The fossil record quite clearly shows that life was totally different as represented in the aerliere layers. So far you have totally failed to address this point or forward an alternative solution. Come on get your ass in gear and pull something out your Arse like Nephy does. Give me a challenge.
@pilgrimpater Many scientists have addressed the lack of fossil evidence, and yes, they are still evolutionists. However, the reason is not the evidence:
Sir Arthur Keith, wrote this in the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
@cadnov8 No theory is provable. The best it can do is fit all the facts and Evolution ticks every single box. Creationism ticks - Zero. However, Evolution ticks so many of the boxes that it is now beyond all reasonable doubt. Fossilisation is a relatively rare process and yet we have millions of fossils and thousands of transitionals. It beggars belief how you choose to deny rock solid evvidence but that's mystical dogma for you i guess.
@cadnov8 "First life"? Correct, nobody knows but it is highly immoral to guess. Tthere are a number of very credible hypotheses. 1) Building blocks of life have been found in extra terrestrial objects, 2) Simple life exists in hydrothermal vents which are starved of oxygen. 3) Extremophobes (extremofiles?) are microbes that can live in sub zero temperatures or near boiling water. Some live in caves feeding solely off rock!4) a chemical reaction causing 1st self replication 5) Last&least God
@pilgrimpater 1) An appeal to ET only changes the timing of your "evolution" so it is irrelevant. 2-4) These indicate already existing life forms, so your "first life" ideas failed.
How about the Law of Biogenesis? Your first four hopes require much more faith than #5. Far from being very credible – they’re just a search for anything that doesn't require God. Isn’t it scientific to consider all possibilities?
Why not just agree that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?
@cadnov8 The first life does not fail. Even if you disagree with the specific dates the relative ages hold it to be true. Also please note that first life of a new form does not necessarily mean disappearance of another. For instance we still have sponges even though when sponges first appeared there were no higher life forms. Biogenesis? Who believes that? Not even Creationists. Perhaps you meant Abiogenesis.
@pilgrimpater I did a little study of "law of biogenesis" and "abiogenesis". Can you tell me how abiogenesis is fundamentally different from spontaneous generation? I thought Pasteur had proven that life can only come from pre-existing life (biogenesis). But abiogenesis means life springs from non-living matter.
@cadnov8 You obviously didn't study enough. Abiogenesis is first life & there are strong indications that the much simpler & more robust RNA was a precursor to DNA. Current experiments such as Dr Sutherland's are very close to recreating this. Biogenesis is spontaneous life from other life e.g. people thought maggots spontaneously came sprang from dead animals until science discovered that they came from eggs laid by flies. Tat's science for you, ever increasing our knowledge , unlike dogma.
Your abiogenesis really seems like a god to you. Exactly where does this first life come from? I read an article from NewScientist that says that even the “simple” bacterium show complexity.
By the way, you’re saying that an intelligent designer (Dr. Sutherland) is very close to recreating ... creating what? Do you know how complex even the RNA and DNA is?
And why is dogma wrong? You have yours as well by holding as tightly as you do to evolution.
@cadnov8 No abiogenesis is not a god. What a stupid statement. Abiogenesis is the change from chemistry to biology. Just because we don't know exactly how that happened it does not invalidate what happened after i.e. evolution. Yes RNA is complex but not as complex as DNA and complex does not default to design. That is pure guesswork & wishful thinking. Of course dogma is wrong, especially when it gets in the way of progress. I am not dogmatic about evolution as it has evidence which is key..
@pilgrimpater Saying that abiogenesis was your god was stupid, my apologies. Yet, your faith in it appears a lot like my faith in my God. You’re admitting that you don’t know how it happened yet you believe it to be true. You are just as firm about leaving God out of the equation as I am about leaving him in. It’s about presuppositions.
You missed the irony of your example. An intelligent designer – Dr Sutherland – is duplicating what random mutations and millions of years produced. Seriously?
@cadnov8 Apology accepted. Whenever i debate an IDer on abiogenesis i normaly point out the various hypotheses. Some are very strong (but we will never know which one) but i also say that a god is not impossible to have kick started it. However, the god hypothes is highly unlikely. I think by going down this route you have all but conceded that whatever the cause of first life it does not disprove the evolution that undoubtedly followed & that the two are seperate topics.
@cadnov8 Are we talking about the same Dr Sutherland? I am talking about Dr Andy Sutherland of Aston university who is working on synthetic organic chemistry. Either way it is irrelevant as there are many others working on the various hypotheses across the world. I must clarify, however, that creating synthetic life is not strictly the same as creating life but is one hell of a step.
@pilgrimpater It is your Dr Sutherland that we’re talking about, as well as any of the many others that are working on creating life. Don’t you see that it takes intelligence, not randomness, for them to be able to do their experiments?
And why is it not permissible to likewise maintain that intelligence created the first life? If it’s a matter of randomness, then why are the current experiments so painstakingly meticulous to get the right conditions and ingredients?
@cadnov8 No, you are back to guesswork & wishful thinking. There is absolutely NO indicator that intelligence is behind abiogenesis let alone evolution.
By the way Dr Sutherland is working in that area but it is Craig Venter who made the breakthrough in synthetic DNA.
Now, regards the experiments for arguments sake accept that first life was not designed or supernaturally created (as is my position). Now, surely you would expect scientists to conduct experiments exactly as they are doing now.
@cadnov8 Just because we do not know how Abiogenesis took place there is no excuse to make a wishful guess at god or gods. You really must back up such rash statements with some proof. You don't have any do you. Even if you could prove god(s) created first life it does not invalidate Evolution. Scientists are not out to disprove god. Science is totally agnostic. Sorry if the truth does not fit your model but that is the way it is.
@pilgrimpater Proof that God exists? Deeper minds than ours have wrestled with that topic since the beginning of time. However, there is no proof that God doesn’t exist.
Scientists themselves invalidate evolution. One from the Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
@cadnov8 A scientist from Atomic Energy Commision? Why not a butcher or a candlestick maker? Now when a BIOLOGIST (a real one) can make such a statement then i may listen. Also you should name this "scientist". Even Michael Behe is a committed Evolutionist despite guessing that it was initially designed. You nor nobody else is in the position of calling Evolution a hoax until you can come up with an alterrnative explanation of the increasing complexity of life over time.
@cadnov8 "There is no proof that god exists" you say. Correct and there is no proof that Unicorns don't exist. What is your point? The person who is making extraordinary (and boy are the extraordinary) claims has the onus of proving those claims. Let's face it Christianity is a bronze age myth. You may have noticed that we have moved on in the last 2000 years ---- well some of us anyway.
@pilgrimpater You seem to have "faith" that Abiogenesis took place. By your definition, your "faith" is like my "wishful guess". We, too, don't know how God created; the difference is the document that's been around for 3500 years that gives us the answer. In light of that answer we pursue truth. Your "answer" is also several thousand years old. The only difference is that evolutionary philosophers purge God from science because of moral culpability. So even evolutionists don't stick to science.
@cadnov8 There is your problem, a huge problem. Believing in a 3,500 year old superstitious book. Be serious, are you honestly saying such a document trumps modern science? Evolutionists ALWAYS stick to science because Evolution IS science. Sadly for you the Bible is anything but science. Many Biblical beliefs have been overturned by science but the Bible has never overturned science. Scietists do not purge god because science is totally agnostic. It has no axe to grind for or against god(s).
@pilgrimpater I'm curious: what Biblical beliefs were overturned by science? And don't misquote what I said. I never said scientists purge god, I said evolutionary philosophers purge God. Evolution and the God of the Bible are mutually exclusive.
I agree with some of what you said - science is agnostic (in the sense that repeatable experiments don't show the supernatural), the rest of your comment is garbage. If God is who he is, then why couldn't he do what he told us he did?
@cadnov8 Biblival beliefs overturned? A 6 day creation, a global flood, geocentricity etc etc. I don't know what evolutionary philospohers are. Are they anything like Evolutionary scientists? Not in a billion years are god and evolution mutually exclusive. However, the literal account of creation in Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. ALL science is agnostic as it deals with the natural world. "If god is who he is...."? you say. Well your problem is to prove god and then your god.
@pilgrimpater I hope this isn't boring you, but I've got another quote about the fossil record regarding your "facts" about transitional forms. This one's from Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History (1988):
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly include them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil…"
@cadnov8 Yes it is boring me because tjhis is yet another quote mine that you have filched form the Creationist misinformation department. Paterson himself has since stated that his quote was taken out of context. Here is a challenge, if you dare. You, yourself, write a letter to Paterson and ask him if he accepts evolution. This is just one of many acts of dishonesty from Creationists in light of the lack of their own evidence.
@pilgrimpater There's no need to contact Patterson about whether he still believes in evolution; he still does. But you missed the point entirely. He said there were no evolutionary transitions (which Darwin said was the biggest blow to his theory). Yet he still believes despite the evidence.
By the way, why does quote mining bother you? Doesn't an appeal to authorities enhance an argument, or would you rather drone on with sophomoric opinions?
@cadnov8 No, please contact Patterson as i am sure he accepts the thousands of transitionials. And of course quote mining bothers me. You lot even do it with your own holy book. Before you come back to me and ignorantly deny transitionals, how about giving me your definition of a transitional. I am intrigued to know.
@pilgrimpater If Patterson accepts thousands of transitionals, then why didn’t he include them in his book? I find it fascinating that whatever his definition is of a transitional form, he was unable to find any. So it’s not just me denying transitionals; it’s Patterson.
So quote mining bothers you. Why? I see it as an appeal to someone who is a better authority in a subject matter than me.
@cadnov8 Patterson wrote a book? Perhaps you could provide me with the date it was published. Also what is YOUR definition of a transitional? If you deny transitionials you must surely have a definition, in other words what you would expect a transitional to be. When you have done that i will give you my definition and also tell you why transitionals are merely a bonus to the obvious.
I'm glad I watched, because now I'm convinced that if these are the best arguments against a global flood during Noah's time, then ex-creationists have a very poor understanding of creation science.
You've presented at least 20 compelling arguments - you know there's not enough space here to address them all, but here's an attempt at 1.
Why would the water would be superheated if it's source was internal? If because of pressure from the crust then why are there cold spots in the Earth's mantle?
@cadnov8 Cold spots in the mantle? You mean, places where it's only 1300ºC instead of 1900ºC? Sure. That's still > 100ºC.
Or do you mean runaway subduction cold, where models have places in the mantle with temperatures of -10 K (below absolute 0)? Because there is no reason to think those spots actually ever existed (seismic tomography doesn't reveal anything close to it in existence now), nor any imaginable mechanism to produce such spots.
@ExCreationist It seems to me that after 4.6 billion years that the Earth’s mantle should be homogeneous. You’re talking about a huge temp difference!
Regarding the mechanism: If you’re appealing to uniformitarianism, then I agree – there is none. But there is a mechanism with catastrophism. BTW, all of your arguments assume uniformitarianism. Your objections collapse if you’d consider catastrophism.
@cadnov8 Please remember that Uniformitarism DOES include Catastrophic events. The Hawaian Islands are a great example. While the islands appeared gradually over a long period because the plate moves over a hot spot , at least one island (i cannot recall it's name) exhibits a catastrophic collapsing into the sea. There is plenty of evidence for catstrophic events both past and present but absolutely jack shit to support a global flood.
@cadnov8 My Master's thesis was on rocks that are 3.3 billion years old. My phd dissertation will be about meteor impacts on earth -- catastrophic events. I have considered catastrophism in detail. As did all scientists BACK IN THE 1800's.
The mantle is inhomogeneous largely because of subduction, but also because of inner core heterogeneity. So disruptions are introduced from both sides. Subduction introduces water to the mantle, greatly reducing temperature locally. Just one example.
@mineralfellow Thanks for the references. I checked the source – Dr. Baumgardner – and he clarified: there is a particular volume that is 400 km down which has a temp 400K cooler than the laterally adjacent rock. So, this doesn’t mean -400K; it means a deviation from the adjacent rock of -400K. It appeared on the surface that you were correct in calling attention to this as a creation science blunder; however, since I don’t have the technical expertise, I thought it wise to go to the source.
The bible says the water 'receeded'' LOL To Where?
gregrutz 1 month ago
Every employer should include "do you believe in the flood myth?" as a question at every job interview. Anyone who believes it is frankly even too stupid to be left on charge of a mop unattended.
fingleur1 1 month ago 3
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Genesis 7:11. Not to mention is also rained on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. The water from the earth would not have been super heated, you merely assert that. Do a little research on the topic, many (if not all) of these questions have been answered.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron No, the question was not answered, and many things in the rock strata like limestone formation, volcanic rock layers, craters, etc would pump out vastly more heat. Geology threw out the Imaginary Flood over 100 years ago, read a geology book.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@InternetDarkLord Water stored a few layers under the earth's surface would not have been very hot. Not to mention when this at best warm water burst forth from the deep, it would have mixed with the cool water raining from the sky and kept the temperature neutral. Your point is null and void.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron Where is the evidence for fountains of the deep? How did the oceans get under rock? Plate tectonics was proven, we know how fast the seafloors spread and the mountains rise up.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron Nonsense, to flood the entire planet would take immense amounts of water, and it would have to go deep because a large percent of the crust would still have to be rock just to support the surface. What you say is out of the question!
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ubermechazillatron "Water stored a few layers under the earth's surface would not have been very hot. Not to mention when this at best warm water burst forth from the deep, it would have mixed with the cool water raining from the sky and kept the temperature neutral. Your point is null and void."
I assume you've done all the calculations to back that assertion up? Or are you-- like all creationists-- just assuming that it is possible based on your infantile understanding of science?
VanDammesCokeDealer 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron How do you research a myth? LOL
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz There are flood stories from all around the globe and even rituals (one in South America where a tribe dances around a giant barrel which represents the boat a man floated in during a flood to save humanity) that match the biblical account. Not to mention all the strange fossil formations like a whale graveyard being found in the middle of a desert too far inland unless a massive tidal wave put them there. Your ignorance means nothing.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron Well ignorant 'never read a geology book' creatard, since there are so many flood stories, I guess a lot of people survieved the flood not just 8. The Chinese and Egyptians didn't all die.
The whales lived in the ocean and died there, then the ocean floor was pushed up by plate tectonics over millions of years. That is why we have sea beds for the tops of mountains.
Not all sedimetary rock is from water. Floods don't make different kinds of rocks or sort fossils.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz LOL! You do realize that Noah's family would have repopulated the earth and that's when these stories would have been written down right? Fail
In a mass whale graveyard? It just so happened that a bunch of whales (and some other creatures like certain fish and dolphin) died in the exact same area all at once or over time? That seems very unlikely. I think a mass fossilization is the best explanation.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron 'A bunch of whales died in one place therefore the whole world was flooded.' Why do people laugh a creationist's logic.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Half of these "agruments" go against basic scientific fact. Do you not understand how lakes form? Or are you telling us no new lakes have formed from erosion or runoff from rainfall in the last 10,000 years. There are some good, logical arguments both for and against the flood, but please dont ruin yours with straw-man fallacies and lack of scientific knowledge about lakes and fossil formation.
RPrice93 5 months ago
@RPrice93 Read Talk Origins. And there are no sound arguments for a global flood in history.
InternetDarkLord 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshlazarus I was not sarcastic, so why don't you answer the question? Are you a Poe? Are global myths true?
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
@joshlazarus There are many global myths, like mermaids, or sun gods, or living ape-men like Yeti and Bigfoot. Are they real?
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
The dot for Western Australia is on Eastern Australia. :/ Loved the video tho…
mdkarazim 7 months ago
While the flood is complete bullshit the easy way to answer these questions is: god magic.
signofdevil666 7 months ago
Koala's actually live throughout Australia.
petfoodonly 8 months ago
u are a pretty good debator lol..but i personally still think it was a global flood. Do you believe in God? and do u play on playstation 3?..i kno its a random question but with your name it seems like u may play online games.
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer No, I don't own a playstation.
No, there was never Noah's Flood.
There are thousands of religions, if gods exist, that is largely irrelevant to the question.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer There was a flood some 10,000 years ago in the giza area the spinx has water damage this is being debated by scholars but a global flood I don't think so
oxmis 8 months ago
well if u do some research then u will see that u dont need all those dinosaurs. yea theres different species but its mainly jus variations in them that are very small..and noah would of got baby dinosaurs which would of been very small. theres plenty of room on the boat. and God's words dont change.the bible is 95% accurate with the dead sea scrolls. the other 5percent is just a few misspelled words.and there are modern bibles that translate it into simpler words to make it easier to understand
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the OT, not NT, and they are a composite job from a later century, not originals. The NT has 50,000 variations, from spelling errors to entire chapters. The current Bible text is not what the Bible writers wrote.
The variations in dinosaurs include 2 different orders of reptiles, that argument is also wrong.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
Another problem: Scientists calculate 500,000 species of dinosaurs existed. That would really crowd that boat!
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
The flood was global if u dont believe that then u dont believe in God. in case u didnt kno there is more than enough water to cover the earth.the earth crust split and huge amounts of lava poured out on the ocean floor and it catastrophically raised the oceans.the huge amount of steam also caused global showers.God caused the ocean basins to sink and all the water washed off the continents.that is why the oceans are so deep.this triggered erosion which formed the grand canyon.
MrTronsformer 10 months ago
@MrTronsformer Pure Hogwash.
Millions of people believe in God but not the Flood.
It is obvious the earth's crust did not produce enough steam to cover the earth with water. Water expands over 1,400 times when it turns to steam, that much would scald all life on earth to death, then everything would be crushed by the pressure, then everything would suffocate from the dilution of oxygen....and so on.
InternetDarkLord 10 months ago
@InternetDarkLord hey i know what u are trying to say..but the reason i believe it was a global flood is because God made a covenant with noah to never send a global flood again..if u believe the flood was local then God broke his promise many times..for example hurrican katrina, the 2004 indian ocean tsunami, the recent japan tsunami, and many other floods. for God to have kept his promise the flood has to be global..and they have also found marine fossils on top of all mountain ranges.
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer Limestone forms over millions of years, and so do mountains. Many are still rising.
If God is omnipotent, destroying the earth was unneeded. He could just put all the bad people in a magic prison until they behave. Why have the idiotic flood at all?
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@InternetDarkLord hate to bring it to you but the bible shows the earth is actually around 6000yrs old jus like the universe..scientist are wrong about almost everything..its just mans opinions which change constantly unlike the words of God. the eruption of mt. st helens showed that large geological processes can actually happen very rapidly..look this up im not lyin. and scientist think the present is key to the past when actually the past is key to the present. and carbon dating is wrong too.
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer LOL! Not only are scientists more accurate than the Bible, the Bible is reinterpreted to fit science facts. The ancient Hebrews believed the earth was a flat disk, with the underworld below it, and the sun, moon, stars and planets orbiting us in the crystal firmament above us. Water filled the sky above the firmament, and YHWH sat on His throne above that. As science advanced, words and passages like "firmament" were changed to fit science.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@InternetDarkLord LOL i wouldnt say scientist are more accurate..they change there opinions constantly..like the big bang has been modified so much with "man made assumptions that never been observed" matter of fact someone that studied the big bang 25years ago wouldnt even recognize it today. plain and simple the big bang aint real and some scientist realize that and "made up the multiverse theory" i dont believe in almost anything scientist say anymore..ONLY GODS WORDS WHICH DOESNT CHANGE
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer God's words do change. The OT is a composite job of earlier sources. Surviving NT scrolls have 50,000 known differences, from mere spelling errors to entire chapters. The current text is not what the Bible writers originally wrote.
Also, sciences like medicine have changed the most over centuries, so why use lasers or surgery, not leaches or animal sacrifices?
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@InternetDarkLord In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. and A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer No, when the ancients translated the Bible, they chose Greek and Latin for circle, not sphere, even after it was known the earth is a sphere. Job refers to the circle.
It was believed the sky is a solid firmament for centuries. Kepler argued that the crystals produced music, "mi" and "fa" being the earth's notes. He was merely echoing the Bible
Besides, why not retranslate: talking snakes, magic trees, talking donkeys, etc. Same argument.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@InternetDarkLord and God is not magical thats why he wouldnt use a magic prison. magic is not real. and a flood was a way better way to kill all the sinful people.
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer God is supernatural, He could use a supernatural prison. So answer my question: Why have a flood at all?
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
@InternetDarkLord well the bible says God protected all on the boat. if you were not on the boat then ur dead. plain and simple..so even if there wasnt much oxygen or whatever God is all powerful and theres no doubt he would of protected all that was on the boat and gave them oxygen to breathe if they needed it. but the steam would of cooled and formed massive amounts of water droplets that would of fell immediantly. so it wouldnt scald everything on earth
MrTronsformer 9 months ago
@MrTronsformer That is not science, but miracles.
Any religion can claim miracles, so why believe Christianity?
If God can work miracles, why have a flood at all? He can just put everyone in a supernatural prison until they reform.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
I studied evolution in school an then I heard the facts supporting creation. You have to hear both sides before you can understand. Read "Creation Facts of Life" by Gary Parker. He taught evolution and he tells you why he changed his mind about it.
stephluvzrock 10 months ago
@stephluvzrock You've been lied to.
Loustrikesagain 10 months ago
@stephluvzrock There is no creation theory. The first 2 chapters of Genesis list 2 different stories. Job 38 begins another. It pops up in Isaiah and Psalms.
Also there is no explanation for any stories that are used. There is an order life evolved, but no order in which they were created.
InternetDarkLord 10 months ago
The answer to all these questions is ...Magic. There you go, alot easier than reading scientific literature isn't it?
studenthobo 10 months ago
More thoughts:
Genesis says the pairs of animals were "male and female", but some animals don't have 2 genders.
Genesis says the pairs were 7 for clean, 1 for unclean, so all land life should be inbred, but unclean ones 7 times as much. One could determine the unclean ones by genetic test!
The oldest clonal aspen stand is over 80,000 years old.
The heaviest rain in 24 hours was only about 6 feet, way to little for 40 days to raise the ocean even 100 yards.
InternetDarkLord 11 months ago
Comment removed
911dispatcher 1 year ago
love the vid, just the thing about the Koalas, you said they live in West Australia, but your dot was in the east...that's all, good video either way!
calthopian 1 year ago
If creationists claim everything needs to have a creator.. Who created the creator?
bobbie001 1 year ago
@bobbie001 Nobody.
He's the one.
The Alfa and Omega.
The Beginning and the End.
The Christ.
The Messiah.
God.
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC
Yea but you ask who created the big bang.
So who created god?
bobbie001 1 year ago
@bobbie001 Nobody. He's the Alfa and Omega, the BEGINNING and the End.
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC
See thats my point. If earth is so complex that it has to have a "creator" But the "creator" just simply came out of nowhere and has no creator, but simply just appeared. Thats just as logical as the big bang coming out of nowhere. (actually the theories in science dont say the big bang came out of nowhere, but that is a whole other story)
bobbie001 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC He's right. You can't say: "Everything has to come from somewhere. Oh, except this one thing that made everything else."
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
love it! but no sense trying to convince creationists that they believe in fairy tales! rarely can they be turned to become infidels like us.
trueguinnessking 1 year ago
@trueguinnessking Infidels?
I hardy doubt it.
If the whole world just blew itself
into existence, who created the
cause of the "big bang"?
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
What about the ridiculously large number of animals, and insects that were supposed to fit onto the ark? I think it's worth mentioning that there's no way all the insects, let alone animals could fit on the boat described in the bible. The genetic bottle neck point is very well taken though.
jj79tr 1 year ago
@jj79tr But it all happened at the almost exact same time period? And each speak of a large boat, I might add, and that the large boat contains animals.
TheEjayProductions 1 year ago
I have a very simple question. if there was a great flood. that wiped out all life on the planet except for the animals on noah's boat. how did noah have time to build a boat, in im guessing the middle east somewhere, assuming the boat is blessed by God and has some sort of TARDIS like bigger on the inside thing happening, sail the boat to all corners of the world collecting the animals of the world for the ark before the flood? also after the flood did he sail around the world for a 2nd time?
maccaaccam99 1 year ago
Yep but this time god gave him a yacht because he felt like he needed a tan
bahremon2170 1 year ago
Koalas only live in western australia? Mate if your going to make a debunking video get all your facts right or you'll look like and idiot. Putting the dot in estern Australia doesn't help either.
Black0Luigi 1 year ago
science will always be right, it never lies.
religion will always just be "fate" can't have fate without it working 100% of the time. yes the bible is a good book, it teaches life morals and good stuff. that said, the whole.. god making the wolrd in 7 days is a bunch of (sorry :P ) bullshit. it's just a book. don't belive anything just becuse it's in a book. - buddha
i like the whole buddhism idea, a religion without a god. that just teaches good act.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@TosXMellow The bible is a horrible book of morals. The only reason anyone would ever even think that is if they spent their whole life listening to sermons instead reading the damn book themselves.
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@bahremon2170 there's some things in the bible that are retarted yes.
but most of the morals in is it really ture. although i don't belive in this so called "god"
besides that everything in the book is a lie made by people, becuse i don't belive that the book was made by god. he didn't just send a random book for people to follow, people made the book so other people will follow in their religion.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@TosXMellow great I'll remember that next time a woman doesn't yell loud enough to get help while shes being raped we'll need to stone her and that if I'm ever enslaved by another human being I should remain loyal to him no matter how much i'm beaten.
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@bahremon2170 what does a woman being raped have to do with ANYTHING? irelevant idiot.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@TosXMellow It would be irrelevant to someone who claims the bible is a good book of morals. Try reading deuteronomy sometime It says very clearly a slave is to take the beatings of his master and remain loyal and that women who don't scream loud enough to get help/attention in a city will be stoned along with the man who raped them. Oh and if you try to tell me that doesn't count because its the "old" testament well then I guess the ten commandments don't count either you fucking idiot.
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@TosXMellow Point is christians who supposedly actually READ the bible should have no right to testify that it is a good book of morals let alone someone who supposedly doesn't even believe in the christian god. I don't care if the book says respect your elders if it also says you can kidnap a woman from a foreign country and marry her so long as you shave her head and make her wear sack cloth it is not a book that should be used in the name of morality. good day to you sir!
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@bahremon2170 seeing that i've olny read the bible, and not the quran. no kidnaping is wrong. and even if you so negitive. -.- good morals like be fair, and stuff like that. there is no god.
religion makes war, war makes war economy, war makes sarrow, what makes people turn to religion of there god to help them. it's a never ending cycle of hate and pain.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@TosXMellow It's the bible that says all of those things so no you haven't read the bible and you're an idiot for apparently "reading" the bible and not knowing that the book of deuteronomy is in the bible. its only the fifth fucking book. But hey I guess it still counts as reading the bible even if you do skip over all those boring parts like how if someones deathly ill you should call in elders to pray over their body. Btw people STILL die HERE in the usa from that blatant stupidity
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@TosXMellow If you want to praise a good book try reading the baghavad vita but leave the fucking bible out of it.
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@bahremon2170 why when on the dollar bill it says " in god we trust" im olny voicing my opinion. and bible is a bunch of crap and lies put together by some stupid person a long time ago. i thought people where smarter than, to talk to someone who isn't real, it's insanity??
if god wanted a wolrd without hate, he shouldn't even made us. if that where even ture. we didn't get here just becuse some guy in the clouds made it? research how the earth was made. it sure the fuck wasn't made is 7 days.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@bahremon2170 Why?
Why are christians always forced
to leave the Bible out of everything.
I say not.
It's time christians take a strong hold
on what they believe in- the Truth,
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC The bible is a book of horrid bronze age morals. If you have ever truly read it you would know that. Unfortunately you grew up listening to preachers who distort the bible by picking which stories they wish to tell. You have gone beyond the age for which you still had the chance to see the truth. You are ignorant and brainwashed and now I bid thee farewell. There's no sense in explaining logic to a fool.
bahremon2170 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC Everyone else uses more then one source of information. C14 tests come from many different labs, not just one. If the sky darken, dead bodies were expelled from their graves or rose from the dead, there was an earthquake and the curtain seperating the Holy from the Most Holy in the temple was torn in two, someone other then the Bible writers would have mentioned it.
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@RadarKat73080 That's the problem. Multiple sources. The Holy Bible has 66 books in it, all saying one basic thing: either Jesus is gonna come, or Jesus has come. This book was written over a span of thousands of years, and the information in it all matches. How? It couldn't possibly be that you're the stubborn one, and that we DO have a creator, could it? Hmm...
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC Paul claimed that Jesus first appeared to Peter 1 Cor 15:5 I was under the impression that Christ first appeared to Mary Magdelen, in the garden near the tomb. Whom induced David to number the people? God or Satan? The Bible, in two different places, claims both did. Did Jesus die on the day of Passover? If so, why did he tell his Apostels: "I have longed to eat this PASSOVER with you." You haven't proven anything.
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC
.
Arrah, begorrah and bejaysus, sure 'tis true, it is so it is:
The All Might Be Magic Man gilly-gillied himself into existence before flicking the universe and all therein into reality, on a Sunday while extruding a constipated shite before lunch (pre-created dinosaur eggs).
Mighy man.
Marvellous shit.
Wonderful world.
Hail to the All Might Be Magic Man, the true giver of the life-spark, the all-consuming pre-temporal creator of creators of procreators.
tellnet 1 year ago
Homer, The Bible, and The Torah all mention a great flood (Homer: The Odyssey, Gilgamesh), how is it that an anti-christian society (Ancient Europe, Homer) talks of a great flood, as well as the Bible and the Torah. Aswell as the Muslim Holy Book from the far east, talk about a flood. Extremely diverse cultures all mention it, something must of happened to caused all to think of a great flood.
TheEjayProductions 1 year ago
@TheEjayProductions ideas don't stay in once place.
TosXMellow 1 year ago
@TheEjayProductions probably because ancient people usually lived near rivers and other bodies of water, and as anybody who lives near a body of water today can tell you, they're prone to flooding, and sometimes very heavy flooding, think the Mississippi during the 90s. So, given enough time, every society living near a body of water would have at least one story about the time that a really big flood came and wiped everything out, but some people survived because the god(s) did bla bla bla. Ok?
jj79tr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEjayProductions "The Bible, and The Torah all mention a great flood". The OT is the torah, and the Quran is derived from the same books. The story of Gilgamesh predates Noah. That there are other flood stories means only that there have been other floods not one global flood. Besides there should be only one flood story, should there not?
acutube51 1 year ago
its funny to me that some people believe they are the ultimate thinkers in life...Mankind is simply unable to comprehend many things in life.An ant can only understand what an ant is like because they are limited.They can only comprehend things in life that they are able to.Do you really think that man is any different?That man is the ultimate intelligence in the universe and"gets it".I think that man IS limited in his understanding and simply some things are beyond our comprehension.....
waderp 1 year ago
Did you know that if you carry a small bible in your back pocket then it will protect you from fire, drowning, rabid animals, Ryan Seacrest, earthquakes, and other evils? And that is because of the magic of my God. The same magic God that flooded the earth. Now, you can sit there and try to trick me with your "science" and "logic", bit the fact is you are wrong.
This is an actual equation written out by St. Albert Einstein himself.
God = Magic
Magic > Science
Therefor: God > Science
Nuff said
gorillajazz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a very unintelligent video, containing false information. Let me give YOU some questions, shall I?
-If water breaks down the bonds in amino acids that supports life itself, how could life have started in the oceans?
-If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Noah's flood is a real thing that really did happen, my friend.
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC None of these have anything to do with the flood. However, all of these have been answered thoroughly, if you care to read a book (or just watch other YouTube users who have addressed those very questions). There is the question of evidence. The beauty of science is that it accepts hypotheses, and then tests them. Did a flood happen? If so, there should be evidence left of it but we cannot find it. However, there is abundant evidence for happenings before the alleged time of it.
ExCreationist 1 year ago 19
@TheTruthCC
Well, minus the fact that there would have been 12 animals per square foot, and the fact that there are other animals on different continents. Also, Why aren't first nations of Canada mentioned in the bible? Why wasn't that land baron once they arrived to Canada? And why are animals different in Canada then the ones say in africa? Wouldn't that imply evolution even if the animals somehow managed to get to Canada?
HiLRoYpwns 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC It seems that you think that things suddenly appear.It is that your mother is the same species as you, if you look further,there is racial differences (made possible by the enmvironmental adaptation)which is in biology a step to speciation,if this would go further you'd get subspecies and species with each child being the same species as his mother but with slight differences,there is no point where hydrogen becomes human,it is just our inhereted classification that makes confusions.
makkreol 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC Of course, Noah's flood would not account for the variety, for the story's sake made about after the alleged flood. As well, why would certain species be confined to certain continents and why would you have similar looking and behaving species(think of the tasmanian devil in Australia and wolf in Eurasia)on different continents (the point is that they do not have a recent ancestor and have developed to the same eco-niches). It is beautiful in fact, but that is not it's point by far.
makkreol 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC No-one created cloud formations, but they still exist. Just like life forms. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it was made by someone.
Hydrogen actually already has turned into people. Us. Try to read a book about stars. Or any book, actually.
happystatemachine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruthCC
Seriously, are you mentally retarded?
ColoradoMikeyS2 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC No it did not. Little things like math, chemistry, and physics seem to get in your way. I can look at just one formation of evaporite and say conclusively that such an event did not occur. I'm glad you have an opinion, but that's all it is, your unsubstantiated opinion. I've got facts, dear. Nine trillion cu meters of NaCl.
NorthForkFisherman 11 months ago
so many points you make and still people can not accept
EFC4L1F3 1 year ago 15
Many people can't except this because it's nonsense. It's all theory, and if only you would open your eyes and see that Jesus has a plan for your life, then it would be much easier.
TheTruthCC 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC Yes, it is all based in theory. Quite correct. Bearing in mind that a theory is the highest level of verification in science outside of mathematical proof. And what exactly in that nonsensical statement is accepting Jesus making easier? Believing the bible? So I have to believe in the bible in order to believe in the bible? The circular reasoning makes my head spin.
DarthVictive 1 year ago 2
@TheTruthCC oh wow thankx for that insightful comment that was not full of things like facts or evidence.
alltiedup217 1 year ago
dzntms144 1 year ago
@TheTruthCC I would prefer a plan from Lenski's escherichia coli as they seem much more adaptible than a caucasian man in a middle eastern half desert. A reincarnated cactus would be fine for that matter, but unfortunately they are confined to America's and thus could not have preached their way into Europe's Middle Ages. . .
makkreol 1 year ago
How on earth did you narrow it down to just 20 from the 100s of objections to this nonsense? Good stuff.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I took notes. I said, "at least 20." But it certainly isn't 100s. Please be accurate in your critiques.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 . I have actually seen a site where there were at least a 100 objections from one person alone. Admittedly this included the absurdity of the Ark as well. Forget the facts of radiometric dating and Transitionals (as if these were not enough) try to explain how the fossil record exhibits increasing complexity, the younger the rock they are found in. Why are no mammals found in Cambrian rocks (even if you don't accept the age of the Cambrian)? Creationism is utter nonsense.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Wow! One person alone! How impressive!
Are you not paying attention to what you are asking? You asked how I narrowed it (this video) down to 20. I don’t doubt that one site can give at least 100. This video did not.
Your questions are misleading: can you explain how the earliest fossils in the record are complex? Can you explain how life emerged from non-life? No, and no one else can either.
Thank you for continuing to affirm that evolution = ignorance.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Actually my original question of narrowing down to 20 wass to the author, Excreationist and not you. Earliest records? Easy peasy. Pre Cambrian only single cells, Cambrian sponges etc, Ordovacian - first vertebrates, Devonian first land vertebrates, Carboniferous - first reptiles, Triassic first mammals etc etc. You may argue about the mechanisms but THAT is Evolution no matter which way you look at it.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Everything fits so neatly until you look a bit more carefully. What do you think of this quote:
“‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve….The only trouble with what everyone knows,’ says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, ‘is that there is no evidence it's true.’”
By the way, your comment of getting the questions down to 20 being intended for Excreationist is duly noted. Thanks.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Well obviously you have quote mined him because he is still an Evolutionary Biologist and has not become a creationist. However, there is an even simpler explanation.. The fossil record shows it as i clearly pointed out in my previous post. You really need to address this before you continue.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I've got one more quote for you:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” – Todd, Dr. S.C., an immunologist at Kansas State University, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
So, tell me again that science is indifferent to whether God exists or not.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Thatis correct. Science only deals with the naturalistic. The non naturalistic or supernatural is based purely on faith. You have faith but you have no science to support that faith. Science is indeed totally agnostic towards god or gods, ghosts, aliens etc. And the beauty is that when science does not know it does not fill gaps with any of these unproven concepts.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8
I'd also suggest you read the article from Dan Mcshea. It's very different from the selectively edited version you presented here and which appears on various creationist sites I found in a Google search;
m . discovermagazine . com/1993/jun/onwardandupward235
He was not arguing the fossil record doesn't show progression from 'simple' to 'complex' which was the point made here. His point was that as a process "evolution does not NECESSARILY drive life toward greater complexity."
Balabaw2 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Yes, I've got some quotes from scientists.
How does this one grab you: “The obvious lesson from the study of fossils is the elementary truth that life even in the earliest times, differed in no way from life today. Further, we observe that the lower types of life that appear in the oldest rocks have persisted through all geological times up to the present day.” – Park, Professor James, Textbook of Geology.
Evolution is a hoax.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Who the hell is Professor James? Either you have quoted mined the poor chap or he is totally at odds with 99.999% of modern geologists (yes i tend to side with the majority of experts). The fossil record quite clearly shows that life was totally different as represented in the aerliere layers. So far you have totally failed to address this point or forward an alternative solution. Come on get your ass in gear and pull something out your Arse like Nephy does. Give me a challenge.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8
That is one outrageously ancient quote-mine. James Park's 'Textbook of Geology' was published in 1925.
Don't you think paleontology might have progressed in the 85 years since?
Balabaw2 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Many scientists have addressed the lack of fossil evidence, and yes, they are still evolutionists. However, the reason is not the evidence:
Sir Arthur Keith, wrote this in the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 No theory is provable. The best it can do is fit all the facts and Evolution ticks every single box. Creationism ticks - Zero. However, Evolution ticks so many of the boxes that it is now beyond all reasonable doubt. Fossilisation is a relatively rare process and yet we have millions of fossils and thousands of transitionals. It beggars belief how you choose to deny rock solid evvidence but that's mystical dogma for you i guess.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8 "First life"? Correct, nobody knows but it is highly immoral to guess. Tthere are a number of very credible hypotheses. 1) Building blocks of life have been found in extra terrestrial objects, 2) Simple life exists in hydrothermal vents which are starved of oxygen. 3) Extremophobes (extremofiles?) are microbes that can live in sub zero temperatures or near boiling water. Some live in caves feeding solely off rock!4) a chemical reaction causing 1st self replication 5) Last&least God
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater 1) An appeal to ET only changes the timing of your "evolution" so it is irrelevant. 2-4) These indicate already existing life forms, so your "first life" ideas failed.
How about the Law of Biogenesis? Your first four hopes require much more faith than #5. Far from being very credible – they’re just a search for anything that doesn't require God. Isn’t it scientific to consider all possibilities?
Why not just agree that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 The first life does not fail. Even if you disagree with the specific dates the relative ages hold it to be true. Also please note that first life of a new form does not necessarily mean disappearance of another. For instance we still have sponges even though when sponges first appeared there were no higher life forms. Biogenesis? Who believes that? Not even Creationists. Perhaps you meant Abiogenesis.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Thanks for the "abiogenesis" correction.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I did a little study of "law of biogenesis" and "abiogenesis". Can you tell me how abiogenesis is fundamentally different from spontaneous generation? I thought Pasteur had proven that life can only come from pre-existing life (biogenesis). But abiogenesis means life springs from non-living matter.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 You obviously didn't study enough. Abiogenesis is first life & there are strong indications that the much simpler & more robust RNA was a precursor to DNA. Current experiments such as Dr Sutherland's are very close to recreating this. Biogenesis is spontaneous life from other life e.g. people thought maggots spontaneously came sprang from dead animals until science discovered that they came from eggs laid by flies. Tat's science for you, ever increasing our knowledge , unlike dogma.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Thanks for the definitions.
Your abiogenesis really seems like a god to you. Exactly where does this first life come from? I read an article from NewScientist that says that even the “simple” bacterium show complexity.
By the way, you’re saying that an intelligent designer (Dr. Sutherland) is very close to recreating ... creating what? Do you know how complex even the RNA and DNA is?
And why is dogma wrong? You have yours as well by holding as tightly as you do to evolution.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 No abiogenesis is not a god. What a stupid statement. Abiogenesis is the change from chemistry to biology. Just because we don't know exactly how that happened it does not invalidate what happened after i.e. evolution. Yes RNA is complex but not as complex as DNA and complex does not default to design. That is pure guesswork & wishful thinking. Of course dogma is wrong, especially when it gets in the way of progress. I am not dogmatic about evolution as it has evidence which is key..
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Saying that abiogenesis was your god was stupid, my apologies. Yet, your faith in it appears a lot like my faith in my God. You’re admitting that you don’t know how it happened yet you believe it to be true. You are just as firm about leaving God out of the equation as I am about leaving him in. It’s about presuppositions.
You missed the irony of your example. An intelligent designer – Dr Sutherland – is duplicating what random mutations and millions of years produced. Seriously?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Apology accepted. Whenever i debate an IDer on abiogenesis i normaly point out the various hypotheses. Some are very strong (but we will never know which one) but i also say that a god is not impossible to have kick started it. However, the god hypothes is highly unlikely. I think by going down this route you have all but conceded that whatever the cause of first life it does not disprove the evolution that undoubtedly followed & that the two are seperate topics.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Are we talking about the same Dr Sutherland? I am talking about Dr Andy Sutherland of Aston university who is working on synthetic organic chemistry. Either way it is irrelevant as there are many others working on the various hypotheses across the world. I must clarify, however, that creating synthetic life is not strictly the same as creating life but is one hell of a step.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater It is your Dr Sutherland that we’re talking about, as well as any of the many others that are working on creating life. Don’t you see that it takes intelligence, not randomness, for them to be able to do their experiments?
And why is it not permissible to likewise maintain that intelligence created the first life? If it’s a matter of randomness, then why are the current experiments so painstakingly meticulous to get the right conditions and ingredients?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 No, you are back to guesswork & wishful thinking. There is absolutely NO indicator that intelligence is behind abiogenesis let alone evolution.
By the way Dr Sutherland is working in that area but it is Craig Venter who made the breakthrough in synthetic DNA.
Now, regards the experiments for arguments sake accept that first life was not designed or supernaturally created (as is my position). Now, surely you would expect scientists to conduct experiments exactly as they are doing now.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Just because we do not know how Abiogenesis took place there is no excuse to make a wishful guess at god or gods. You really must back up such rash statements with some proof. You don't have any do you. Even if you could prove god(s) created first life it does not invalidate Evolution. Scientists are not out to disprove god. Science is totally agnostic. Sorry if the truth does not fit your model but that is the way it is.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Proof that God exists? Deeper minds than ours have wrestled with that topic since the beginning of time. However, there is no proof that God doesn’t exist.
Scientists themselves invalidate evolution. One from the Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
Greatest hoax ever. Worth repeating
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 A scientist from Atomic Energy Commision? Why not a butcher or a candlestick maker? Now when a BIOLOGIST (a real one) can make such a statement then i may listen. Also you should name this "scientist". Even Michael Behe is a committed Evolutionist despite guessing that it was initially designed. You nor nobody else is in the position of calling Evolution a hoax until you can come up with an alterrnative explanation of the increasing complexity of life over time.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8 "There is no proof that god exists" you say. Correct and there is no proof that Unicorns don't exist. What is your point? The person who is making extraordinary (and boy are the extraordinary) claims has the onus of proving those claims. Let's face it Christianity is a bronze age myth. You may have noticed that we have moved on in the last 2000 years ---- well some of us anyway.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater You seem to have "faith" that Abiogenesis took place. By your definition, your "faith" is like my "wishful guess". We, too, don't know how God created; the difference is the document that's been around for 3500 years that gives us the answer. In light of that answer we pursue truth. Your "answer" is also several thousand years old. The only difference is that evolutionary philosophers purge God from science because of moral culpability. So even evolutionists don't stick to science.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 There is your problem, a huge problem. Believing in a 3,500 year old superstitious book. Be serious, are you honestly saying such a document trumps modern science? Evolutionists ALWAYS stick to science because Evolution IS science. Sadly for you the Bible is anything but science. Many Biblical beliefs have been overturned by science but the Bible has never overturned science. Scietists do not purge god because science is totally agnostic. It has no axe to grind for or against god(s).
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I'm curious: what Biblical beliefs were overturned by science? And don't misquote what I said. I never said scientists purge god, I said evolutionary philosophers purge God. Evolution and the God of the Bible are mutually exclusive.
I agree with some of what you said - science is agnostic (in the sense that repeatable experiments don't show the supernatural), the rest of your comment is garbage. If God is who he is, then why couldn't he do what he told us he did?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Biblival beliefs overturned? A 6 day creation, a global flood, geocentricity etc etc. I don't know what evolutionary philospohers are. Are they anything like Evolutionary scientists? Not in a billion years are god and evolution mutually exclusive. However, the literal account of creation in Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. ALL science is agnostic as it deals with the natural world. "If god is who he is...."? you say. Well your problem is to prove god and then your god.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Also, if God is who he said he is, and he revealed origins to us, then it behooves you to re-consider your antagonism to him.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 I have no antagonism towards something that has never been shown as demonstrably true. How is your antagonism to Allah getting along?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I hope this isn't boring you, but I've got another quote about the fossil record regarding your "facts" about transitional forms. This one's from Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History (1988):
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly include them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil…"
Evolution is a hoax!
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Yes it is boring me because tjhis is yet another quote mine that you have filched form the Creationist misinformation department. Paterson himself has since stated that his quote was taken out of context. Here is a challenge, if you dare. You, yourself, write a letter to Paterson and ask him if he accepts evolution. This is just one of many acts of dishonesty from Creationists in light of the lack of their own evidence.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater There's no need to contact Patterson about whether he still believes in evolution; he still does. But you missed the point entirely. He said there were no evolutionary transitions (which Darwin said was the biggest blow to his theory). Yet he still believes despite the evidence.
By the way, why does quote mining bother you? Doesn't an appeal to authorities enhance an argument, or would you rather drone on with sophomoric opinions?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 No, please contact Patterson as i am sure he accepts the thousands of transitionials. And of course quote mining bothers me. You lot even do it with your own holy book. Before you come back to me and ignorantly deny transitionals, how about giving me your definition of a transitional. I am intrigued to know.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater If Patterson accepts thousands of transitionals, then why didn’t he include them in his book? I find it fascinating that whatever his definition is of a transitional form, he was unable to find any. So it’s not just me denying transitionals; it’s Patterson.
So quote mining bothers you. Why? I see it as an appeal to someone who is a better authority in a subject matter than me.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Patterson wrote a book? Perhaps you could provide me with the date it was published. Also what is YOUR definition of a transitional? If you deny transitionials you must surely have a definition, in other words what you would expect a transitional to be. When you have done that i will give you my definition and also tell you why transitionals are merely a bonus to the obvious.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
I'm glad I watched, because now I'm convinced that if these are the best arguments against a global flood during Noah's time, then ex-creationists have a very poor understanding of creation science.
You've presented at least 20 compelling arguments - you know there's not enough space here to address them all, but here's an attempt at 1.
Why would the water would be superheated if it's source was internal? If because of pressure from the crust then why are there cold spots in the Earth's mantle?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Cold spots in the mantle? You mean, places where it's only 1300ºC instead of 1900ºC? Sure. That's still > 100ºC.
Or do you mean runaway subduction cold, where models have places in the mantle with temperatures of -10 K (below absolute 0)? Because there is no reason to think those spots actually ever existed (seismic tomography doesn't reveal anything close to it in existence now), nor any imaginable mechanism to produce such spots.
ExCreationist 1 year ago 3
@ExCreationist It seems to me that after 4.6 billion years that the Earth’s mantle should be homogeneous. You’re talking about a huge temp difference!
Regarding the mechanism: If you’re appealing to uniformitarianism, then I agree – there is none. But there is a mechanism with catastrophism. BTW, all of your arguments assume uniformitarianism. Your objections collapse if you’d consider catastrophism.
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Please remember that Uniformitarism DOES include Catastrophic events. The Hawaian Islands are a great example. While the islands appeared gradually over a long period because the plate moves over a hot spot , at least one island (i cannot recall it's name) exhibits a catastrophic collapsing into the sea. There is plenty of evidence for catstrophic events both past and present but absolutely jack shit to support a global flood.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@cadnov8 My Master's thesis was on rocks that are 3.3 billion years old. My phd dissertation will be about meteor impacts on earth -- catastrophic events. I have considered catastrophism in detail. As did all scientists BACK IN THE 1800's.
The mantle is inhomogeneous largely because of subduction, but also because of inner core heterogeneity. So disruptions are introduced from both sides. Subduction introduces water to the mantle, greatly reducing temperature locally. Just one example.
ExCreationist 1 year ago
@ExCreationist -10 K. That's interesting. Can you tell me your source on that?
cadnov8 1 year ago
@cadnov8 Baumgardner is the name of the proponent who I saw in a video, can't remember the video's name.
Looked up his paper, and I must apologize. I was wrong, -10 K was way off.
It's -400 K:
"The perturbations have an amplitude of -400 K, a depth extent of 400 km"
See:
icr [] org/i/research/papers/jb/lse/large/f3b.jpg
From:
icr [] org/research/index/researchp_jb_largescaletectonics/
mineralfellow 1 year ago
@mineralfellow Thanks for the references. I checked the source – Dr. Baumgardner – and he clarified: there is a particular volume that is 400 km down which has a temp 400K cooler than the laterally adjacent rock. So, this doesn’t mean -400K; it means a deviation from the adjacent rock of -400K. It appeared on the surface that you were correct in calling attention to this as a creation science blunder; however, since I don’t have the technical expertise, I thought it wise to go to the source.
cadnov8 1 year ago