1. High concentrations of amino acids have been found in natural environments such as deep see springs (white smokers). No lightning was incvolved in producing them.
2. "Toxic" is entirely relative to the species concerned and what it adapted too. Live has been found in the most tocic environments.
3. Water and water-vapour and rain existed before free oxygen existed (hillarious mistake).
4. A few centimeters of water will block almost all harmfull UV radiation.
@MsBionomics 1) Yet no life has ever been observed coming from amino acids.
2) Life that dies from toxic environment does not produce offspring so therefore does not pass on it;s traits. Nice try.
3) LOL, wrong but nice try. Let's see you prove that or are your word golden and make new realities and truths and break the laws of physics. Show us proof.
4) Under an atmosphere that is protected by ozone, Tell us how many centimeters blocks UV rays under an atmosphere with no ozone?
abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and there is more than just the soup theory to abiogenesis. If you can debunk all of them then maybe just maybe ill consider an all mighty creator.
@1m0n4b04t Abiogenesis has to happen before life can even supposedly evolve. And as far as debunks go, evolutionists are the ones who determine whether evolution can be debunked, right? Sounds bias to me. And the maybe just maybe you will believe remark. Let's be honest, you maybe will believe if I debunk them "all", means you are bias because there would be nothing left for you to believe if I did that,
@KittJT2 I find it ironic that when an atheist cannot defend his position he has to resort to personal attacks. So you going to respond with science, or more name calling? You were not even good at the name calling. Need to take a course in scientific name calling 101 so you can protect your theory better.
@KittJT2 Cannot even be original. Have to copy stuff like Dawkins does so it cannot be directly pointed back to you.All you guys are, are evolution puppets and Darwin is the puppet master.
nice one, you see the fact of the matter is many of these sheep invest a lot of time and money into their academics than common sense. If what they have invested years worth if time and money proves to be incorrect it means the rug being pulled out from under your feet. That is personally hurtful however by denying the obvious truth you are just fooling yourseleves. Majority opinion is not always right. Evolution theory is as much 'unevolved' as charles darwin himself. Wake up & smell the coffee
@dominickearney Is that the best you can do to defend your theory? Would you like to present to us all and educate us with you superior intelligence and show us where, in an empirical experiment, that life ever arose? you cannot? Then why should we go to talk origins because they want be able to either. Nice try.
@ikester7579 No it isn't the best I can to, but don't see why I should spend time explaining the science to you when you can easily do that yourself. Nice try.
@ikester7579 What point? I have learned through painful experience that trying to explain science to creationists is extremely time consuming (not the sharpest tools in the box, are you?). In the internet age, the information is there if you are interested. Why not look for yourself?
@dominickearney Oh and one more thing. When you can produce empirical evidence of life rising from dead matter, I'll gladly take this video down. But let's be honest. The reason you are really pissed off is because you cannot and never will be able to. Again, nice try.
@ikester7579 Laugh, I nearly did. 1. I never asked you to take this video down. 2. Do you seriously think that until someone can produce a life form from inorganic matter in a lab that we should therefore believe that life arose magically? I spot the god of the gaps.
@ikester7579 No one claims Abiogenesis has been proved and I never asked you to prove anything. But it is not the logical to assume the supernatural just because we don't fully know something yet. When we didn't know how the bumble bee flew, did we say "God must be doing it" or did we think "Let's investigate that further". Abiogenesis is still largely hypothetical, but we experimentally demonstrated a number of steps. The science has moved on considerebly since Miller & Urey.
@dominickearney LOL,Lame. Neither is Ersnt Haeckel credible. He faked those drawings yet his idea and drawings are still used. You don't have to fake things to prove a supposed true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Unless of course it is not what was implied.
Question: Can you name 5 evolution processes that would meet the criteria of being empirical?
@ikester7579 Lame? So where did you get your 85% "tar" from? All signs point to Hovind. (If not, can you cite your source for that?). As for Ernst Haeckel, no one today would say his drawings are accurate.
5 Evolutionary processes that have been observed and tested (and there are only 5 known processes):
@ikester7579 1. Let's say your right about 3-5. So what? Since when did 5 become the magic number? 2. There have been numerous examples of Macro evolution (that's evolution above the species level). To say otherwise is either complete ignorance or complete dishonesty. Even Answers in Genesis discourages that argument. And you still haven't provided you course for the 85% tar claim. Oh, and blocking me? Very cowardly.
@skaman617 LOL, you must be used to getting blocked to have 2 accounts. But then again that is what I would expect from a youtuber who has to have the last word. And it's not cowardly to get tired of debating someone with a closed mind.
Give an example of macro-evolution that is observable. Speciation is not macro because in each case they are still the same kind (a bird still a bird). Give an example of a lizard turning into a bird that we can see and is not assumed?
@ikester7579 Well I also see you could not produce one piece of evidence that proved life rising from dead matter. So video stays. But if you can I will gladly remove it. Well can you or are you going to dodge this by ignoring the question because facing real reality is not what evolutionists do?
Real reality = Answering the question. Wanting to believe in a false unprovable theory means you will want to ignore it So what will it be?
All evolution does is still the attributes of the supernatural (things that defy natural observed laws) give them scientific names then attack any idea contrary. Evolution has failed, you must draw evolution to its natural conclusion, chemical evolution. Abiogenesis ignores science. Abiogenesis is just a version of an impersonal God, a belief and religion that now has followers. The state supports this religion and denies others. The state makes evolution mandatory, welcome to the new dark age!
@EqualAndFree Abiogenesis has hit that wall, evolution has hit that wall. Believe what you want but let science freely without preconceived notions do its work. Naturalist are getting in the way now just as the vatican did in the dark ages!!!!!!!.
@EqualAndFree Nothing unscientific about recognizing biogenesis is what we observe and than following it to a conclusion. Doesn't matter if I can comprehend How or why, if the data points that way it is only logical to follow it as far as we can! Hypothesize all you want but when you hit a brick wall go other directions.
@EqualAndFree Don't confuse your belief with science! Science is nothing more than a process of trying to understand how things work, through observation, testing, and repeating. When a hypothesis fails and one clings to it a new religion is born. You're a fanatic! Blind to what has been shown.
@EqualAndFree (eg by doing experiments in a sterile laboratory) then it WILL be possible to create primitive self-replicating organisms from dead matter. FAITH STATEMENT? No data on this planet supports abiogenesis! Probability squashes it and scientific data proves it false. Want a free pass, do ya? You believe in something that has not been shown in the smallest fraction to be possible in fact it has been demonstrated impossible. I guess your right because you say so? Hypocrite much?
Incorrect. A PhD in Molecular Biology from Yale, Havard, etc. would be impressive. But then you would need to put forth papers that backed up why you were a Creationist. Going on a website that has a lot of questions written by lawyers is not impressive.
I know the history of Creationism, relabelled ID, relabelled Teach the Controversy. It can't stand up in court because most the proponents of it can't back it up.
I seriously hope you don't think the Flood was a historic event...
@Parabol0086 LOL, you are so funny. Name one professor that would give a student who believed in creation a degree. I even have a paper from a professor that explicitly states that you "must" believe in evolution in order to pass his class or get a recommendation. And another paper that says that schools should have the right to refuse degrees to anyone who believes in creation, and retract degrees if it's found out they believed later on. Nice try.
You will need to prove evidence of such claims. The reason why a Creationist couldn't obtain a PhD would be because they would have to show evidence as to why Creation fits better. Write a thesis on it. Hovind attempted and his "Uni" wanted to hide it from the public, obviously they're ashamed of it. I don't think you understand how you get a degree at University given what you claim.
If it's so easy, why haven't you submitted a paper to prove all those Scientists wrong? Pathetic.
@ikester7579 I have a friend who is a mathematician. He can work out equation showing evolution is impossible. Does his masters in math make evolutionists listen? Of course not. Because they cannot debunk his equations, he's ignored and shunned from scientific circles. This is because he won;t conform. Conformism is not science.
@Parabol0086 It does not take a degree to debunk evolution, it's easy. You are just mad because i make it sound so easy. So have you guys made dead matter come to life yet? So how can you claim it evolved if you cannot prove it become alive? What a web of lies we weave,
@EqualAndFree Go look at the video to the right on the miller experiment put out by BereanBeacon. The creation scientist in that video points out all the problems with Miller's experiment. And also applies real world conditions and shows how it is totally impossible,
@EqualAndFree cont... First it was the time god. Given enough time you can make anything turn into anything. Now time is even causing a problem, along with trying to sell the idea that non-complex life is what starts first even though the fossil record does not support that completely. So now let's put out ideas into space, and claim aliens did it. That way no one will ever be able to dispute it. I find it ironic that evolution needs supporting ideas that cannot be challenged.
@EqualAndFree Do you know why Miller could not do a real world condition experiment? It's because the real world would not have allowed it. I would suggest that next time you guys do this experiment that you remove what nature cannot do and see how quickly your idea falls apart. Do you know what panspermia is? it's what will replace abiogenesis because it's had so many holes shot in it. They need a theory on origins that no one can touch or test, panspermia fits the bill. cont....
@EqualAndFree There's your problem. You think primitive life was first. Wrong. Trilobites have fully formed and functioning systems. And fully formed and working organs yet it is found in the lowest layer. Did it live in the conditions you speak of?
And the one gap you guys always cannot fill. Life from dead matter is still alluding you, Empirical evidence requires observation of the claims. And that is what you are missing. So make all the claims you want, they are just words until observation
@EqualAndFree You know what you did there, and I doubt that you realized it, is that you made a perfect example of evolution being about conformism. You barred all of the problems and made the situation fit the idea.
1) It makes no difference that the primordial soup was toxic.
2) Bacteria does not need amino acids.
3) And because some bacteria need no oxygen, and water filter UV rays, it works.
Yet life has never been created from dead matter or observed rising from dead matter?
@EqualAndFree Also, advanced life should be more adapted to live. Life that's just starting out does not have the time to adapt to anything, Either the conditions are perfect for it to survive, or it dies. There is no on between.
The majority of people DON'T believe in Evolutionary Theory. Only 33% of Americans do. The majority of SCIENTISTS on the other hand do believe it. Why? Because they study it for a living, constantly trying to disprove it. Yes i said DISprove it. That's how science works. Figuring out what is true through experimentation and inquiry instead of boldly saying it's absolute with not a single iota as to why. That's religion's job.
Does not evos claim their theory is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence? That's just a round about way of saying that evolution is now an absolute fact where absolutes don't exist. And remember, every time you and your friends make evolution sound like an implied absolute, you prove that it's more of a religion because it takes a leap of faith to go that far with it.
@ikester7579 That's why it's evolutionary THEORY. It's the best and most evidenciary explanation for what we see, i.e. biological diversity. Until it is disproven though, it is indeed CONSIDERED as a fact (albeit very loosely). Absolutes do indeed exist though. 1+1 will always = 2 no matter how you twist or contort it. Gravity will always work the same way. Physics will always work the same way.
Everyone has some sort of faith in something. Whether that faith is JUSTIFIED is the real question.
@LucasI3434 Nope. Abiogenesis has had so many holes shot into it, and they cannot move forward with it. They have come up with a replacement for it called Panspermia. Which is a type of orgins that can never be challenged or falsified which is what the goal is. Google Panspermia. Dawkins believes in this.
What's ironic is that this is a form of a intelligent designer minus the supernatural part. It makes me laugh.
@ikester7579 Prove that it will never move forward or see success ever. You want to know something? You can't, because you don't have a crystal ball, nor do you have psychic abilities to see into the future to determine whether or not these problems would be solved. Several people thought we would never know as much as we know about the human genome. People thought we'd never make it to the moon. Just because you think it won't happen doesn't mean it won't.
@ikester7579 Panspermia isn't a replacement for the concept of abiogenesis. You realize there are several theories that branch from abiogenesis right? Several different methods of explaining it? Panspermia is just one of those theories. It doesn't completely replace an entire concept. It's like saying blood testing has replaced the concept of medicine. It just doens't work that way.
Same with our knowledge of the cell. In Darwin's time it was likened to a blob of jelly, (so it is easier to see how evolution can come from that). What we now know about the cell defies evolutionary thinking.
Abiogenesis has ZERO evidence and is based solely on a need for people to believe evolution is true. Hence in this case I wouldn't even call it a "theory", as normally theories require actual evidence.... Something evolutionists forget to realise when naming their ideas.
@Gilbertus1986 This first half of this comment is one of the top misconceptions about evolutionary theory. What we know now about modern cells as well as genetics supports evolution more than it defies it. One question though. HOW doew aht we know about the cell defy evolution in any way?
Abiogenesis is a CONCEPT with several theories branching from it. I liken it to the a disease in general in which there are several different methods to treating it (bad analogy I know).
@Gilbertus1986 Several theories concerning the rise of life from non-life are indeed very credible due to the evidence they provide. So it most definitely doesn't have "ZERO" evidence. The Urey-Miller experiments, as well as Jean Oro's findings concerning the formation of nucleotides. Then you have the discovery of certain clays, new findings concerning RNA... the evidence points more and more towards life coming from non-life instead of being magicked into existence by a wizard's incantation.
@LucasI3434 Umm no, if these are indeed credible then where is the empirical evidence showing this... You cannot use something that isn't proven as evidence for something else... "Evidence they provide"...
No-one mentioned wizards, this is YOUR words, and your strawman.
I find it funny that evos have lots of concepts and ideas, (stories), to provide "evidence" but when it comes to actual scientific mechanisms and experimental data they have nothing
@Gilbertus1986 There's a difference between YOUR idea of a concept and the scientific definition of a concept. A concept is an all encompassing branch of science that contains many theories concerning that idea. That doesn't mean it should be passed off as "metaphysical". EVERYTHING starts off as an idea, then evidence is gathered to form theories. So being a concept doesn't make it subjective. Did it start that way? Yes, but everything scientific does.
@LucasI3434 And when concepts are rejected for the sole reason they do not point to evolution, then it's conformism. That's not science. Need some examples?
1) T-Rex blood and tissue found that is supposed to be 170 million years old?
2) Oil that takes less than a day to make.
3) Coal that takes 6 months to make.
4) Petrification takes less than a year.
5) Layers laid like Grand Canyon in less than a month from Mt. St Helen's eruption.
6) Water (30 oceans) for flood in earth's upper mantle.
@LucasI3434 LOL, see I told you that you could not address what I posted. And your dodge of the post is the main reason you are now blocked. I don't waste my time debating people who cannot address simple issues, but try and make it a more effort on my part.
Example: Any evidence that denies the time required for evolution to work, applies to evolution an abiogenesis whether you like it or not. Your attempt to separate the issue because you cannot address it is a common evolutionist tactic.
@ikester7579@Gilbertus1986 I have just realized that this entire argument has gone into disarray. If both of you gentlemen (or ladies, or lady and gentleman) could make videos summarizing your main arguments here, I will gladly respond to them in video form that way everything is a lot more organized and therefore much more educational. Deal?
@LucasI3434 More like you just figured out you are losing the debate and figure you can get the upper hand again by changing the platform of the debate. No deal.
Also, ignoring what is posted by trying to change the platform shows your argument is weak. You want to wipe the slate clean on debating here, and try again. With due respect, that's lame. It's not our problem you cannot articulate your beliefs.
@ikester7579 I'm not trying to change anything except the organization. Give your responses to my comments in video form so things can be more ordered because I have no idea what you or Gilbertus are responding to in your comments below. If you don't want to have a good educational debate, that's your problem. I'm not attempting to wipe any slate clean, use my comments and respond to them accordingly in something more structured and organized, and I will give my responses. Simple as that.
@LucasI3434 LOL, just as I suspected. You will do and say anything to avoid my posts. Lame. It is apparent that you will now waste everyone's time, so you are now blocked.
@Gilbertus1986 I just gave you the empirical evidence. The Urey-Miller experiments, Jean Oro's findings, RNA, clays, the geologic time scale, the fossil record, all of it points towards life arising without the need for a deity to enact the process.
Yes, your deity is indeed a wizard. A wizard is one who uses and practices the use of supernatural powers. You god had to have used supernatual processes to create life. Therefore, your god is a wizard.
@LucasI3434 Did you not watch the video... The Miller-Urey "experiment" was not undertaken in a REAL WORLD environment... Sure any scientist can create something artificially, however to claim that the same process happened in nature, (when no checks pertaining to the REAL natural environment are followed), is laughable and COMPLETELY unscientific.
@Gilbertus1986 I find it funny that you don't realize your own complete hypocrisy. You want evidence and proof, but when anyone asks a creationist for evidence, vague answers are given which are reduced down to baseless, unevidenciary, religious faith.
Again, your idea of a concept differs from sciences. Concepts simply encompass a certain field of science. Medical Science is a concept for example.
@LucasI3434 I never said anything about creationism so this is YOUR strawman.
A concept cannot be used as evidence, ONLY EXPERIMENTS CAN, I am studying science I KNOW this... This is what the scientific method was created for, so people can EMPIRICALLY prove their concepts rather than just say they are true with no grounding in reality, (which is what you are doing)
@LucasI3434 Has actual life risen from those so called theories? Nope. So your point is mute because "nothing" was proven. Life from non-life is a fantasy that can only be seen in the virtual world of animation. I'd rather believe in a Creator than a bunch of evolution fairies had blueprints to complex designs.
@LucasI3434 And still the only way life from non-life can be observed is in the the fantasy world of virtual animation. If you can prove me wrong, then do so. But because you would have to face "real" reality to answer that challenge, you will ignore it just like every other evolutionists does. Ignorance on purpose just makes you more stupid. But you can prove me wrong just by providing evidence for life from non-life.
@LucasI3434 Really? That comment makes me laugh. Let's put you claim to evolution being the best explanation to the test with a simple question:
How much of the processes of evolution have actually be observed?
1) Was the process for the fossil record actually observed?
2) Has any animal every became anything else (bird becomes a lizard)?
3) In the fossil record, they've found several living fossils. Why in only one layer and not others proving the living fossil survived until present? cont...
@LucasI3434 cont... You see out of all the living fossils found, "not even one" is found in any other layer proving it:
1) Lived until present time.
2) It did not change during that time.
You see the problem is for a record, like the fossil record, to be accurate, all things most work. Living fossils show that the fossil record is not accurate and does not support evolution as claimed by all evolutionists.
Dude, this is not a problem of conformity or a problem of religion.
It's a problem that you mess (and miss) everything. If you want to help christianity or religion in general, don't make those videos, you're making the atheists more steady.
For example : Miller Experiment was done again several times, and then the missing 30% amino acids were found (along with others not used now )
There was no O2 in the athmosphere. It doesn't mean that the atoms of O were not present i.e. in H20...
LOL, nice try but I know you are part of the anti Christian group here on YouTube. So you trying to make me feel guilty for putting up those videos falls upon death ears. It's ironic that so much deception is needed to prove a true proven fact.
Real reality states that real truth never changes. And no lies or deceptions can ever support it. I guess that what pisses you atheists off more than anything. We Christian are the example of what you can never be in your disbelief. nice try
btw i'm not atheist. I'm not a christian either, but i've been raised by christians.
I'm not activing as an "Anti christian". I live in Europe, and christianity in Europe does not cause problems in school or for scientists (or very little). That's only in USA, Canada, Turkey, Iran, etc... that fundamentalists attack science, mixing it with atheism.
Stop your Manichean thinking. Stop judging people by their Youtube profile.
You are such a liar. Don exodus is one of the main people in the Christian hate group here and he's one of your friends. So don't lie to me. Saying you are christian makes you one about as much as standing in a garage will make you a car.
@ikester7579 There is ZERO testable chemistry to back it. DNA forming by chance in some mud puddle or deep sea vent .....even under amazing conditions in labs in test tubes nothing forms..worse is getting around the problem of chirality to assemble anything!!..WHAT BULLSHIT!!!..there is ZERO chance of some primitive cell forming!!!! only assumptions
Missing DNA was found? The reason they were not there in the first experiments was because the ones missing do not form naturally. So if you are saying they found them, then they cheated to get them. Anything to prove evolution, even lying.
dude... you really need to check your definition of "debunked"...
Some information about how science works wouldn't hurt either....
The miller experiment explains 70% of the aminoacids.
the "god-didit"-theory explains 0,0000% of the aminoacids.
As long as creationists cannot explain HOW exactly god created the world in 7 days, describing all the processes that took place, they have to accept that their hypothesis will never ever become a valid scientific theory.
@liquidminds Well than we are even, as no evolutionist can show how pure chance plus time created a universe so complex that if just one element went missing, there would be no ability for it to susutain life, thats fact!,
Astro physicists know that our universe has been engineered to sustain life to a tee!, its perfectly balanced, yet evolution says pure blind chance did this?, thats insane!. the statisitics mathematically and scientifically disagree with it!.
@liquidminds That's the thing, there were NO processes! God is such a powerful entity, wouldn't make sense that His mere thoughts or words on anything would cause said subject to come into existence? Why would the source of all energy in existence and all conceivable and inconceivable knowledge there is need some sort of complicated, unnecessary process to create? He may implemented processes to the regulation and function of His creations, but thinking He needed a ridiculous process to do it
@liquidminds is absurdity. That's why scientists can't find what they would accept as evidence for God because they look for Him in the form of a replicable process that they believe they should be able to in some way directly analyze by either themselves or some technological medium and to some extent replicate through an experiment. God created these processes, He is not bound by them.
ikester7579, what is it like to be totally insane? Show the video that proves god was hovering over the world and simply talked, and things just popped out of nowhere? LOL!!!
@ikester7579 ok. Evolution is a fact of nature. It has been observed repeatedly and tested. Saying that evolution is false is equivalent to saying that atoms don't exist. The evidence supports it. You can disagree with evolution all you want, but unless you refute it properly everything you say won't make a difference. Creationists haven't been able to do that yet, that's why about 99% of scientists in related fields believe evolution.
1) You refuse to show my 5 "observable" processes of evolution even though there are 100s of evolution claims.
2) One does not have to believe a true proven fact. Only religion requires belief because the foundation of religion is faith. So when you claim it's proven, then say 99% believe it. You contradict yourself and make evolution a oxymoron theory.
Not my problem you cannot commit nor answer my questions. So for wasting my time you are now blocked.
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do), even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
The reason you use percentages instead of the actual number in the differences between us and chimps is because the truth about how far apart we are would be revealed. Funny how evolution has to work off deceptions when it's supposed to be a true absolute fact. I guess that's what you get from a crowd who cannot even define truth as being scientific.
@Republica101 Thats bullshit!, evolution is nothing but stupid speculation!, no one has ever proved that anything evolved, where is that evidence?, even the strata does not show any evidence, it shows fully formed fossils where it should show gradual change, take the development of the chicken for instance, if just one part of its complex development goes wrong, then it dies!, this in itself just defies any evolutionary "logic", time plus chance, is not a good enough answer to life complexitys!
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do), even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesnt.
@123Atheist What part of evolution is fact?, Dawkins has admitted that NO scientist knows where life came from, same as Johathan wells, :"the pillars of darwinism are false of misleading, yet biologists present these as factual evidence?, what scientific standards are we allowing?" he has a double Ph.d in molecular and biological science, no one has proved abiogenetics either, its either assumption or speculative.
The famous atheist cop out. If I tell you, you won't accept it. You'll just change the whole debate subject here. Nice try. I can see you are a waste of time to debate and you are going to waste my time, and everyone else's with your little rabbit trails and refusal to answer my questions. Even though you expect me to answer all of yours. So for that you are now blocked, You cannot say I did not warn you because I already have,
They do have dictionaries. But I guess because kind is used in the Bible for creation that even dictionary definition is not acceptable. Not my problem that evos like yourself are so hateful, bias, etc... That you reject and ignore everything else that does not agree with your views. Evolution is more about making things conform to it. Conformity is not science.
123Atheist, Question: What does "no absolutes" mean?
1) Does it mean you have true absolute facts with mountains of true absolute evidence?
2) Does it mean that everyone whom dares to disagree with you is an absolute liar, even though you guys don't have absolute truth?
You see what you guys try to imply with evolution against anyone whom dares to disagree goes totally against the rules of what a theory is supposed to be. Implying absolutes where they don't exist makes evo a oxymoron.
Laughing does not prove or debunk anything. In fact I doubt you could hold a debate with a creationist without belittling them because your evidence is just that weak. In science, if the evidence is strong enough the evidence alone wins a debate, Now because you have to resort to other things besides actual evidence speaks volumes about what is wrong with evolution.
@ikester7579 evolution on the other hand is a different story. It's been proven true just as much as gravity has been proven true. But you guys don't even know how it works or how it's supposed to work. You look at something like bacteria and say it's not proof for evolution. That's because you don't completely understand it. It gets annoying to deal with the same misconceptions all the time.
Implying an absolute where absolutes do not exist is making evolution not even a theory. So if you want to go ahead and make evolution not a theory and not scientific all because you cannot prove it. Go ahead, I'm not going to argue with you. You just show how weak your theory is that you have to break you own rules to make it sound like something it's not.
@ikester7579 ok evolution has been proven just as much as gravity has been. Einstien's theories of relativity has just about the same amount of evidence as evolution.
If you cannot observe what is claimed, the rest cancels out. So out of the 100s of claims concerning evolution. Can you name even 5 that are actually observable and not animated in a movie?
98% of all the claimed processes of evolution are not observable. If I'm not, make you huge list of 100s of processes that are observable.
@ikester7579 Evolution is observable. There are many examples of speciation in the lab and in nature. We've even seen new organs evolve.Evolution is testable. All of the fossils are in the "right" order and genetics shows that we had a common ancestor. If evolution happens now then it probably happened in the past. This is where we turn to the fossil record and things like pseudogenes, vestiges and atavisms. They help show that evolution happened in the past and how it happened.
Nice dodge, all claims but no proof. Where's the list I asked for? Oh, that's right. You cannot list 5 observable retestable processes of evolution. You ignoring this only proves my point.
@ikester7579 sorry. The fossil record has been tested. We can predict where a certain fossil using evolutionary theory. For example Tiktaalik was found at the exact time zone for where it was expected to be. Evolution was right about that, and many other cases. I am sure you've heard of Lenski's bacteria. They had successful mutations that helped them survive. Scientists have pinpointed ( in some cases) the exact genes that separate two species that separated recently in the past.
Fossil records prove nothing and here's why. If you take a 4400 year old fossil, and bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years old. And leave there for a few thousand years. Then it gets dug up again. Will it daye it's actual age? Nope. The reason it won't is because the dating markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil making the fossil and layer date the exact same. Knowing this, the fossils can be any age, and the layer redated the with it's dating markers.
You are still skipping that list of five observable re-testable processes of evolution. Ignoring the question instead of admitting there is not five. Means you know the truth about this, but ignore it in favor to believe in what you "want" to be true. What we want does not make new realities just because we want them to. The laws of life do not change so that a theory can work. In fact. mostly what I see is evos trying to make the evidence conform to the theory. Conformity is not science.
@ikester7579 Another example is dog breeding. Dogs have been changed so much over a short period of time. Since humans controlled it it's called artificial selection. Natural selection is when nature decides. You might argue that they are still dogs. That's because humans only modified their outward appearance. Other genes weren't changed much. The basic body designs for dogs was kept. That's why they are still dogs, but would you call them wolves? As they were in the past.
Out of all the changes the dogs went through with all that breeding, was the ever a non-dog produced? Just like the Bible says, they stayed within their kind. Now you know why they stay within their kind? To much change in DNA is deadly. So if another kind were produced, it would have died. Showing that there are limitations to how much change there can be. So your dog example supports creation more than evolution or they would have breeded something beyond a dog.
@ikester7579 sigh. You still lack some knowledge of how it works. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that this is starting to get annoying. Dog breeders were never trying to change the dog into something else. Another reason, not enough time has passed for genetic variation to prevent breeding (but this has been observed in other species).
Annoying? Because I disagree with you and know every debate tactic?
Lack of knowledge? You assume this only because I disagree.
Anyway, the reason a species cannot breed outside of itself is because there are bounderies in how DNA works, being compatable to breed, and to much change killing the life form. Does it sound like I don't know how it works?
It's also annoying that when a evo finds himself losing. they always resort belittling.
@ikester7579 This is how most of evolution works. Through change not increases. That's why we have less genes than some fish. So lets get this straight. Do you believe that dogs can change their appearance a little, in a short amount of time?
No, that your excuse for less complex things having more information. I'll start answering your questions when you start answering mine. If you are going to debate me, it's not going to be one sided. if you don't know what questions, I suggest you read my posts. Otherwise I'm going to ignore you as much as you ignore me in every post.
Then why use evidence that supports God's word of things changing and staying within their kind? You see you get mad because you cannot show me evidence beyond anything going outside of it's kind.
@ikester7579 also life doesn't require an increase in information to evolve. Many creationists wrongly assume this. They also assume that more complex creatures have more information. that's incorrect many fish have more info than us. Most of evolution happens through dna that's already there not through new information. Too much dna would never have been a problem.
Funny you do not list the errors you claim. Also, that is the main problem with evolution. Every claim has a gap that never gets filled. In this particular case the gap is 30%. But then again no absolutes does not require you to fill gaps. In fact it could be reversed and be 70% instead and you would still accept it because no absolutes has no standard. So your point is mute.
And your use of the time god (hundreds of millions of years) shows you have no real answers, only excuses.
@ikester7579 how is pointing to a large amount of time an excuse? That's how much time there was so that's how long it took. Just because 100% of the building blocks weren't there that means that abiogenisis is impossible? All they were trying to prove was that abiogenisis is probable, not that it's true. So far the evidence shows that abiogenisis is definately possible.
Let's say you want to see God in order to believe in God. I say it takes millions of years to do this, Are you going to accept that and believe anyway? No more than I will accept your excuse about time as well.
What this shows is that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does what I believe. Other wise your time excuse would not be needed, now would it? Empirical evidence does not need excuses, unprovable evidence does.
@ikester7579 As for time. There is a difference between saying god uses time and evolution uses time. Evolution is an accumulative process. Without time the genes necessary to survival won't accumulate(i hope you don't misinterpret this). It has been "proved" that what creationists would call micro evolution happens. So to prove that macroevolution happens all that remains is time. So that microevolution can accumulate.
Just because I don't agree does not mean I misunderstand the process. Here again you are using the time God to assume evolution happens. So let's see what we have so far.
1) It takes a long time to make life in the oceans.
2) micro with time to infinity = macro.
3) Given enough time anything can evolve.
This is not science. Time does not prove or equal evolution. And I would challenge you to prove that it does.
@ikester7579 1. It takes a long time to make life in the oceans. Maybe. There was plenty of time for life to develop. Even abiogenisis requires evolution, depending on what you call life. It's not like the whole process can happen in one step. The time was there we are not making up random numbers. Even if life could form spontaneously, we would still have to account for about a billion and a half years.
@ikester7579 2. Micro + time = macro. That is a fact. The effects of microevolution begin to show over a large amount of time. When we notice a large enough difference we call it macroevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution they are the same thing. That's all we need for fish to evolve into humans. Microevolution. Micro and macro are one and the same thing. Most creationists don't understand this. If you believe in one then you believe in the other. The only difference is time.
Facts come from observable processes. Faith comes from making the claim, then trying to prove it with time, or multiplication of time. For if you are making the claim that micro time what ever, makes macro. Then you should be able to tell us just how many micros it takes. But you cannot. Which takes you back to square one and makes your claim mute. Implying absolutes where that cannot exist will always make your claims fail.
@ikester7579 Being able to watch what creationists would call macroevolution is impossible unless you could watch a species for a long amount of time, and compare pictures of the first and the last. Evolution might have accumulated to create a different species. Time doesn't prove evolution, but having it there definetly helps because it is necessary for animals to change. With enough time there is potential for anything to evolve. But evolution can't work instantaneously.
When you use time as your excuse for no observable processes for your claims. then you are implying that time does prove evolution. So your comment is a oxymoron.
You'll have to, to dig yourself out of this hole you put yourself in.
Now if you cannot hold a decent debate without belittling me in some way or another, don't bother. I'll block you just like everyone else who resorts to doing. And don't use the guilt trip that most atheist use either. You guys get blocked because of how you act period. So let's see if you can keep this civil like an adult.
@ikester7579 ok let's see on what we agree on. People can change a dogs appearance based on which dogs breed. Over a small amount of time we can get a new dog breed. Each generation adds a small amount of change, and these changes add up to change what a dog looks like. I know you know this. To change the dog's appearance, the amount of information isn't increasing. It's staying the same.
@ikester7579 our dating methods show that the earth is old. So that means that 1. life can evolve and 2. there was enough time for it to happen. plus god is a being that isn't restricted. Evolution on the other hand is restricted.
God cannot break His own laws. Being a law breaker means He is not setting a good example for His creation. So yes He is restricted. That is why God said he created everything old.
2pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
God word never says he created the earth new, He created the heavens (universe) old along with everything in it.
I agree. Even fruit flies disprove evolution. They claim it takes millions of years to see actual evolution to the point claimed. Fruit flies reproduce every 20 minutes. Which means in one million years there are 26,280,000,000,000 generations. But they are still fruit flies. no change = no evolution
You just proved that science through evolution is not about finding any truth, but denying God. How ironic that this statement is not where near being scientific, But them again, when the science cannot help you refute what you don't like, what other alternative is there when God has to be rejected?
The statement is completely scientific. You choose not to see it that way. It is a purely logical statement that if denied is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Evolution is not abiogenesis by the way and my thoughts on the non-existence of the Abrahamic god are based on scripture not science.
Can biological evolution even begin without life? Nope,
So the very bases of what would start the whole process of evo cannot even meet the criteria of being empirical. So the rest of what is claimed cannot even happen. And is the very reason every evoist tries to separate abiogenesis from evo because it disproves it by not giving a actual starting point.
So, do we need to know how the universe came to be, in every detail, in order to know anything else about it? If so, then your logic is seriously flawed and results in the abandonment of every single hypothesis, including your own God hypothesis. Evolution is a fact regardless of abiogenesis. In the same way, gravity is a fact regardless of the full understanding of its origins and mechanisms.
Evo is a fact? That's inplying an absolute, Which makes evo not a theory and not science. All you are doing here is trying to use your bag of logic tricks to explain away that without abiogenesis, evo fails. It's not my problem, it's yours. So quit trying to blame your problem on God. God did not claim abiogenesis, evos do.
Besides, your comparison either makes creation science, because you put it on the same level. Or makes evo religion. Which is it you are trying to do?
The observed fact of biological evolution is explained by the theory of evolution. The observed fact of gravity is explained by the theory of gravity. Do you understand how science works now?
I have not stated that a god couldn't have been the cause of the universe, that would be intellectually dishonest. I have stated a high improbability that the Abrahamic god caused it, due to discrepancy between scripture and observation.
Fertilisation & death combined with ecosystem & climate. They are the main factors of evolution, the evidence lies within the way DNA changes over time and between generations.
You suggest that fruit flies have not changed. Have you decoded the DNA of both past and present fruit flies? They do in fact change after every generation at the DNA level.
I understand creation enough to know that it isn't science.
@ikester7579 according to modern abiogenisis (the miller experiment isn't modern so debunking it wouldn't effect modern evidence) life was formed at the bottom of the ocean. Light doesn't even get that far. Plus water is the most common molecule in the universe, it was there before we got most of our oxygen. Also abiogenisis didn't start with lightning according to modern theory. Chimps have a 2% difference not .2%
LOL, life started at the bottom of the ocean? Can you prove it, or does this stop where the miller experiement does? Where you get the words, the claims, but no real observable process. Which by the way would make your claim empirical. Well is there such a thing, or is time going to be your excuse again?
@ikester7579 As for life starting at the bottom of the ocean. That what current theory assumes. You're right we can't prove that abiogenisis happened because it's unrepeatable. The best we can do is show that it's possible. Progress is being made. Honestly I don't specialize in abiogenisis, but there are many people that know the subject better than i do. You'd be better off debating them on this specific subject.
Now I see your problem. You take it as an absolute that ever process claimed happened even though you cannot observe it. And by doing this you have shown that you have absolute faith that evolution just happens. Why else claim that abiogenesis is not repeatable unless you have faith that even though not observable, it happened anyway? Faith is believing in what you cannot see. You have shown that here with about every post.
1. High concentrations of amino acids have been found in natural environments such as deep see springs (white smokers). No lightning was incvolved in producing them.
2. "Toxic" is entirely relative to the species concerned and what it adapted too. Live has been found in the most tocic environments.
3. Water and water-vapour and rain existed before free oxygen existed (hillarious mistake).
4. A few centimeters of water will block almost all harmfull UV radiation.
MsBionomics 2 months ago
@MsBionomics 1) Yet no life has ever been observed coming from amino acids.
2) Life that dies from toxic environment does not produce offspring so therefore does not pass on it;s traits. Nice try.
3) LOL, wrong but nice try. Let's see you prove that or are your word golden and make new realities and truths and break the laws of physics. Show us proof.
4) Under an atmosphere that is protected by ozone, Tell us how many centimeters blocks UV rays under an atmosphere with no ozone?
ikester7579 2 months ago
abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and there is more than just the soup theory to abiogenesis. If you can debunk all of them then maybe just maybe ill consider an all mighty creator.
1m0n4b04t 4 months ago
@1m0n4b04t Abiogenesis has to happen before life can even supposedly evolve. And as far as debunks go, evolutionists are the ones who determine whether evolution can be debunked, right? Sounds bias to me. And the maybe just maybe you will believe remark. Let's be honest, you maybe will believe if I debunk them "all", means you are bias because there would be nothing left for you to believe if I did that,
ikester7579 4 months ago
Creationists did not evolve like the rest of us. They arose spontaneously from malt liquor and bacon grease in trailer parks.
Rep0007 4 months ago
Not sure if trolling... or just dumb.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 I find it ironic that when an atheist cannot defend his position he has to resort to personal attacks. So you going to respond with science, or more name calling? You were not even good at the name calling. Need to take a course in scientific name calling 101 so you can protect your theory better.
ikester7579 4 months ago
@ikester7579 Er, what 'position' am I defending? Also, what does abiogenesis have to do with an atheists?
P.S. If we're going to compare insults, mine was is a quote from a popular demotivational poster (sub dumb for stupid).
Yours is a cheezy play that's been in circulation for 30 years.
However I am now sure which one it is.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 Cannot even be original. Have to copy stuff like Dawkins does so it cannot be directly pointed back to you.All you guys are, are evolution puppets and Darwin is the puppet master.
ikester7579 4 months ago
nice one, you see the fact of the matter is many of these sheep invest a lot of time and money into their academics than common sense. If what they have invested years worth if time and money proves to be incorrect it means the rug being pulled out from under your feet. That is personally hurtful however by denying the obvious truth you are just fooling yourseleves. Majority opinion is not always right. Evolution theory is as much 'unevolved' as charles darwin himself. Wake up & smell the coffee
PlatinumParade 5 months ago
What a load of shit. Talkorigins (dot) org. Go there. Learn.
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney Is that the best you can do to defend your theory? Would you like to present to us all and educate us with you superior intelligence and show us where, in an empirical experiment, that life ever arose? you cannot? Then why should we go to talk origins because they want be able to either. Nice try.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 No it isn't the best I can to, but don't see why I should spend time explaining the science to you when you can easily do that yourself. Nice try.
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney LOL you just proved my point. Blame your problem that you cannot do any better on me, lol. What a joke.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 What point? I have learned through painful experience that trying to explain science to creationists is extremely time consuming (not the sharpest tools in the box, are you?). In the internet age, the information is there if you are interested. Why not look for yourself?
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney Oh and one more thing. When you can produce empirical evidence of life rising from dead matter, I'll gladly take this video down. But let's be honest. The reason you are really pissed off is because you cannot and never will be able to. Again, nice try.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 Laugh, I nearly did. 1. I never asked you to take this video down. 2. Do you seriously think that until someone can produce a life form from inorganic matter in a lab that we should therefore believe that life arose magically? I spot the god of the gaps.
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney Nothing like an atheist who cannot meet the challenge so he has to:
1) Try and reverse the burden of proof.
2) Discredit his debate opponent by calling them names and stereo typing, etc...
Producing life from dead matter is what abiogenesis is. You cannot prove this so this is the reason you use all the other tactics.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@dominickearney Nothing like an atheist who cannot meet the challenge so he has to:
1) Try and reverse the burden of proof.
2) Discredit his debate opponent by calling them names and stereo typing, etc...
Producing life from dead matter is what abiogenesis is. You cannot prove this so this is the reason you use all the other tactics.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 No one claims Abiogenesis has been proved and I never asked you to prove anything. But it is not the logical to assume the supernatural just because we don't fully know something yet. When we didn't know how the bumble bee flew, did we say "God must be doing it" or did we think "Let's investigate that further". Abiogenesis is still largely hypothetical, but we experimentally demonstrated a number of steps. The science has moved on considerebly since Miller & Urey.
skaman617 5 months ago in playlist Abiogenesis
@ikester7579 Oh and one more thing. Kent Hovind is not credible source for scientific information.
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney LOL,Lame. Neither is Ersnt Haeckel credible. He faked those drawings yet his idea and drawings are still used. You don't have to fake things to prove a supposed true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Unless of course it is not what was implied.
Question: Can you name 5 evolution processes that would meet the criteria of being empirical?
1) Observable.
2) Testable and retestable in a lab.
3) Able to be experienced by the individual.
Just 5.
ikester7579 5 months ago
Comment removed
dominickearney 5 months ago
@ikester7579 Lame? So where did you get your 85% "tar" from? All signs point to Hovind. (If not, can you cite your source for that?). As for Ernst Haeckel, no one today would say his drawings are accurate.
5 Evolutionary processes that have been observed and tested (and there are only 5 known processes):
1. Natural Selection
2. Biased Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Genetic hitchhiking
5. Gene flow
Criterion 3 is just nonsense.
dominickearney 5 months ago
@dominickearney
1) Right.
2) Micro evolution, right.
3) Nope.
4) Nope.
5) nope. Different forms of micro evolution.
Plus you did not include "any" macro evolution processes because there are ZERO examples of any macro processes being observable.
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 1. Let's say your right about 3-5. So what? Since when did 5 become the magic number? 2. There have been numerous examples of Macro evolution (that's evolution above the species level). To say otherwise is either complete ignorance or complete dishonesty. Even Answers in Genesis discourages that argument. And you still haven't provided you course for the 85% tar claim. Oh, and blocking me? Very cowardly.
skaman617 5 months ago in playlist Abiogenesis
@skaman617 LOL, you must be used to getting blocked to have 2 accounts. But then again that is what I would expect from a youtuber who has to have the last word. And it's not cowardly to get tired of debating someone with a closed mind.
Give an example of macro-evolution that is observable. Speciation is not macro because in each case they are still the same kind (a bird still a bird). Give an example of a lizard turning into a bird that we can see and is not assumed?
ikester7579 5 months ago
@ikester7579 Well I also see you could not produce one piece of evidence that proved life rising from dead matter. So video stays. But if you can I will gladly remove it. Well can you or are you going to dodge this by ignoring the question because facing real reality is not what evolutionists do?
Real reality = Answering the question. Wanting to believe in a false unprovable theory means you will want to ignore it So what will it be?
ikester7579 5 months ago
All evolution does is still the attributes of the supernatural (things that defy natural observed laws) give them scientific names then attack any idea contrary. Evolution has failed, you must draw evolution to its natural conclusion, chemical evolution. Abiogenesis ignores science. Abiogenesis is just a version of an impersonal God, a belief and religion that now has followers. The state supports this religion and denies others. The state makes evolution mandatory, welcome to the new dark age!
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@EqualAndFree Abiogenesis has hit that wall, evolution has hit that wall. Believe what you want but let science freely without preconceived notions do its work. Naturalist are getting in the way now just as the vatican did in the dark ages!!!!!!!.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@EqualAndFree Nothing unscientific about recognizing biogenesis is what we observe and than following it to a conclusion. Doesn't matter if I can comprehend How or why, if the data points that way it is only logical to follow it as far as we can! Hypothesize all you want but when you hit a brick wall go other directions.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@EqualAndFree Don't confuse your belief with science! Science is nothing more than a process of trying to understand how things work, through observation, testing, and repeating. When a hypothesis fails and one clings to it a new religion is born. You're a fanatic! Blind to what has been shown.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@EqualAndFree (eg by doing experiments in a sterile laboratory) then it WILL be possible to create primitive self-replicating organisms from dead matter. FAITH STATEMENT? No data on this planet supports abiogenesis! Probability squashes it and scientific data proves it false. Want a free pass, do ya? You believe in something that has not been shown in the smallest fraction to be possible in fact it has been demonstrated impossible. I guess your right because you say so? Hypocrite much?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
So much facepalm.
What year did you get your degree in molecular biology?
Parabol0086 7 months ago
@Parabol0086 Degrees do not matter to atheists if you do not believe exactly as they do. So your point is mute, nice try.
ikester7579 7 months ago
@ikester7579
Incorrect. A PhD in Molecular Biology from Yale, Havard, etc. would be impressive. But then you would need to put forth papers that backed up why you were a Creationist. Going on a website that has a lot of questions written by lawyers is not impressive.
I know the history of Creationism, relabelled ID, relabelled Teach the Controversy. It can't stand up in court because most the proponents of it can't back it up.
I seriously hope you don't think the Flood was a historic event...
Parabol0086 7 months ago
@Parabol0086 LOL, you are so funny. Name one professor that would give a student who believed in creation a degree. I even have a paper from a professor that explicitly states that you "must" believe in evolution in order to pass his class or get a recommendation. And another paper that says that schools should have the right to refuse degrees to anyone who believes in creation, and retract degrees if it's found out they believed later on. Nice try.
ikester7579 7 months ago
@ikester7579
You will need to prove evidence of such claims. The reason why a Creationist couldn't obtain a PhD would be because they would have to show evidence as to why Creation fits better. Write a thesis on it. Hovind attempted and his "Uni" wanted to hide it from the public, obviously they're ashamed of it. I don't think you understand how you get a degree at University given what you claim.
If it's so easy, why haven't you submitted a paper to prove all those Scientists wrong? Pathetic.
Parabol0086 7 months ago
@ikester7579 I have a friend who is a mathematician. He can work out equation showing evolution is impossible. Does his masters in math make evolutionists listen? Of course not. Because they cannot debunk his equations, he's ignored and shunned from scientific circles. This is because he won;t conform. Conformism is not science.
ikester7579 7 months ago
@Parabol0086 It does not take a degree to debunk evolution, it's easy. You are just mad because i make it sound so easy. So have you guys made dead matter come to life yet? So how can you claim it evolved if you cannot prove it become alive? What a web of lies we weave,
ikester7579 7 months ago
@EqualAndFree Go look at the video to the right on the miller experiment put out by BereanBeacon. The creation scientist in that video points out all the problems with Miller's experiment. And also applies real world conditions and shows how it is totally impossible,
ikester7579 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree cont... First it was the time god. Given enough time you can make anything turn into anything. Now time is even causing a problem, along with trying to sell the idea that non-complex life is what starts first even though the fossil record does not support that completely. So now let's put out ideas into space, and claim aliens did it. That way no one will ever be able to dispute it. I find it ironic that evolution needs supporting ideas that cannot be challenged.
ikester7579 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree Do you know why Miller could not do a real world condition experiment? It's because the real world would not have allowed it. I would suggest that next time you guys do this experiment that you remove what nature cannot do and see how quickly your idea falls apart. Do you know what panspermia is? it's what will replace abiogenesis because it's had so many holes shot in it. They need a theory on origins that no one can touch or test, panspermia fits the bill. cont....
ikester7579 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree There's your problem. You think primitive life was first. Wrong. Trilobites have fully formed and functioning systems. And fully formed and working organs yet it is found in the lowest layer. Did it live in the conditions you speak of?
And the one gap you guys always cannot fill. Life from dead matter is still alluding you, Empirical evidence requires observation of the claims. And that is what you are missing. So make all the claims you want, they are just words until observation
ikester7579 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree You know what you did there, and I doubt that you realized it, is that you made a perfect example of evolution being about conformism. You barred all of the problems and made the situation fit the idea.
1) It makes no difference that the primordial soup was toxic.
2) Bacteria does not need amino acids.
3) And because some bacteria need no oxygen, and water filter UV rays, it works.
Yet life has never been created from dead matter or observed rising from dead matter?
ikester7579 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree Also, advanced life should be more adapted to live. Life that's just starting out does not have the time to adapt to anything, Either the conditions are perfect for it to survive, or it dies. There is no on between.
ikester7579 9 months ago
The majority of people DON'T believe in Evolutionary Theory. Only 33% of Americans do. The majority of SCIENTISTS on the other hand do believe it. Why? Because they study it for a living, constantly trying to disprove it. Yes i said DISprove it. That's how science works. Figuring out what is true through experimentation and inquiry instead of boldly saying it's absolute with not a single iota as to why. That's religion's job.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
Does not evos claim their theory is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence? That's just a round about way of saying that evolution is now an absolute fact where absolutes don't exist. And remember, every time you and your friends make evolution sound like an implied absolute, you prove that it's more of a religion because it takes a leap of faith to go that far with it.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@ikester7579 That's why it's evolutionary THEORY. It's the best and most evidenciary explanation for what we see, i.e. biological diversity. Until it is disproven though, it is indeed CONSIDERED as a fact (albeit very loosely). Absolutes do indeed exist though. 1+1 will always = 2 no matter how you twist or contort it. Gravity will always work the same way. Physics will always work the same way.
Everyone has some sort of faith in something. Whether that faith is JUSTIFIED is the real question.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Nope. Abiogenesis has had so many holes shot into it, and they cannot move forward with it. They have come up with a replacement for it called Panspermia. Which is a type of orgins that can never be challenged or falsified which is what the goal is. Google Panspermia. Dawkins believes in this.
What's ironic is that this is a form of a intelligent designer minus the supernatural part. It makes me laugh.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@ikester7579 Prove that it will never move forward or see success ever. You want to know something? You can't, because you don't have a crystal ball, nor do you have psychic abilities to see into the future to determine whether or not these problems would be solved. Several people thought we would never know as much as we know about the human genome. People thought we'd never make it to the moon. Just because you think it won't happen doesn't mean it won't.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@ikester7579 Panspermia isn't a replacement for the concept of abiogenesis. You realize there are several theories that branch from abiogenesis right? Several different methods of explaining it? Panspermia is just one of those theories. It doesn't completely replace an entire concept. It's like saying blood testing has replaced the concept of medicine. It just doens't work that way.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434
Same with our knowledge of the cell. In Darwin's time it was likened to a blob of jelly, (so it is easier to see how evolution can come from that). What we now know about the cell defies evolutionary thinking.
Abiogenesis has ZERO evidence and is based solely on a need for people to believe evolution is true. Hence in this case I wouldn't even call it a "theory", as normally theories require actual evidence.... Something evolutionists forget to realise when naming their ideas.
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 This first half of this comment is one of the top misconceptions about evolutionary theory. What we know now about modern cells as well as genetics supports evolution more than it defies it. One question though. HOW doew aht we know about the cell defy evolution in any way?
Abiogenesis is a CONCEPT with several theories branching from it. I liken it to the a disease in general in which there are several different methods to treating it (bad analogy I know).
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Being a concept makes it a metaphysical idea, thanks for admitting this... Metaphysical things cannot be claimed as facts.
Yet how can "theories" branch from a concept? Aren't theories meant to have EVIDENCE! Not just a conceptual look
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Several theories concerning the rise of life from non-life are indeed very credible due to the evidence they provide. So it most definitely doesn't have "ZERO" evidence. The Urey-Miller experiments, as well as Jean Oro's findings concerning the formation of nucleotides. Then you have the discovery of certain clays, new findings concerning RNA... the evidence points more and more towards life coming from non-life instead of being magicked into existence by a wizard's incantation.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Umm no, if these are indeed credible then where is the empirical evidence showing this... You cannot use something that isn't proven as evidence for something else... "Evidence they provide"...
No-one mentioned wizards, this is YOUR words, and your strawman.
I find it funny that evos have lots of concepts and ideas, (stories), to provide "evidence" but when it comes to actual scientific mechanisms and experimental data they have nothing
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 There's a difference between YOUR idea of a concept and the scientific definition of a concept. A concept is an all encompassing branch of science that contains many theories concerning that idea. That doesn't mean it should be passed off as "metaphysical". EVERYTHING starts off as an idea, then evidence is gathered to form theories. So being a concept doesn't make it subjective. Did it start that way? Yes, but everything scientific does.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 And when concepts are rejected for the sole reason they do not point to evolution, then it's conformism. That's not science. Need some examples?
1) T-Rex blood and tissue found that is supposed to be 170 million years old?
2) Oil that takes less than a day to make.
3) Coal that takes 6 months to make.
4) Petrification takes less than a year.
5) Layers laid like Grand Canyon in less than a month from Mt. St Helen's eruption.
6) Water (30 oceans) for flood in earth's upper mantle.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@ikester7579 1.)It was fossilized.
news (.) nationalgeographic (.) com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue (.) html
2.) This has nothing to do with evolution, nor does it have anything to do with abiogenesis.
3.) Nor does this.
4.) Or this.
5.) This either.
6.) This doesn't either, but it still doesn't account for the many problems with a global flood. For instance how did plant and insect life survive?
Give sources, and tie it back to evolution and abiogenesis, then i'll discuss them.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 LOL, see I told you that you could not address what I posted. And your dodge of the post is the main reason you are now blocked. I don't waste my time debating people who cannot address simple issues, but try and make it a more effort on my part.
Example: Any evidence that denies the time required for evolution to work, applies to evolution an abiogenesis whether you like it or not. Your attempt to separate the issue because you cannot address it is a common evolutionist tactic.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@ikester7579 @Gilbertus1986 I have just realized that this entire argument has gone into disarray. If both of you gentlemen (or ladies, or lady and gentleman) could make videos summarizing your main arguments here, I will gladly respond to them in video form that way everything is a lot more organized and therefore much more educational. Deal?
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 More like you just figured out you are losing the debate and figure you can get the upper hand again by changing the platform of the debate. No deal.
Also, ignoring what is posted by trying to change the platform shows your argument is weak. You want to wipe the slate clean on debating here, and try again. With due respect, that's lame. It's not our problem you cannot articulate your beliefs.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@ikester7579 I'm not trying to change anything except the organization. Give your responses to my comments in video form so things can be more ordered because I have no idea what you or Gilbertus are responding to in your comments below. If you don't want to have a good educational debate, that's your problem. I'm not attempting to wipe any slate clean, use my comments and respond to them accordingly in something more structured and organized, and I will give my responses. Simple as that.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 LOL, just as I suspected. You will do and say anything to avoid my posts. Lame. It is apparent that you will now waste everyone's time, so you are now blocked.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434
A concept with no evidence cannot be used as its own evidence. Ikester has shown in great detail how you are completely wrong on this issue
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I just gave you the empirical evidence. The Urey-Miller experiments, Jean Oro's findings, RNA, clays, the geologic time scale, the fossil record, all of it points towards life arising without the need for a deity to enact the process.
Yes, your deity is indeed a wizard. A wizard is one who uses and practices the use of supernatural powers. You god had to have used supernatual processes to create life. Therefore, your god is a wizard.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Evidently you don't know the criteria for what is required for something to be empirical. So I educate you.
1) Has to be testable and re-testable in a lab.
2) Has to be observable. And this also includes the process claimed to fit the evidence.
3) Able to be experienced by the individual.
Fossil record process (layers laid) not observable.
And life from non-life is not observable.
Name calling just shows you know your argument is weak. So keep it up, you make my case for me.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Did you not watch the video... The Miller-Urey "experiment" was not undertaken in a REAL WORLD environment... Sure any scientist can create something artificially, however to claim that the same process happened in nature, (when no checks pertaining to the REAL natural environment are followed), is laughable and COMPLETELY unscientific.
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I find it funny that you don't realize your own complete hypocrisy. You want evidence and proof, but when anyone asks a creationist for evidence, vague answers are given which are reduced down to baseless, unevidenciary, religious faith.
Again, your idea of a concept differs from sciences. Concepts simply encompass a certain field of science. Medical Science is a concept for example.
LucasI3434 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Sounds like to me you have no proof so you try and reverse the guilt and blame it on the creationists. Nice try.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 I never said anything about creationism so this is YOUR strawman.
A concept cannot be used as evidence, ONLY EXPERIMENTS CAN, I am studying science I KNOW this... This is what the scientific method was created for, so people can EMPIRICALLY prove their concepts rather than just say they are true with no grounding in reality, (which is what you are doing)
Gilbertus1986 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Has actual life risen from those so called theories? Nope. So your point is mute because "nothing" was proven. Life from non-life is a fantasy that can only be seen in the virtual world of animation. I'd rather believe in a Creator than a bunch of evolution fairies had blueprints to complex designs.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 And still the only way life from non-life can be observed is in the the fantasy world of virtual animation. If you can prove me wrong, then do so. But because you would have to face "real" reality to answer that challenge, you will ignore it just like every other evolutionists does. Ignorance on purpose just makes you more stupid. But you can prove me wrong just by providing evidence for life from non-life.
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 Really? That comment makes me laugh. Let's put you claim to evolution being the best explanation to the test with a simple question:
How much of the processes of evolution have actually be observed?
1) Was the process for the fossil record actually observed?
2) Has any animal every became anything else (bird becomes a lizard)?
3) In the fossil record, they've found several living fossils. Why in only one layer and not others proving the living fossil survived until present? cont...
ikester7579 11 months ago
@LucasI3434 cont... You see out of all the living fossils found, "not even one" is found in any other layer proving it:
1) Lived until present time.
2) It did not change during that time.
You see the problem is for a record, like the fossil record, to be accurate, all things most work. Living fossils show that the fossil record is not accurate and does not support evolution as claimed by all evolutionists.
ikester7579 11 months ago
what
lp000028 11 months ago
Dude, this is not a problem of conformity or a problem of religion.
It's a problem that you mess (and miss) everything. If you want to help christianity or religion in general, don't make those videos, you're making the atheists more steady.
For example : Miller Experiment was done again several times, and then the missing 30% amino acids were found (along with others not used now )
There was no O2 in the athmosphere. It doesn't mean that the atoms of O were not present i.e. in H20...
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo
LOL, nice try but I know you are part of the anti Christian group here on YouTube. So you trying to make me feel guilty for putting up those videos falls upon death ears. It's ironic that so much deception is needed to prove a true proven fact.
Real reality states that real truth never changes. And no lies or deceptions can ever support it. I guess that what pisses you atheists off more than anything. We Christian are the example of what you can never be in your disbelief. nice try
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579
I'm friend and subscribers to some of them.
If some subjects or some video posters interest me, i subscribe to them.
For a time I was "friend" with "Kent Hovind Seminar", even though i certainly don't agree with K. Hovind.
I subscribed to "Thunderf00t" channel, though i don't agree with all he's saying. nevertheless i follow some of what he posts
you should avoid thinking you're a pro-psychologist and/or profiler master just because you know how to look on the profile of a user.
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@ikester7579
btw i'm not atheist. I'm not a christian either, but i've been raised by christians.
I'm not activing as an "Anti christian". I live in Europe, and christianity in Europe does not cause problems in school or for scientists (or very little). That's only in USA, Canada, Turkey, Iran, etc... that fundamentalists attack science, mixing it with atheism.
Stop your Manichean thinking. Stop judging people by their Youtube profile.
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo
You are such a liar. Don exodus is one of the main people in the Christian hate group here and he's one of your friends. So don't lie to me. Saying you are christian makes you one about as much as standing in a garage will make you a car.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 I'm an Atheist. He's not.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@ikester7579
now, you don't even adress the slightlest part of my criticism on this video.
you just said "ow this guy look at atheists videos, so he's atheist and therefore he's anti-me!".
And then *you* are trying to tell me that "not lies or deception can ever support it". (!?!?) WTH ?
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@ikester7579 There is ZERO testable chemistry to back it. DNA forming by chance in some mud puddle or deep sea vent .....even under amazing conditions in labs in test tubes nothing forms..worse is getting around the problem of chirality to assemble anything!!..WHAT BULLSHIT!!!..there is ZERO chance of some primitive cell forming!!!! only assumptions
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Missing DNA was found? The reason they were not there in the first experiments was because the ones missing do not form naturally. So if you are saying they found them, then they cheated to get them. Anything to prove evolution, even lying.
ikester7579 11 months ago
dude... you really need to check your definition of "debunked"...
Some information about how science works wouldn't hurt either....
The miller experiment explains 70% of the aminoacids.
the "god-didit"-theory explains 0,0000% of the aminoacids.
As long as creationists cannot explain HOW exactly god created the world in 7 days, describing all the processes that took place, they have to accept that their hypothesis will never ever become a valid scientific theory.
liquidminds 1 year ago
@liquidminds Well than we are even, as no evolutionist can show how pure chance plus time created a universe so complex that if just one element went missing, there would be no ability for it to susutain life, thats fact!,
Astro physicists know that our universe has been engineered to sustain life to a tee!, its perfectly balanced, yet evolution says pure blind chance did this?, thats insane!. the statisitics mathematically and scientifically disagree with it!.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@liquidminds That's the thing, there were NO processes! God is such a powerful entity, wouldn't make sense that His mere thoughts or words on anything would cause said subject to come into existence? Why would the source of all energy in existence and all conceivable and inconceivable knowledge there is need some sort of complicated, unnecessary process to create? He may implemented processes to the regulation and function of His creations, but thinking He needed a ridiculous process to do it
1877theflip 1 year ago
@liquidminds is absurdity. That's why scientists can't find what they would accept as evidence for God because they look for Him in the form of a replicable process that they believe they should be able to in some way directly analyze by either themselves or some technological medium and to some extent replicate through an experiment. God created these processes, He is not bound by them.
1877theflip 1 year ago
ikester7579, what is it like to be totally insane? Show the video that proves god was hovering over the world and simply talked, and things just popped out of nowhere? LOL!!!
This is good comedy!
MacoutesGabber 1 year ago
123atheist, either start answer my questions like a fair debater, or I will block you. If you cannot answer a question just says so.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 ok. Evolution is a fact of nature. It has been observed repeatedly and tested. Saying that evolution is false is equivalent to saying that atoms don't exist. The evidence supports it. You can disagree with evolution all you want, but unless you refute it properly everything you say won't make a difference. Creationists haven't been able to do that yet, that's why about 99% of scientists in related fields believe evolution.
123Atheist 1 year ago
1) You refuse to show my 5 "observable" processes of evolution even though there are 100s of evolution claims.
2) One does not have to believe a true proven fact. Only religion requires belief because the foundation of religion is faith. So when you claim it's proven, then say 99% believe it. You contradict yourself and make evolution a oxymoron theory.
Not my problem you cannot commit nor answer my questions. So for wasting my time you are now blocked.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do), even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
Republica101 1 year ago
@Republica101
Evidence for evolution? Like DNA:
.1% = 3 million difference?
1% = 30 million difference?
10 = 300 million differences?
The reason you use percentages instead of the actual number in the differences between us and chimps is because the truth about how far apart we are would be revealed. Funny how evolution has to work off deceptions when it's supposed to be a true absolute fact. I guess that's what you get from a crowd who cannot even define truth as being scientific.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@Republica101 Thats bullshit!, evolution is nothing but stupid speculation!, no one has ever proved that anything evolved, where is that evidence?, even the strata does not show any evidence, it shows fully formed fossils where it should show gradual change, take the development of the chicken for instance, if just one part of its complex development goes wrong, then it dies!, this in itself just defies any evolutionary "logic", time plus chance, is not a good enough answer to life complexitys!
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do), even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
Republica101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
Republica101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.
Republica101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikester7579 yes, one does have to believe a true proven fact. I don't have to believe the earth goes around the sun (which I do) even though it's true. It still requires belief. However, to believe without proof, or evidence, that is faith. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesnt.
Republica101 1 year ago
@123Atheist What part of evolution is fact?, Dawkins has admitted that NO scientist knows where life came from, same as Johathan wells, :"the pillars of darwinism are false of misleading, yet biologists present these as factual evidence?, what scientific standards are we allowing?" he has a double Ph.d in molecular and biological science, no one has proved abiogenetics either, its either assumption or speculative.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@ikester7579 If you want me to show you an example of species changing "kinds" you have to tell me what a "kind" is.
123Atheist 1 year ago
The famous atheist cop out. If I tell you, you won't accept it. You'll just change the whole debate subject here. Nice try. I can see you are a waste of time to debate and you are going to waste my time, and everyone else's with your little rabbit trails and refusal to answer my questions. Even though you expect me to answer all of yours. So for that you are now blocked, You cannot say I did not warn you because I already have,
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 dude... you have to define unknown terms, or your claim is unfalsifiable! I don't even think you know what a kind is.
Republica101 1 year ago
@Republica101
They do have dictionaries. But I guess because kind is used in the Bible for creation that even dictionary definition is not acceptable. Not my problem that evos like yourself are so hateful, bias, etc... That you reject and ignore everything else that does not agree with your views. Evolution is more about making things conform to it. Conformity is not science.
ikester7579 1 year ago
123Atheist, Question: What does "no absolutes" mean?
1) Does it mean you have true absolute facts with mountains of true absolute evidence?
2) Does it mean that everyone whom dares to disagree with you is an absolute liar, even though you guys don't have absolute truth?
You see what you guys try to imply with evolution against anyone whom dares to disagree goes totally against the rules of what a theory is supposed to be. Implying absolutes where they don't exist makes evo a oxymoron.
ikester7579 1 year ago
I think this new blog thing sucks. I see double posts and I delete one and both dissappear. Youtube needs to fix that.
ikester7579 1 year ago
Laughing does not prove or debunk anything. In fact I doubt you could hold a debate with a creationist without belittling them because your evidence is just that weak. In science, if the evidence is strong enough the evidence alone wins a debate, Now because you have to resort to other things besides actual evidence speaks volumes about what is wrong with evolution.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 evolution on the other hand is a different story. It's been proven true just as much as gravity has been proven true. But you guys don't even know how it works or how it's supposed to work. You look at something like bacteria and say it's not proof for evolution. That's because you don't completely understand it. It gets annoying to deal with the same misconceptions all the time.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Implying an absolute where absolutes do not exist is making evolution not even a theory. So if you want to go ahead and make evolution not a theory and not scientific all because you cannot prove it. Go ahead, I'm not going to argue with you. You just show how weak your theory is that you have to break you own rules to make it sound like something it's not.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 ok evolution has been proven just as much as gravity has been. Einstien's theories of relativity has just about the same amount of evidence as evolution.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Empirical evidence requires 3 things:
1) testable and re-testable process.
2) Observable.
3) Experienced.
If you cannot observe what is claimed, the rest cancels out. So out of the 100s of claims concerning evolution. Can you name even 5 that are actually observable and not animated in a movie?
98% of all the claimed processes of evolution are not observable. If I'm not, make you huge list of 100s of processes that are observable.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 Evolution is observable. There are many examples of speciation in the lab and in nature. We've even seen new organs evolve.Evolution is testable. All of the fossils are in the "right" order and genetics shows that we had a common ancestor. If evolution happens now then it probably happened in the past. This is where we turn to the fossil record and things like pseudogenes, vestiges and atavisms. They help show that evolution happened in the past and how it happened.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Nice dodge, all claims but no proof. Where's the list I asked for? Oh, that's right. You cannot list 5 observable retestable processes of evolution. You ignoring this only proves my point.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 sorry. The fossil record has been tested. We can predict where a certain fossil using evolutionary theory. For example Tiktaalik was found at the exact time zone for where it was expected to be. Evolution was right about that, and many other cases. I am sure you've heard of Lenski's bacteria. They had successful mutations that helped them survive. Scientists have pinpointed ( in some cases) the exact genes that separate two species that separated recently in the past.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Fossil records prove nothing and here's why. If you take a 4400 year old fossil, and bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years old. And leave there for a few thousand years. Then it gets dug up again. Will it daye it's actual age? Nope. The reason it won't is because the dating markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil making the fossil and layer date the exact same. Knowing this, the fossils can be any age, and the layer redated the with it's dating markers.
ikester7579 1 year ago
You are still skipping that list of five observable re-testable processes of evolution. Ignoring the question instead of admitting there is not five. Means you know the truth about this, but ignore it in favor to believe in what you "want" to be true. What we want does not make new realities just because we want them to. The laws of life do not change so that a theory can work. In fact. mostly what I see is evos trying to make the evidence conform to the theory. Conformity is not science.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 Another example is dog breeding. Dogs have been changed so much over a short period of time. Since humans controlled it it's called artificial selection. Natural selection is when nature decides. You might argue that they are still dogs. That's because humans only modified their outward appearance. Other genes weren't changed much. The basic body designs for dogs was kept. That's why they are still dogs, but would you call them wolves? As they were in the past.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Out of all the changes the dogs went through with all that breeding, was the ever a non-dog produced? Just like the Bible says, they stayed within their kind. Now you know why they stay within their kind? To much change in DNA is deadly. So if another kind were produced, it would have died. Showing that there are limitations to how much change there can be. So your dog example supports creation more than evolution or they would have breeded something beyond a dog.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 sigh. You still lack some knowledge of how it works. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that this is starting to get annoying. Dog breeders were never trying to change the dog into something else. Another reason, not enough time has passed for genetic variation to prevent breeding (but this has been observed in other species).
123Atheist 1 year ago
Annoying? Because I disagree with you and know every debate tactic?
Lack of knowledge? You assume this only because I disagree.
Anyway, the reason a species cannot breed outside of itself is because there are bounderies in how DNA works, being compatable to breed, and to much change killing the life form. Does it sound like I don't know how it works?
It's also annoying that when a evo finds himself losing. they always resort belittling.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 This is how most of evolution works. Through change not increases. That's why we have less genes than some fish. So lets get this straight. Do you believe that dogs can change their appearance a little, in a short amount of time?
123Atheist 1 year ago
No, that your excuse for less complex things having more information. I'll start answering your questions when you start answering mine. If you are going to debate me, it's not going to be one sided. if you don't know what questions, I suggest you read my posts. Otherwise I'm going to ignore you as much as you ignore me in every post.
ikester7579 1 year ago
Then why use evidence that supports God's word of things changing and staying within their kind? You see you get mad because you cannot show me evidence beyond anything going outside of it's kind.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 also life doesn't require an increase in information to evolve. Many creationists wrongly assume this. They also assume that more complex creatures have more information. that's incorrect many fish have more info than us. Most of evolution happens through dna that's already there not through new information. Too much dna would never have been a problem.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Funny you do not list the errors you claim. Also, that is the main problem with evolution. Every claim has a gap that never gets filled. In this particular case the gap is 30%. But then again no absolutes does not require you to fill gaps. In fact it could be reversed and be 70% instead and you would still accept it because no absolutes has no standard. So your point is mute.
And your use of the time god (hundreds of millions of years) shows you have no real answers, only excuses.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 how is pointing to a large amount of time an excuse? That's how much time there was so that's how long it took. Just because 100% of the building blocks weren't there that means that abiogenisis is impossible? All they were trying to prove was that abiogenisis is probable, not that it's true. So far the evidence shows that abiogenisis is definately possible.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Let's say you want to see God in order to believe in God. I say it takes millions of years to do this, Are you going to accept that and believe anyway? No more than I will accept your excuse about time as well.
What this shows is that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does what I believe. Other wise your time excuse would not be needed, now would it? Empirical evidence does not need excuses, unprovable evidence does.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 As for time. There is a difference between saying god uses time and evolution uses time. Evolution is an accumulative process. Without time the genes necessary to survival won't accumulate(i hope you don't misinterpret this). It has been "proved" that what creationists would call micro evolution happens. So to prove that macroevolution happens all that remains is time. So that microevolution can accumulate.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Just because I don't agree does not mean I misunderstand the process. Here again you are using the time God to assume evolution happens. So let's see what we have so far.
1) It takes a long time to make life in the oceans.
2) micro with time to infinity = macro.
3) Given enough time anything can evolve.
This is not science. Time does not prove or equal evolution. And I would challenge you to prove that it does.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 1. It takes a long time to make life in the oceans. Maybe. There was plenty of time for life to develop. Even abiogenisis requires evolution, depending on what you call life. It's not like the whole process can happen in one step. The time was there we are not making up random numbers. Even if life could form spontaneously, we would still have to account for about a billion and a half years.
123Atheist 1 year ago
I suggest you go to my channel and watch the video that loads when you visit. It will explain and show what I cannot here.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 2. Micro + time = macro. That is a fact. The effects of microevolution begin to show over a large amount of time. When we notice a large enough difference we call it macroevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution they are the same thing. That's all we need for fish to evolve into humans. Microevolution. Micro and macro are one and the same thing. Most creationists don't understand this. If you believe in one then you believe in the other. The only difference is time.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Facts come from observable processes. Faith comes from making the claim, then trying to prove it with time, or multiplication of time. For if you are making the claim that micro time what ever, makes macro. Then you should be able to tell us just how many micros it takes. But you cannot. Which takes you back to square one and makes your claim mute. Implying absolutes where that cannot exist will always make your claims fail.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 Being able to watch what creationists would call macroevolution is impossible unless you could watch a species for a long amount of time, and compare pictures of the first and the last. Evolution might have accumulated to create a different species. Time doesn't prove evolution, but having it there definetly helps because it is necessary for animals to change. With enough time there is potential for anything to evolve. But evolution can't work instantaneously.
123Atheist 1 year ago
When you use time as your excuse for no observable processes for your claims. then you are implying that time does prove evolution. So your comment is a oxymoron.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 wait let me start over. it will be better that way. i'll respond later because i'm busy right now
123Atheist 1 year ago
You'll have to, to dig yourself out of this hole you put yourself in.
Now if you cannot hold a decent debate without belittling me in some way or another, don't bother. I'll block you just like everyone else who resorts to doing. And don't use the guilt trip that most atheist use either. You guys get blocked because of how you act period. So let's see if you can keep this civil like an adult.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 ok let's see on what we agree on. People can change a dogs appearance based on which dogs breed. Over a small amount of time we can get a new dog breed. Each generation adds a small amount of change, and these changes add up to change what a dog looks like. I know you know this. To change the dog's appearance, the amount of information isn't increasing. It's staying the same.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@ikester7579 our dating methods show that the earth is old. So that means that 1. life can evolve and 2. there was enough time for it to happen. plus god is a being that isn't restricted. Evolution on the other hand is restricted.
123Atheist 1 year ago
God cannot break His own laws. Being a law breaker means He is not setting a good example for His creation. So yes He is restricted. That is why God said he created everything old.
2pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
God word never says he created the earth new, He created the heavens (universe) old along with everything in it.
ikester7579 1 year ago
Creationists fail at science...
123Atheist 1 year ago
Funny you cannot refute this with science. So you fail and prove my point.
ikester7579 1 year ago
I agree. Even fruit flies disprove evolution. They claim it takes millions of years to see actual evolution to the point claimed. Fruit flies reproduce every 20 minutes. Which means in one million years there are 26,280,000,000,000 generations. But they are still fruit flies. no change = no evolution
ikester7579 1 year ago
Even if you managed to disprove every scientific theory ever developed you would still be no closer to proving the hypothesis of God.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
You just proved that science through evolution is not about finding any truth, but denying God. How ironic that this statement is not where near being scientific, But them again, when the science cannot help you refute what you don't like, what other alternative is there when God has to be rejected?
ikester7579 1 year ago
The statement is completely scientific. You choose not to see it that way. It is a purely logical statement that if denied is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Evolution is not abiogenesis by the way and my thoughts on the non-existence of the Abrahamic god are based on scripture not science.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
Can biological evolution even begin without life? Nope,
So the very bases of what would start the whole process of evo cannot even meet the criteria of being empirical. So the rest of what is claimed cannot even happen. And is the very reason every evoist tries to separate abiogenesis from evo because it disproves it by not giving a actual starting point.
Nice try.
ikester7579 1 year ago
So, do we need to know how the universe came to be, in every detail, in order to know anything else about it? If so, then your logic is seriously flawed and results in the abandonment of every single hypothesis, including your own God hypothesis. Evolution is a fact regardless of abiogenesis. In the same way, gravity is a fact regardless of the full understanding of its origins and mechanisms.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
Evo is a fact? That's inplying an absolute, Which makes evo not a theory and not science. All you are doing here is trying to use your bag of logic tricks to explain away that without abiogenesis, evo fails. It's not my problem, it's yours. So quit trying to blame your problem on God. God did not claim abiogenesis, evos do.
Besides, your comparison either makes creation science, because you put it on the same level. Or makes evo religion. Which is it you are trying to do?
ikester7579 1 year ago
The observed fact of biological evolution is explained by the theory of evolution. The observed fact of gravity is explained by the theory of gravity. Do you understand how science works now?
I have not stated that a god couldn't have been the cause of the universe, that would be intellectually dishonest. I have stated a high improbability that the Abrahamic god caused it, due to discrepancy between scripture and observation.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
Then you don't understand God's word. And refuse to understand creation to be in favor of another idea. Not my problem.
Question:
List all the "observable processes" of evolution?
There is only one. The rest is "interpretated, animated claims" posing as empirical evidence.
ikester7579 1 year ago
Fertilisation & death combined with ecosystem & climate. They are the main factors of evolution, the evidence lies within the way DNA changes over time and between generations.
You suggest that fruit flies have not changed. Have you decoded the DNA of both past and present fruit flies? They do in fact change after every generation at the DNA level.
I understand creation enough to know that it isn't science.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
Did science prove evolution to the point claimed experimenting with fruit flies because they reproduce so quickly? Nope. So your point is mute.
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 according to modern abiogenisis (the miller experiment isn't modern so debunking it wouldn't effect modern evidence) life was formed at the bottom of the ocean. Light doesn't even get that far. Plus water is the most common molecule in the universe, it was there before we got most of our oxygen. Also abiogenisis didn't start with lightning according to modern theory. Chimps have a 2% difference not .2%
123Atheist 1 year ago
LOL, life started at the bottom of the ocean? Can you prove it, or does this stop where the miller experiement does? Where you get the words, the claims, but no real observable process. Which by the way would make your claim empirical. Well is there such a thing, or is time going to be your excuse again?
ikester7579 1 year ago
@ikester7579 As for life starting at the bottom of the ocean. That what current theory assumes. You're right we can't prove that abiogenisis happened because it's unrepeatable. The best we can do is show that it's possible. Progress is being made. Honestly I don't specialize in abiogenisis, but there are many people that know the subject better than i do. You'd be better off debating them on this specific subject.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Now I see your problem. You take it as an absolute that ever process claimed happened even though you cannot observe it. And by doing this you have shown that you have absolute faith that evolution just happens. Why else claim that abiogenesis is not repeatable unless you have faith that even though not observable, it happened anyway? Faith is believing in what you cannot see. You have shown that here with about every post.
ikester7579 1 year ago