8:20 "When Piltdown Man" was actually put under the scientific method, it was discovered to be a hoax by scientists, not creationists"
... was that even necessary?
8:18 "go these bones out of the museum and xrayed the ones that had a very stooped over appearance and low and behold they discovered that the stooped over creatures... had some vitamin D deficiency decease such as arthritis.." Come back to me when you find a one without a screwed up disorder.
5:20 "Homoerectus is by no means a hoax, and it is presented to the public as a true transitional fossil because it is a true transitional fossil" This must be serious evidence yet none is given on it specifically (how so?).
5:41 "Luci is an australopithecus afarensis... has several things that are very different from a modern chimpanzee. One of these differences is that modern chimpanzees have large canines-- no afarensis has large canines.."
So you are saying fossles examined and deemed authentic by M.D.'s,primate specialist and human anatomy specialist than had there paperwork fossil scrapings and cast sent for a independent retesting in front of impartial witness(peer review) who got the same results are using speculation? You are retarded and need to pray away your health problems insted of going to a doctor from now on sence you don't blieve in the scientific method or peer review process.
I ask you where is your peer review source debunking this guys claims present it.
You are the bias one with an agenda. Not only am I willing to go before a cort of law under oath and state both micro and macro evolution as fact but so will the bulk of my church going teachers and students will state on a bible under oath macro evolution is fact. What peer revied papers do you have for creationism? This video was also debunking anther video.
I have seen the cast and pictures of the fossils, I have also seen human chromesome 2 under a microscope.They are all real we have 4 base homonyms and 19 ring transitions.I have them listed as well as genetic evidence. All of them backed by medical experts and primate specialist sent for peer review. What this is your opinion vs lab tested facts. Do you have a source against it backed by peer review?Show us a peer reviewd sorce for your counter.
I have always said this and always will. Whenever you see a video that claims to disprove evolution, look for scientific inaccuracies, strawman arguments, or outright lies. A combination of one, two, or all of them will always be present. If you can find those, you can easily show how their claims are complete bullshit. So props to the maker of this vid for taking the time to expose creationist bullshit.
It's simple, God is God and we are not. If He said it (in The Bible), then it is true. The question is do you really want to base the rest of your eternity on what you have learned? Leading evolutionists have been backed into the corner of having to admit there is a God that created all, but refuse to because that would ruin their whole theory and open the possibility of eternal hell for rejecting Him.
@survive4550 said: "It's simple, God is God and we are not. If He said it (in The Bible), then it is true."
It also said in the Bible that there is a fermament above the earth with windows which God's angels open to let water in. Do you believe that as well?
Do you also believe that slavery is OK, as it says in the Bible?
Keep searching young man, stay skeptical of ALL assertions, stay true to the TRUE scientific method-- soon you will find that the emperor indeed wears no clothes. Your video is merely the parroting of the official story you have been spoon-fed at university-- don't settle for it!
If people claim bigfoots are out there your gonna tell me our government hasn't tried to locate one and found one. If they did would they tell us??? Answer is No... They wouldn't wanna tell us. Due to the fact of 2 things. Scientists would autopsy them. And possibly ruin science then... Would bring up other dead ends.. like(alien involvement) .. and everything on evolution would fall apart as we know it... So the government just let's us take the Sasquatch phoenomenon as a joke .. and leaves it
Think about that . Sasaquatch was found in the carolinas but the government switched out the body and let the hunters wallow in stupidity and threatened to kill them if they didn't go with the story. Look at BFRO website. The Sasquatch is a real species. Adapted to the deep woods thriving woodsman for millions of years . We are the aliens to it. Think about it.....
There is no pre human. We were created . Aliens used a legenday Sasquatch. And other DNA and made us. Sasquatch are the true earthlings. This is the last true homnids. This is also why the government refuses to get involved with Sasquatch they know the truth. The would rather let Americans bounce it around as a joke. But the Sasquatch/bigfoot is the last of our planets evolution of ape. Our traits are from them with alterations from aliens. This is what I believe.
Archaeopteryx is my favorite evidence for Creation
theirs about 9 I think last time I checked
& their is none more evolved or less evolved, All 9 are the same metaphorically
IF evolution were true, their would be thousands at a gradual evolutionary progression leading to the 9 found & maybe even some a lil more evolved if its a transitional for, The fact that all 9 are the same Metaphorically defies all odds IF evolution were true, like ONLY DRAWING 10's outta a Deck of Cards !
wrong go to talk origins web site they went into detail and the creationist claims have yest to name there peer reviewd sources for there rebuttals to this one.
i'm not gonna go through all the BS propaganda to get to a small piece of information you want me to see that you I dont even know what it is you specifically want me to Look at,
You need to go to ICRorg everytime from now on & make sure theirs not a perfectly good explination before you post anything anymore ever from now on !!!
Its not propaganda it is just peer reviewd rebuttals to creationist claims, opinions and lies.
You just showed a bias toward a non bias source. Lab test and forensic science has no opinion there for no bias. It is true they refused to name there source for there clame of it being a fully formed bird and had 3 or more opinion based views to it but no peer reviewed facts.
@TheMrgoku1985 Claim~Many mainstream scientists point out serious problems with evolution, including problems with some of its most important points.
Orgins response~There are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution
Wiki creation response~Talk Origins makes a serious mistake here. Rather than saying "there are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution", the author should've said "I don't acknowledge any serious problems with the theory of evolution"
Again creationism has not based on lab work or forensics. There is no problems with evolution in fact evidence keeps building up, this is a fact I personally can tell you. Quote mines ad opinion are not evidence against evolution. You fail.
@TheMrgoku1985 You fail, It is so Obvious that Evolution Didn't happen
that even God says you gotta be a fool to not realize that !
look how many millions of life forms there is & yet you tell me Creationist dont have Lab work supporting our view ! sometimes it is the failure of an experiment that leads to the Conclusion, & Lab work has not produced all or even any of the life forms from non life material, not a blade of grass or a tree or fish or what would eventually become a mammal ! u fail
Now you are making an assertion (your personal god did it) circular reasoning (your bible says it so it must be true). Me what we see in the lab what we tested and repeated and submitted for peer review.
@TheMrgoku1985 You can believe aliens dropped us off here as part of an experiment if you want too,
BUT THE FACT IS, that regardless of so many scientist trying to do experiments to show evolution is true & that non life mattter can be formed into life forms the results Have ALL Fit the creation Model !!!!!!!
not one blad of grass, or any fish or human or even a bacteria have been created from non-life scratch & you expect me to believe it happened on it's own when it cant be done when trying?
I didn't think this was a very good rebuttal, even to a video made 20 years ago. It's too bad the universities are all looking for fame putting their agendas in archeologists heads with a demand for results. Heck I can easily see why someone would put scattered bones miles apart together in hope to keep the money flowing
Probably the most significant thing this video taught me was that Neanderthal man looked like Vin Diesel! LOL
Enough mico evolution (mutation) causes macro evolution (speciation). This has been a PROVEN FACT. It's support by evidence in fossils, DNA, molecular biology, anatomy, geology, etc. The process has also been witnessed on a microscopic scale (their reproductive cycles are MUCH faster, simulating millions of years for larger longer-living animals). In the medical world, they occasionally have to update antibiotics due to bacteria evolving to resist previous antibiotics.
Lol i stumbled onto this and i just want to put in that you dont have to not believe in a creator to not believe in creationism. Im christian love God, but i do not believe in creationism. I believe God created through evelution. And i just wanted to say that. There is no need for the argueing. Other than that interesting stuff!
@4FunPlayin no he is right,the missing links are a hoax or you have either ape or man or no inbetween,you are missing a chain.Let me give you a hint,it does not exist.He was right,if you remove the lies from the text books then the evolution theory is dead.There is alot of lies aswell,no wonder people hate kent so much.He threatens their beliefs.Also he pointed out that the dateing methods are not acurate,serioulsy fully look into evolution and you will see the trciks they have pulled.
@4FunPlayin dude i sued to be a an athiest and fully beeleived in the theory of evolution,they are really hopeing the youth and each generation will not question it.those who do will be made fun of by those who have been conditioned to accept it as fact.if it was 100% fact we came from monkeys they would not have creation and evolution deabtes,the creationist is the one who seems to come out on top in thiose deabtes aswell.Hmmm i wonder why,something is not right.
@4FunPlayin lol your laughing to reasure yourself.You know full well its not 100% that evolution from apes is true,you have to believe and make assumptions.Man was always man from the original creation and now all they can do is provide hoax missing links and keep repeating it untill a whole geneation is brainwashed.
I did when i asked god if it was true that he existed & if it's true the only way for me to get to heaven was to be "born Again" to go ahead & do that to me & reveal the truth to me, I crtainly had my doubts at the time & did believe in evolution, God immediatly started to work on me & within 3 months I KNEW HE EXISTED & I believe I was saved from that day, as for Evolution, LOL, I believed that for a while longer,but now cant believe I ever bought into that BS
@ncwdane i accept the facts of evolution but i already know we come from god by simply reading biblical scripture evolution has a part that is mere speculation and some that is fact but i dont see why it should be an arguement against god cause theres not enough evidence for that and i take everything the bible says to be correct
@matrixlone: You're gonna talk about mere speculation, and yet you believe in god, and what is written in the Bible? The hypocrisy! Provide some evidence that both (a) what is written about theological matters, not historical matters, in the Bible is accurate, and (b) provide some evidence that this invisible man in the sky exists. Until then, don't you dare accuse anyone of mere speculation.
@McTaggStar i dont think so im done debating and arguing historic and scientific evidences because its not convincing to you people i put together a playlist you can chek it out expecially the vids of people that see jesus christ in a dream these testimonial evidences i am open to talk about because this is more concrete evidence proving the deity of christ and understanding where to look for evidence you can also read the book of daniel in the bible among many that show how god communicates
@matrixlone: My dear sir, in my dreams I build go-karts with my ex-land lord, and I have a conversation with the Easter Bunny over coffee. What happens in dreams has no baring on reality, and what happens in reality need not have any baring on dreams (although some times we dream about things that took place in reality, perhaps during the day before we sleep). Someone speaking with Jesus on a dream does not constitute evidence of Jesus' existence anymore than my dream that I'm having coffee with
@matrixlone: the Easter Bunny constitutes evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny. Your play-list of videos are all done (or at least the ones I've seen so far) by creationists, people whose entire world-view and emotional life is at stake in the evolution vs. creation debate. Scientists have nothing at stake in this debate, no emotional investment. A definition of science could be the dispassionate pursuit of truth by means of empirical observation and experiment. Creation "science", on
@matrixlone: the other hand is not a dispassionate pursuit of truth based on any admissible evidence; rather it is a last-ditch effort to salvage a belief-system that is antiquated, and frankly absurd. And what is more, creationists aren't defending their creationism and promoting it for the beneficent education of others, they are promoting it to continually reaffirm their own beliefs, because those beliefs constitute the emotional crutch that helps them get through life. Creationists thus have
@matrixlone: no credibility in the debate, being extremely biased. The wonderful thing about the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view is that the theory presupposes very little assumptions, making it elegant in that sense. But even more great than that, there is a wealth of evidence for the theory, just presented in Darwin's Origin of Species alone. And of course with successive generations we've amassed even more. G'day
@McTaggStar you know what just stick to the evolution theory if thats what your interested in mkay like i said im only open to discussing the testimonial evidence because quite frankly i dont care anymore about scientific or historic data it always goes off subject and ends up being pointless in an arguement please understand and no no hypocrisy i know whats a fact and what isnt about the theory mkay good bye
@matrixlone: I am a proponent of the theory of evolution because it is backed by hard evidence, both from the fossil record and from molecular biology. I don't "stick to it" because I'm simply interested. You don't care about scientific evidence, but you care about testimonial evidence. The problem with that is that people are prone to all sorts of mistakes, fallacies, delusions, and so on; the scientific method is not. People are fallible, science is not, when done properly. And no, I don't
@matrixlone: think you do know what the facts are and what they are not when it comes to the theory of evolution. A bumpkin like you who barely manages to string together coherent sentences is very unlikely to have received a formal science education, and unfortunately, if you're not educated in science then you're just not going to know the facts. You'd never claim to "know the facts" when it comes to medicine without having gone to medical school. The same principle applies.
@McTaggStar jesus man do i have to spell everything out to you no offense but you have piss poor understanding if you dont want to talk about the testimonial evidences then leave me alone i already said im not wasting my time arguing over that shit go find a creationist
@matrixlone: It's ironic that you're telling me I have a "piss poor understanding" when you're the one who, after a couple explanations, still doesn't grasp that testimonials do not constitute reliable evidence when it comes to determining the existence of "god". Not what so ever. I'm sorry that that is a concept you can't wrap your mind around, but people are incredibly prone to delusions, fallacies of reasoning, etc. And if you don't care to continue the convo, you don't have to reply.
@McTaggStar bro that is not my damn fault you dont understand gods nature through simple biblical scripture because your ignorant on the subject of god dosent mean he doesnt exist smart one it just means you dont know were to look mkay bye
@matrixlone: Orly? Actually, I studied theology under my parish priest from 15-16 years of age in order to be confirmed and because I was interested in pursuing a career as a clergymen. I also have 5 years of Catholic high school under my belt. I also have 10+ years of church on Sundays and Bible study on Wednesday nights. Don't be so presumptuous "bro", I've probably more theological knowledge than yourself. In the end, there is no evidence to support any of the theological claims in scripture.
@McTaggStar read the book of daniel and see the first verse in my page i dont need to be an expert to understand where to look for evidence dont think im going to be intimidated by titles i am not
@matrixlone: My friend, the Bible does not constitute evidence for the existence of God. "'Do you believe in God? 'Well, yes.' 'But why?' 'Well read *insert bible verse here*' 'But how do you know the Bible is correct?' 'Because it is the Word of God!' 'Um, but you just said you believe god exists because of the Bible, and now you're telling me you believe in the truth of the Bible because its the "word of god"? You're going around in circles!'". 'Nuff said.
@McTaggStar thats testimony to the holy spirit thats what it does its purpose is to help you interpret the bible and what it means that may be hard for you to understand but thats how biblical prophecy works people think its simply matching shit together but thats not the case because theyre being lead by the spirit and to understand if the prophet is false or indeed telling the truth you have to pay attention to what hes saying and measure them by the book visions and dreams are ways to see it
@matrixlone: I understand perfectly well sir, as I said, I have a fair bit of theological training, at least relative to the average person. So I understand full well the points you're making. And it matters not: you've still failed to provide evidence for this "holy spirit". Sure, if the holy spirit exists, then we might be able to make some inferences and come to the conclusion that is aids in the interpretation of scripture. But you must, at the outset, provide evidence the holy spirit exists
@matrixlone: And since the holy spirit exists iff god exists, you must provide evidence for god's existence. There is no evidence for god's existence, so there is no evidence for the holy spirit's existence. Therefore, you cannot be sure that there is a holy spirit aiding in Biblical interpretation. Testimony does not constitute evidence that the holy spirit, and by implication, god exists, because people's testimony on these matters is highly epistemically dubious. 'Nuff said.
@matrixlone: Imagine I say to you "there is an elf in my garden!" And you say "Cool! Can I see it?" And I say "No, you can't see it, he's invisible." You're likely to say "Well, how do you know there is an elf in your garden then?? :S:S:S" And I reply "Well, he speaks to me, silly!" You'd likely think "OoOoOokay then, weirdo." The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how sincere I am about believing that said elf speaks to me. There is no way to verify that I am really being spoken to by
@matrixlone: an invisible elf, or if I am experiencing a delusion. Although, psychiatry would likely diagnose me as experiencing some sort of delusion. In any case, my testimony, even if it is good testimony, we have no WAY to know that it is such. So testimony cannot constitute reliable evidence, at least not on it's own independent of physical evidence, statistical, and so on.
@matrixlone: Case closed, my friend. I'm quite sorry. No one wants to admit they're wrong and I understand that full well. But the fact of the matter is, testimonial evidence is not good evidence; its not even evidence at all. I can go on and on about how I feel the elf exists, I FEEL His presence, he speaks to me, and so on. But in the end, there is no way to know that what I am experiencing is delusion or reality. But frankly, the odds are, its a delusion.
@McTaggStar mkay heres the thing you people say theres no evidence of god the bible which your very ignorant of because you dont understand alot of things because by your logic it has to be scientific or historical and im trying to help you understand what evidence really looks like i could give a shit about arguing it proves nothing good luck with faulty debatable evidence its endless to discuss that your right no one likes to admit theyre wrong you know what ill even say you won this argument
@matrixlone: You're actually a complete, and utter idiot. And it's amusing. I'm a scientist-in-training, and you're going to take me to school on what counts as evidence and what doesn't? Preposterous! Lol
@matrixlone: I've made my point very simply. Provide evidence that "god" exists, and I will be a believer. Until evidence is provided, the default position is non-belief. I do not make the bold claim that god simply does not exist. Rather, I simply lack belief in the claim "god exists" because I do not believe there is any good evidence to suggest that is true. You've argued that personal testimony is evidence, or something along those lines. I disagree entirely.
@matrixlone: I don't think it takes a genius to realize that it's silly to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Garden fairies might exist, but unless there is evidence that they exist I have no reason to believe in them. The same goes for your "god". "God" might exist, yes; but there is no evidence of his existence. So the rational default position is to not believe until there is evidence. It's so clear-cut and simple. G'day
@matrixlone: It's not my opinion that you haven't shown any evidence, it is a fact that you haven't shown any evidence. I'll accept Christ when you (a) demonstrate his existence and (b) demonstrate that he is god. Evidence my friend, evidence. Otherwise you're talking out your ass.
@McTaggStar oh god another guy that think christ never existed because josephus was forged you can look up jp holdings vids on that and a bunch of other vids i have on that in my playlist if u actually went there you would have seen them you dont try very hard
@matrixlone: You're still not getting it matrixlone. I am not asserting that Jesus never existed, and I am not asserting that "god" does not exist. I am saying that there is no evidence for either claim, so I have no good reason to believe.
@matrixlone: I am not going to sugar coat anything for you. I do not believe that you know a god, or have a personal relationship with said god; I do not believe that any gods exist, and I affirmatively believe that your religious experiences can be entirely explained by the sciences of neurology and psychiatry. Indeed, the neurosciences have done a pretty good job of explaining religious experiences in terms of biochemical and physiological processes.
@matrixlone: I don't claim to know you. I was speaking more or less in generality. Those who have religious experiences are experiencing delusions, delusions which have been explained in terms of neurology. And I am quite familiar with Cartesianism, and it's quite out-dated. It also doesn't stack up, philosophically. I've been a philosophy major for several years now, and I am not inclined to waste any more time on Cartesianism.
@McTaggStar well go argue with him on that i already told you im not wasting my time with you on that stuff dont ever tell me that i dont know my god like you pretty much just did i think you pretty much just proven that your a moron who only claims to use logic and reason mister know it all case closed
@matrixlone: I'm a moron because I doubt your claims that a god exists and that you have a personal relationship with him? No. I'd be moronic if I believed without sufficient evidence.
@matrixlone: That doesn't mean I claim to be all-knowing whatsoever. I'm far from all-knowing. But I know for darn sure that the Bible does not constitute evidence for the existence of "god". PEOPLE wrote the Bible, not "god". And people are prone to delusion and fallacious reasoning. It's quite simple.
@McTaggStar and its quite simple you dont understand the holy spirit and how god works to reveal personal revelations to people which is clearly how he works throughout the bible like daniel joseph and many others
@matrixlone: If your "god" is so all-powerful, then he has the ability to make himself present for you. But god never seems to actually do that, does he? He always reveals himself to people in dreams, or speaks to them telepathically. You never actually hear some divine voice from above, do you? Sort us just like how little children never actually SEE santa clause, they're told he comes at night while they're asleep. See the similarity? Your experience of "god" is a delusion, my friend.
@McTaggStar lmfnao and whats that look like then since you claim i didnt didnt i give you some channels in fact why dont you go look for it since you know what it looks like also santa claus too then since your comparing them for some reason cause you can tell the mass differences between the two
@matrixlone: YouTube channels are not evidence for the existence of god, and nothing anyone says in a youtube video is evidence for the existence of god. I've studied theology and philosophy for years and years, and I have never come across an argument for the existence of god that turns out to hold its own. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence for god. that is why religious claims are expected to be taken on faith, because of the lack of evidence.
@matrixlone: Actually, atheism is on the rise, and religiosity is on the decline, at least here in North America. So actually, you're of a dying breed. I'll get my evidence soon enough? Is that supposed to imply that I'll find out when I'm dead? I do not believe you go anywhere when you die, so no. You simply rot in the ground and cease to be conscious.
@McTaggStar lol whatever you say you can also chek the vid i faved at the front you act as if science is against god no its not just your view is i only present you the evidence for the biblical god when you clearly are very ignorant on the bible which means your ignorant on the nature and character of god i can go on on about this if you want the fact is you really arent someone that can tell me what is and what isnt evidence which is why you wont be satisfied with any evidence that is present
@matrixlone: Yes, actually, science is "against god". Science is founded on the notion of evidence for claims. There is no evidence for the existence of god. I cannot be ignorant about the character of someone/something that I do not believe exists. As for the concept of the Biblical god, I am not ignorant of "his" character as it is portrayed in the Bible, since I have years of Christian education under my belt. It comes down to EVIDENCE. There is no EVIDENCE for the existence of your god.
@matrixlone: I'm always interested by that claim by theists, that there is evidence, you just can't see it because you're not looking in the right places/you can't see it, what have you. It's a cop-out. "There's evidence, you just can't see it". Nah, that doesn't fly with me. I'm a bright person, and so are the thousands of scientists who've been and gone over the centuries. If there was evidence to be had, it would be plain for all to see. But the evidence isn't there.
@McTaggStar thats funny because i honestly cant find a good arguement against theism i really cant and your probably talking about biased scientists that share your view i know plenty that say some sort of intelligence or creator they get logical points for that and even they dont have as much knowledge on biblical scritpture they do however have logic and reason
@matrixlone: The fact that you're even talking about arguments against theism demonstrates your lack of understanding. Atheism in the real sense is not the belief in the statement "God does not exist". It is a LACK OF BELIEF in the statement "God exists". Atheists aren't out to "disprove" theism; they simply don't believe in the claims of theists, namely that a god exists.
@matrixlone: Atheists are doubting Thomases. Most aren't bold enough to say "I know there is no god" because most believe you can't know that. But they also recognize that you can't know that a god exists either. So they simply do not believe it when people say that god exists. That's all. It's as simple as that, and that is what I've been saying this whole time. Atheism therefore requires no arguments, requires no faith, nothing. Its a simple lack of belief.
I'm a Christian but I'm not gonna get on here and ignore science and sound retarded, but facts need to be brought to the surface:
In discovering "Ardipithecus ramidus," it must be mentioned that the only bones that were discovered were a a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth . Not only that, but they were discovered in 5 DIFFERENT locations and over a period of 5 years! Explain how they assemble 1 creature from that
@albinowonder00 I am not a christian and I want some answers for your question, too! I call BS. I have read darwin's BS and I say science contradicts his theory. REAL science, not your cocka mayme extrapolations and speculation, based on so precious little observed fact. Replace all instances of "Natural Selection" with anything denoting "creator/designer" and it almost sounds like Engineers tinkering with their invention, trying to get it right. Or is it all one big beautiful accident?
That original video shat all over itself at the end---it could have been credible had it not ran over to creationism at the end---what kind of fucking moron disproves one theory on non evidential ground to support another theory with ABSOLUTELY no evidence aswell? fucking garbage.
@TheNorthFakeFisherman i also gave proof of flaws in their theorys big blemish of a flaw plus their lil suicide koolaid party so i wasnt trolling but expressing my opinion
Ur vid is gay. Evolution is a theory not a science. Do u really belive u came from a rock. Anyways u know over 900 of ur litle evolutionist buddies killed them selves with poison koolaid?! Plus i have proof evolution is a lie because u say u find the age of a layer of dirt by the fossils in it and the age of the fossils by the layer of dirt? Thats circular reasoning buddy we have the fossils my ass
@buffboynick Science /has/ found missing links. Archaeopteryx is a fossil discovered showing features of bird and reptile distinctions. There is also 'living' evidence of missing links. The Platypus, for instance, is half reptile, half mammal. When Darwin first wrote Origin of Species these links were the missing piece of the puzzle, but once Archaeopteryx was discovered, scientists realized Darwin's theory was fact.
No we are still missing several transitional fossils. There is a lack of fossils between archaic humans and homo habilis that requires more research.
And not for a second should you try to rebuttal my comment. By saying we require more research should spark an increase in curiousity in science and archaeology to discover more of them. It is not to state anything about proving creationism or ID.
It is to increase the interest in archaeology so we can have more of them. Please understand that.
Darwinism a "fairytale"? lmao! Do some research and find that several people had the same idea before Darwin but didn't have the cajones to say anything because they were afraid the church would torture the!!! So explain to me how all these people could have the same idea at the same time without a bible, koran, or other "holy" book to spread the ideas? Because its based on EVIDENCE! not FAIRYTALES!
A. "greater" is a perceptive value. (maybe human's are the bottom of the pool)
B. "transitional" is a perceptive value and a bias assumption.
C. Evolution unless a god with a mind cannot determine if a wing is "better" than a fin. It does not have a will nor a mind. To assume genetics or organics inherently have bio that morfs into adaptations to accommodate a situation is believing in a god.
@JewLoco Fact and religion are anything but harmonious. What empirical evidence is there behind the Earth (according to the Bible) is 6,000 years old? How did God flood the Earth, yet there is no scientific remnants of it? Religion is about faith and faith only; there is no fact behind it.
The unimaginable information in DNA — regarding all a person’s characteristics, from their physical appearance to the structure of their internal organs, is recorded in a special coding system inside DNA. If we were to put down this genetic information in DNA on paper, we would have to construct a giant library of 900 volumes containing 500 pages each. This unimaginable quantity of information is encoded in the parts of DNA known as “genes.” It is an absolute fact that DNA cannot form by chance.
1. The coelacanth existed 150-200 million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs.Put forward by scientists as the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates.Darwinists had made countless claims about the fossil Coelacanth, interpreting its fins as legs about to start walking and a fossilized oil sac as a primitive lung.
2.The capture of a living Coelacanth came as a terrible disappointment to Darwinists. In addition, the animals showed no sign of change over 450 million years. To put it another way, its complexity today is the same as it was 450 million years in the past.Following the scientific realization of all this, the Coelacanth assumed its place as an example of a living fossil and all the claims about its being a transitional form were withdrawn.
3.Darwinists lost yet another fossil they had speculated about so much. Had this animal not been found todays seas, then, just as with Archaeopteryx, there would have been no end to the Darwinist speculation regarding it. It would still be depicted as the greatest representative of the passage from water to land, and there would be thousands of pieces of conjecture about it being AS IF THE UNQUESTIONABLE FINEST TRANSITIONAL FORM.
Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your comments. They were marked as spam and ever sent to my e-mail account. Luckily, I am in the habit of reading old comments and happened upon these.
Another lucky thing I have answered this question several times for other creationists.
First, you have to understand that Coelacanth stands for an order level classification. Within this order, there have been several different families, genera, and species.
Second, you are mistaken on your dates. The modern Coelacanth (Latimeria) is closely related to the Cretaceous Coelacanth Macropoma (they both belong to the same family Latimeriidea). The Coelacanth that you are talking about, the one thought to be closely related to tetrapods are Miguashaia, which lived during the Devonian (4.16 – 359 Ba). This genus of Coelacanth was long extinct before Macropoma evolved.
Furthermore, Latimeria (the modern one) does have some fundamental differences with Macropoma. The first being that Latimeria is a lot larger and they live in completely different environments. Macropoma lived in shallow seas whereas Latimeria lives in deep oceans (which explains why we did not find any fossils of it).
Another thing, evolution only predicts that organisms will evolve to fit a niche. Once that niche is met, an organism is not under selective pressures anymore. With no selective pressure driving evolution, Latimeria was free to stay unchanged for millions of years. According to evolution, it does not have to change until its niche changes.
@jebus6kryst I feel that your explanation of evolution is slightly inadequate here (I could definitely be wrong). I like to think of evolution as a continuous stream, so it never really stops, but can slow down drastically. I agree that an organism can more or less go more or less unchanged for millions of years, but it isn't necessarily done evolving (even if it's environment stays the same). In a way, we ourselves and all living things today are "intermediate forms" to future species.Good vid!
If it is inadequate in any way, it is because I am responding in 500 character boxes. Not the best way to explain ones self. About your idea of evolution, you are correct, and your analogy of it being a continuous stream is quite good. We are never done evolving. However, stasis is something that is seen in the fossil record, where creatures go for long periods with little change (Coelacanth).
Natural selection designs organisms to fit their niche and if the niche does not change, the organism does not have to change much. Nevertheless, this does not stop the slow build up of neutral mutations. That is why when we find “living fossils” they only resemble creatures from millions of years ago; they are not the same species. Their niche did not change for that long, but neutral mutations still changed them ever so slight.
@jebus6kryst Science has not been able to create one single Protein!!..do to the fact that u must have all LEFT handed amino acids..its a Paradox.to the highest lever. Miller failed back in 1953.and No advancements have been made..today science proves life can not emerge from simple chemicals.now science says it formed out in space on the backs of crystals..is that a testable science?.what a joke.u must have some faith inscience
Another point is that not everything is an intermediate, at least not by how a transitional fossil is defined. If humans were to go extinct there would be no species after us, therefore, we would not be transitional. An example of this from the hominin lineage is Au. robustus. There are transitional fossils leading up to it, but it is the last of its lineage, therefore, it is not transitional, it left no descendents.
@jebus6kryst I most certainly concur that if humans were to go extinct, then indeed we would have been the final species in genus "homo." What I meant when I said that is that a lot of people (especially creationists) misunderstand evolution and think of it having a "goal" or animals today being in their "final stage." I am just trying to emphasis that evolution is continuous and is happening right now and given time, will lead many of these "modern" organisms to become new species altogether!
@jebus6kryst No problem, sorry if my initial statement was a bit unclear. I just hate it when creationists use (whether intentionally or ignorantly) straw man representations of and/or gross misunderstandings of the (quite rigorous) theory of evolution. So I always find myself trying to clarify their understanding of it. Jeez, if these people are going to argue and disagree over it, you'd think they would at least try to "get" the full theory (although some of them do thankfully).
@jebus6kryst How do proteins select only left-handed amino acids????? And why do no right-handed ones ever creep in??? This is a question that evolutionists are unable to explain away, and cannot account for such a specialized, conscious selectivity.
,but iam sure u know more than leading scientist Dean Kenyon Biochemical chemist...who believed in evolution for 25 years and believes in Intelligence!!!!!!
huh lots of arguing here funny how people disregard things because they disagree If some you you guys paid atention you'd realize that humans have evolved i dont think from apes though if you'd pay attention you see that evolution is changing and adapting to your environment which is something EVERY human has done whether its as lil as being used to cold or something as big as a change in body structure I believe humans were created but if you pay attention evolution theory has some valid points
@jebus6kryst theres been scientitfic proof hominids didnt evolve in a straight line as believed. they found da fossils of a hominid that looks more like a modern human thats even older than lucy, who was thought to be one of the starting point of human/ape evolution
8:20 "When Piltdown Man" was actually put under the scientific method, it was discovered to be a hoax by scientists, not creationists"
... was that even necessary?
8:18 "go these bones out of the museum and xrayed the ones that had a very stooped over appearance and low and behold they discovered that the stooped over creatures... had some vitamin D deficiency decease such as arthritis.." Come back to me when you find a one without a screwed up disorder.
LampPlaceThing 1 week ago
5:20 "Homoerectus is by no means a hoax, and it is presented to the public as a true transitional fossil because it is a true transitional fossil" This must be serious evidence yet none is given on it specifically (how so?).
5:41 "Luci is an australopithecus afarensis... has several things that are very different from a modern chimpanzee. One of these differences is that modern chimpanzees have large canines-- no afarensis has large canines.."
So what there is some changes and.....
LampPlaceThing 1 week ago
@LampPlaceThing
Talk origins web site has peer reviewed papers on all 19 legitimate transitional forms found.
themrgoku1988 4 days ago
@themrgoku1988 Nice site that "talk origins .org" has even some links to Creationist comments. Thanks for the info.
LampPlaceThing 4 days ago
@LampPlaceThing
Creationism is not tested fact.
There are NO peer reviewed creationist claims.
There is also NO successively tested hypothesis FOR creationism.
themrgoku1988 4 days ago
WOW - Someone tells you something is 3.7 million years old and you just accept that? Incredibly stupid.
jbooks888 3 weeks ago
@jbooks888
Radioactive decay testing is the back bone of building an A-bomb ignore them you ignore the bombing of Japan in WW2.
The people who did the peer review examinations where M.D.'s (medical Doctors)and primate specialist working together.
Feel free to pray away your illnesses and refuse medical treatments if you die now.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
Your three favorite 'transitional fossils' have been debunked. It just depends on who you listen to.
jbooks888 3 weeks ago
DAWKINS ADMITS TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
SEARCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
VIEW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
WATCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
KNOW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
SHARE: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
Dawkins: Civilisation with high level of technology from elsewhere in universe seeded self replicating molecules on this planet?
mat2112moneychangers 1 month ago
@John64355
So you are saying fossles examined and deemed authentic by M.D.'s,primate specialist and human anatomy specialist than had there paperwork fossil scrapings and cast sent for a independent retesting in front of impartial witness(peer review) who got the same results are using speculation? You are retarded and need to pray away your health problems insted of going to a doctor from now on sence you don't blieve in the scientific method or peer review process.
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
@John64355
I ask you where is your peer review source debunking this guys claims present it.
You are the bias one with an agenda. Not only am I willing to go before a cort of law under oath and state both micro and macro evolution as fact but so will the bulk of my church going teachers and students will state on a bible under oath macro evolution is fact. What peer revied papers do you have for creationism? This video was also debunking anther video.
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
@John64355
I have seen the cast and pictures of the fossils, I have also seen human chromesome 2 under a microscope.They are all real we have 4 base homonyms and 19 ring transitions.I have them listed as well as genetic evidence. All of them backed by medical experts and primate specialist sent for peer review. What this is your opinion vs lab tested facts. Do you have a source against it backed by peer review?Show us a peer reviewd sorce for your counter.
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
Evolutionist are idiot of 21st century.
strangerlover11 1 month ago
@strangerlover11
Because they can spell?
anglicantian 1 month ago
I have always said this and always will. Whenever you see a video that claims to disprove evolution, look for scientific inaccuracies, strawman arguments, or outright lies. A combination of one, two, or all of them will always be present. If you can find those, you can easily show how their claims are complete bullshit. So props to the maker of this vid for taking the time to expose creationist bullshit.
travmanbw43 2 months ago
It's amazing how EVERY single Creationist claim is such an obvious lie!!
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
It's simple, God is God and we are not. If He said it (in The Bible), then it is true. The question is do you really want to base the rest of your eternity on what you have learned? Leading evolutionists have been backed into the corner of having to admit there is a God that created all, but refuse to because that would ruin their whole theory and open the possibility of eternal hell for rejecting Him.
survive4550 3 months ago
@survive4550 I believe you just broke commandment number 9.
maxergud 2 months ago
@survive4550 said: "It's simple, God is God and we are not. If He said it (in The Bible), then it is true."
It also said in the Bible that there is a fermament above the earth with windows which God's angels open to let water in. Do you believe that as well?
Do you also believe that slavery is OK, as it says in the Bible?
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@survive4550 All of this is a complete lie.
travmanbw43 2 months ago
@travmanbw43 Oh really they can spell so I challenge them to spell for those american
20 milliions gay to convert them to real man.......hahahhahah
strangerlover11 1 month ago
@strangerlover11 Huh?
travmanbw43 1 month ago
I am the missing link!!!!
iwanttocrashmybike 3 months ago 4
Keep searching young man, stay skeptical of ALL assertions, stay true to the TRUE scientific method-- soon you will find that the emperor indeed wears no clothes. Your video is merely the parroting of the official story you have been spoon-fed at university-- don't settle for it!
WilliamTyndale1 3 months ago
No proof that primitive turned to more advanced.
Fossils ONLY prove that something existed NOT that it changed.
There is no evidence to prove Evolutionism.
"I highly doubt..." Not proof.
Footprint aging based on assumptions and speculation.
The fossil evidence is fact until we find something else.
Never say that these fossils are an extinct species of ape.
Making excuses for fraudulent evidence - not proof.
Fail.
character654 3 months ago
If people claim bigfoots are out there your gonna tell me our government hasn't tried to locate one and found one. If they did would they tell us??? Answer is No... They wouldn't wanna tell us. Due to the fact of 2 things. Scientists would autopsy them. And possibly ruin science then... Would bring up other dead ends.. like(alien involvement) .. and everything on evolution would fall apart as we know it... So the government just let's us take the Sasquatch phoenomenon as a joke .. and leaves it
srsmillwork 3 months ago
Think about that . Sasaquatch was found in the carolinas but the government switched out the body and let the hunters wallow in stupidity and threatened to kill them if they didn't go with the story. Look at BFRO website. The Sasquatch is a real species. Adapted to the deep woods thriving woodsman for millions of years . We are the aliens to it. Think about it.....
srsmillwork 3 months ago
There is no pre human. We were created . Aliens used a legenday Sasquatch. And other DNA and made us. Sasquatch are the true earthlings. This is the last true homnids. This is also why the government refuses to get involved with Sasquatch they know the truth. The would rather let Americans bounce it around as a joke. But the Sasquatch/bigfoot is the last of our planets evolution of ape. Our traits are from them with alterations from aliens. This is what I believe.
srsmillwork 3 months ago
Creation vs Evolution Debate Sun the 28th
Like to see your side of the story there...
w w w ( D O T ) blogtalkradio ( D O T ) com/shockawenow
ncwdane 5 months ago
@Rooker2012 Yeah, but it's not what you think
ncwdane 5 months ago
Archaeopteryx is my favorite evidence for Creation
theirs about 9 I think last time I checked
& their is none more evolved or less evolved, All 9 are the same metaphorically
IF evolution were true, their would be thousands at a gradual evolutionary progression leading to the 9 found & maybe even some a lil more evolved if its a transitional for, The fact that all 9 are the same Metaphorically defies all odds IF evolution were true, like ONLY DRAWING 10's outta a Deck of Cards !
ncwdane 5 months ago
@ncwdane
What kind of bird has teeth?
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
Many have pseudoteeth, why, if theres asome around today does that disprove evolution or visa versa ?
Greylag Goose for instance
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwane
wrong go to talk origins web site they went into detail and the creationist claims have yest to name there peer reviewd sources for there rebuttals to this one.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 I Been to that site
i'm not gonna go through all the BS propaganda to get to a small piece of information you want me to see that you I dont even know what it is you specifically want me to Look at,
You need to go to ICRorg everytime from now on & make sure theirs not a perfectly good explination before you post anything anymore ever from now on !!!
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwane
Its not propaganda it is just peer reviewd rebuttals to creationist claims, opinions and lies.
You just showed a bias toward a non bias source. Lab test and forensic science has no opinion there for no bias. It is true they refused to name there source for there clame of it being a fully formed bird and had 3 or more opinion based views to it but no peer reviewed facts.
-talk origins website
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 The rebutles to talking orgins
~ creationwiki org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwdane
A propaganda site not PEER REVIEW material based site.
I have been there.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@ncwdane
Quote mines and opinion no peer reviewd facts thats the best you have?
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Claim~Many mainstream scientists point out serious problems with evolution, including problems with some of its most important points.
Orgins response~There are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution
Wiki creation response~Talk Origins makes a serious mistake here. Rather than saying "there are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution", the author should've said "I don't acknowledge any serious problems with the theory of evolution"
poor integrity
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwdane
Again creationism has not based on lab work or forensics. There is no problems with evolution in fact evidence keeps building up, this is a fact I personally can tell you. Quote mines ad opinion are not evidence against evolution. You fail.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 You fail, It is so Obvious that Evolution Didn't happen
that even God says you gotta be a fool to not realize that !
look how many millions of life forms there is & yet you tell me Creationist dont have Lab work supporting our view ! sometimes it is the failure of an experiment that leads to the Conclusion, & Lab work has not produced all or even any of the life forms from non life material, not a blade of grass or a tree or fish or what would eventually become a mammal ! u fail
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwdane
Now you are making an assertion (your personal god did it) circular reasoning (your bible says it so it must be true). Me what we see in the lab what we tested and repeated and submitted for peer review.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 You can believe aliens dropped us off here as part of an experiment if you want too,
BUT THE FACT IS, that regardless of so many scientist trying to do experiments to show evolution is true & that non life mattter can be formed into life forms the results Have ALL Fit the creation Model !!!!!!!
not one blad of grass, or any fish or human or even a bacteria have been created from non-life scratch & you expect me to believe it happened on it's own when it cant be done when trying?
ncwdane 3 months ago
@ncwdane
watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
I do not believe space aliens did id. We debunked space travel.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
Comment removed
ncwdane 5 months ago
I didn't think this was a very good rebuttal, even to a video made 20 years ago. It's too bad the universities are all looking for fame putting their agendas in archeologists heads with a demand for results. Heck I can easily see why someone would put scattered bones miles apart together in hope to keep the money flowing
Probably the most significant thing this video taught me was that Neanderthal man looked like Vin Diesel! LOL
cgregory67 5 months ago
Enough mico evolution (mutation) causes macro evolution (speciation). This has been a PROVEN FACT. It's support by evidence in fossils, DNA, molecular biology, anatomy, geology, etc. The process has also been witnessed on a microscopic scale (their reproductive cycles are MUCH faster, simulating millions of years for larger longer-living animals). In the medical world, they occasionally have to update antibiotics due to bacteria evolving to resist previous antibiotics.
DaFleegsta 5 months ago
@senpau16 dude i love u ur like the only one that thinks the same as me people think its a sin to believe in evolution
TheNioxen 5 months ago
Lol i stumbled onto this and i just want to put in that you dont have to not believe in a creator to not believe in creationism. Im christian love God, but i do not believe in creationism. I believe God created through evelution. And i just wanted to say that. There is no need for the argueing. Other than that interesting stuff!
senpai16 5 months ago
so why is there a $250,000 reward for proof of evolution
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 lol @ hovind.
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@4FunPlayin you laugh because you fear kent hoving may be right that there is infaxct a creator and its common designer and not common ancestor
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 c'mon, we both know he's not right, do we?
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@4FunPlayin no he is right,the missing links are a hoax or you have either ape or man or no inbetween,you are missing a chain.Let me give you a hint,it does not exist.He was right,if you remove the lies from the text books then the evolution theory is dead.There is alot of lies aswell,no wonder people hate kent so much.He threatens their beliefs.Also he pointed out that the dateing methods are not acurate,serioulsy fully look into evolution and you will see the trciks they have pulled.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 lol k
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@4FunPlayin dude i sued to be a an athiest and fully beeleived in the theory of evolution,they are really hopeing the youth and each generation will not question it.those who do will be made fun of by those who have been conditioned to accept it as fact.if it was 100% fact we came from monkeys they would not have creation and evolution deabtes,the creationist is the one who seems to come out on top in thiose deabtes aswell.Hmmm i wonder why,something is not right.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 This is why I'm not arguing with you if you haven't noticed yet, I just laugh.
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@4FunPlayin lol your laughing to reasure yourself.You know full well its not 100% that evolution from apes is true,you have to believe and make assumptions.Man was always man from the original creation and now all they can do is provide hoax missing links and keep repeating it untill a whole geneation is brainwashed.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 lol, the evolution conspiracy.
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@pinball281
It was a scam becouse no matter what they will keep backtracking there questions.
They set it up so that if the evidence don't fit there "personal standards" you will not win the money.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
Good job
TheBlissfulSorrow 7 months ago
Believe in Evolution if you want,
I did when i asked god if it was true that he existed & if it's true the only way for me to get to heaven was to be "born Again" to go ahead & do that to me & reveal the truth to me, I crtainly had my doubts at the time & did believe in evolution, God immediatly started to work on me & within 3 months I KNEW HE EXISTED & I believe I was saved from that day, as for Evolution, LOL, I believed that for a while longer,but now cant believe I ever bought into that BS
ncwdane 8 months ago
@ncwdane i accept the facts of evolution but i already know we come from god by simply reading biblical scripture evolution has a part that is mere speculation and some that is fact but i dont see why it should be an arguement against god cause theres not enough evidence for that and i take everything the bible says to be correct
matrixlone 8 months ago
@matrixlone: You're gonna talk about mere speculation, and yet you believe in god, and what is written in the Bible? The hypocrisy! Provide some evidence that both (a) what is written about theological matters, not historical matters, in the Bible is accurate, and (b) provide some evidence that this invisible man in the sky exists. Until then, don't you dare accuse anyone of mere speculation.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar i dont think so im done debating and arguing historic and scientific evidences because its not convincing to you people i put together a playlist you can chek it out expecially the vids of people that see jesus christ in a dream these testimonial evidences i am open to talk about because this is more concrete evidence proving the deity of christ and understanding where to look for evidence you can also read the book of daniel in the bible among many that show how god communicates
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: My dear sir, in my dreams I build go-karts with my ex-land lord, and I have a conversation with the Easter Bunny over coffee. What happens in dreams has no baring on reality, and what happens in reality need not have any baring on dreams (although some times we dream about things that took place in reality, perhaps during the day before we sleep). Someone speaking with Jesus on a dream does not constitute evidence of Jesus' existence anymore than my dream that I'm having coffee with
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: the Easter Bunny constitutes evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny. Your play-list of videos are all done (or at least the ones I've seen so far) by creationists, people whose entire world-view and emotional life is at stake in the evolution vs. creation debate. Scientists have nothing at stake in this debate, no emotional investment. A definition of science could be the dispassionate pursuit of truth by means of empirical observation and experiment. Creation "science", on
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: the other hand is not a dispassionate pursuit of truth based on any admissible evidence; rather it is a last-ditch effort to salvage a belief-system that is antiquated, and frankly absurd. And what is more, creationists aren't defending their creationism and promoting it for the beneficent education of others, they are promoting it to continually reaffirm their own beliefs, because those beliefs constitute the emotional crutch that helps them get through life. Creationists thus have
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: no credibility in the debate, being extremely biased. The wonderful thing about the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view is that the theory presupposes very little assumptions, making it elegant in that sense. But even more great than that, there is a wealth of evidence for the theory, just presented in Darwin's Origin of Species alone. And of course with successive generations we've amassed even more. G'day
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar you know what just stick to the evolution theory if thats what your interested in mkay like i said im only open to discussing the testimonial evidence because quite frankly i dont care anymore about scientific or historic data it always goes off subject and ends up being pointless in an arguement please understand and no no hypocrisy i know whats a fact and what isnt about the theory mkay good bye
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I am a proponent of the theory of evolution because it is backed by hard evidence, both from the fossil record and from molecular biology. I don't "stick to it" because I'm simply interested. You don't care about scientific evidence, but you care about testimonial evidence. The problem with that is that people are prone to all sorts of mistakes, fallacies, delusions, and so on; the scientific method is not. People are fallible, science is not, when done properly. And no, I don't
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar uh thats nice and yes your right people are prone to all sorts of mistakes LMFNAO!
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: think you do know what the facts are and what they are not when it comes to the theory of evolution. A bumpkin like you who barely manages to string together coherent sentences is very unlikely to have received a formal science education, and unfortunately, if you're not educated in science then you're just not going to know the facts. You'd never claim to "know the facts" when it comes to medicine without having gone to medical school. The same principle applies.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar jesus man do i have to spell everything out to you no offense but you have piss poor understanding if you dont want to talk about the testimonial evidences then leave me alone i already said im not wasting my time arguing over that shit go find a creationist
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: It's ironic that you're telling me I have a "piss poor understanding" when you're the one who, after a couple explanations, still doesn't grasp that testimonials do not constitute reliable evidence when it comes to determining the existence of "god". Not what so ever. I'm sorry that that is a concept you can't wrap your mind around, but people are incredibly prone to delusions, fallacies of reasoning, etc. And if you don't care to continue the convo, you don't have to reply.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar bro that is not my damn fault you dont understand gods nature through simple biblical scripture because your ignorant on the subject of god dosent mean he doesnt exist smart one it just means you dont know were to look mkay bye
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Orly? Actually, I studied theology under my parish priest from 15-16 years of age in order to be confirmed and because I was interested in pursuing a career as a clergymen. I also have 5 years of Catholic high school under my belt. I also have 10+ years of church on Sundays and Bible study on Wednesday nights. Don't be so presumptuous "bro", I've probably more theological knowledge than yourself. In the end, there is no evidence to support any of the theological claims in scripture.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar read the book of daniel and see the first verse in my page i dont need to be an expert to understand where to look for evidence dont think im going to be intimidated by titles i am not
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: My friend, the Bible does not constitute evidence for the existence of God. "'Do you believe in God? 'Well, yes.' 'But why?' 'Well read *insert bible verse here*' 'But how do you know the Bible is correct?' 'Because it is the Word of God!' 'Um, but you just said you believe god exists because of the Bible, and now you're telling me you believe in the truth of the Bible because its the "word of god"? You're going around in circles!'". 'Nuff said.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar thats testimony to the holy spirit thats what it does its purpose is to help you interpret the bible and what it means that may be hard for you to understand but thats how biblical prophecy works people think its simply matching shit together but thats not the case because theyre being lead by the spirit and to understand if the prophet is false or indeed telling the truth you have to pay attention to what hes saying and measure them by the book visions and dreams are ways to see it
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I understand perfectly well sir, as I said, I have a fair bit of theological training, at least relative to the average person. So I understand full well the points you're making. And it matters not: you've still failed to provide evidence for this "holy spirit". Sure, if the holy spirit exists, then we might be able to make some inferences and come to the conclusion that is aids in the interpretation of scripture. But you must, at the outset, provide evidence the holy spirit exists
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: And since the holy spirit exists iff god exists, you must provide evidence for god's existence. There is no evidence for god's existence, so there is no evidence for the holy spirit's existence. Therefore, you cannot be sure that there is a holy spirit aiding in Biblical interpretation. Testimony does not constitute evidence that the holy spirit, and by implication, god exists, because people's testimony on these matters is highly epistemically dubious. 'Nuff said.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Imagine I say to you "there is an elf in my garden!" And you say "Cool! Can I see it?" And I say "No, you can't see it, he's invisible." You're likely to say "Well, how do you know there is an elf in your garden then?? :S:S:S" And I reply "Well, he speaks to me, silly!" You'd likely think "OoOoOokay then, weirdo." The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how sincere I am about believing that said elf speaks to me. There is no way to verify that I am really being spoken to by
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: an invisible elf, or if I am experiencing a delusion. Although, psychiatry would likely diagnose me as experiencing some sort of delusion. In any case, my testimony, even if it is good testimony, we have no WAY to know that it is such. So testimony cannot constitute reliable evidence, at least not on it's own independent of physical evidence, statistical, and so on.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Case closed, my friend. I'm quite sorry. No one wants to admit they're wrong and I understand that full well. But the fact of the matter is, testimonial evidence is not good evidence; its not even evidence at all. I can go on and on about how I feel the elf exists, I FEEL His presence, he speaks to me, and so on. But in the end, there is no way to know that what I am experiencing is delusion or reality. But frankly, the odds are, its a delusion.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar mkay heres the thing you people say theres no evidence of god the bible which your very ignorant of because you dont understand alot of things because by your logic it has to be scientific or historical and im trying to help you understand what evidence really looks like i could give a shit about arguing it proves nothing good luck with faulty debatable evidence its endless to discuss that your right no one likes to admit theyre wrong you know what ill even say you won this argument
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: You're actually a complete, and utter idiot. And it's amusing. I'm a scientist-in-training, and you're going to take me to school on what counts as evidence and what doesn't? Preposterous! Lol
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar lol no man just the nature of god and biblical hermeneutics mkay
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I've made my point very simply. Provide evidence that "god" exists, and I will be a believer. Until evidence is provided, the default position is non-belief. I do not make the bold claim that god simply does not exist. Rather, I simply lack belief in the claim "god exists" because I do not believe there is any good evidence to suggest that is true. You've argued that personal testimony is evidence, or something along those lines. I disagree entirely.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar sigh aight bro i mean your the genius right
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I don't think it takes a genius to realize that it's silly to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Garden fairies might exist, but unless there is evidence that they exist I have no reason to believe in them. The same goes for your "god". "God" might exist, yes; but there is no evidence of his existence. So the rational default position is to not believe until there is evidence. It's so clear-cut and simple. G'day
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar LMFNAO whatever you say genius
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: You can make fun if you want, but you've still not shown the evidence!
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar accept christ im not asking for too much also i have presented it thats your opinion
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: It's not my opinion that you haven't shown any evidence, it is a fact that you haven't shown any evidence. I'll accept Christ when you (a) demonstrate his existence and (b) demonstrate that he is god. Evidence my friend, evidence. Otherwise you're talking out your ass.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar oh god another guy that think christ never existed because josephus was forged you can look up jp holdings vids on that and a bunch of other vids i have on that in my playlist if u actually went there you would have seen them you dont try very hard
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: You're still not getting it matrixlone. I am not asserting that Jesus never existed, and I am not asserting that "god" does not exist. I am saying that there is no evidence for either claim, so I have no good reason to believe.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar omg first dont act like i dont know my god i add new vids to my playlist chek back quick and anytime you want alright
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I am not going to sugar coat anything for you. I do not believe that you know a god, or have a personal relationship with said god; I do not believe that any gods exist, and I affirmatively believe that your religious experiences can be entirely explained by the sciences of neurology and psychiatry. Indeed, the neurosciences have done a pretty good job of explaining religious experiences in terms of biochemical and physiological processes.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar lmfnao since when did you know me?
matrixlone 7 months ago
@McTaggStar CartesianTheist is a good channel
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I don't claim to know you. I was speaking more or less in generality. Those who have religious experiences are experiencing delusions, delusions which have been explained in terms of neurology. And I am quite familiar with Cartesianism, and it's quite out-dated. It also doesn't stack up, philosophically. I've been a philosophy major for several years now, and I am not inclined to waste any more time on Cartesianism.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar well go argue with him on that i already told you im not wasting my time with you on that stuff dont ever tell me that i dont know my god like you pretty much just did i think you pretty much just proven that your a moron who only claims to use logic and reason mister know it all case closed
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I'm a moron because I doubt your claims that a god exists and that you have a personal relationship with him? No. I'd be moronic if I believed without sufficient evidence.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar no its just you claim to be all knowing since you know what evidence looks like and can say what i presented isnt valid
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: That doesn't mean I claim to be all-knowing whatsoever. I'm far from all-knowing. But I know for darn sure that the Bible does not constitute evidence for the existence of "god". PEOPLE wrote the Bible, not "god". And people are prone to delusion and fallacious reasoning. It's quite simple.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar and its quite simple you dont understand the holy spirit and how god works to reveal personal revelations to people which is clearly how he works throughout the bible like daniel joseph and many others
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: If your "god" is so all-powerful, then he has the ability to make himself present for you. But god never seems to actually do that, does he? He always reveals himself to people in dreams, or speaks to them telepathically. You never actually hear some divine voice from above, do you? Sort us just like how little children never actually SEE santa clause, they're told he comes at night while they're asleep. See the similarity? Your experience of "god" is a delusion, my friend.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar santa clause? lmfnao clever//not
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Your "god" has the same status as Santa Clause until you demonstrate his existence.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar lmfnao and whats that look like then since you claim i didnt didnt i give you some channels in fact why dont you go look for it since you know what it looks like also santa claus too then since your comparing them for some reason cause you can tell the mass differences between the two
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: YouTube channels are not evidence for the existence of god, and nothing anyone says in a youtube video is evidence for the existence of god. I've studied theology and philosophy for years and years, and I have never come across an argument for the existence of god that turns out to hold its own. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence for god. that is why religious claims are expected to be taken on faith, because of the lack of evidence.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar your a dying breed mkay and youll get your evidence very soon just be patient
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Actually, atheism is on the rise, and religiosity is on the decline, at least here in North America. So actually, you're of a dying breed. I'll get my evidence soon enough? Is that supposed to imply that I'll find out when I'm dead? I do not believe you go anywhere when you die, so no. You simply rot in the ground and cease to be conscious.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar lol whatever you say you can also chek the vid i faved at the front you act as if science is against god no its not just your view is i only present you the evidence for the biblical god when you clearly are very ignorant on the bible which means your ignorant on the nature and character of god i can go on on about this if you want the fact is you really arent someone that can tell me what is and what isnt evidence which is why you wont be satisfied with any evidence that is present
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Yes, actually, science is "against god". Science is founded on the notion of evidence for claims. There is no evidence for the existence of god. I cannot be ignorant about the character of someone/something that I do not believe exists. As for the concept of the Biblical god, I am not ignorant of "his" character as it is portrayed in the Bible, since I have years of Christian education under my belt. It comes down to EVIDENCE. There is no EVIDENCE for the existence of your god.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar lol wow clap your a genius why didnt i see that before someone that has no clue on how to look says theres nothing there
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: I'm always interested by that claim by theists, that there is evidence, you just can't see it because you're not looking in the right places/you can't see it, what have you. It's a cop-out. "There's evidence, you just can't see it". Nah, that doesn't fly with me. I'm a bright person, and so are the thousands of scientists who've been and gone over the centuries. If there was evidence to be had, it would be plain for all to see. But the evidence isn't there.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar thats funny because i honestly cant find a good arguement against theism i really cant and your probably talking about biased scientists that share your view i know plenty that say some sort of intelligence or creator they get logical points for that and even they dont have as much knowledge on biblical scritpture they do however have logic and reason
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone: The fact that you're even talking about arguments against theism demonstrates your lack of understanding. Atheism in the real sense is not the belief in the statement "God does not exist". It is a LACK OF BELIEF in the statement "God exists". Atheists aren't out to "disprove" theism; they simply don't believe in the claims of theists, namely that a god exists.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@matrixlone: Atheists are doubting Thomases. Most aren't bold enough to say "I know there is no god" because most believe you can't know that. But they also recognize that you can't know that a god exists either. So they simply do not believe it when people say that god exists. That's all. It's as simple as that, and that is what I've been saying this whole time. Atheism therefore requires no arguments, requires no faith, nothing. Its a simple lack of belief.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@ncwdane: Seek help, you're experiencing a rather serious hallucination.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
I'm a Christian but I'm not gonna get on here and ignore science and sound retarded, but facts need to be brought to the surface:
In discovering "Ardipithecus ramidus," it must be mentioned that the only bones that were discovered were a a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth . Not only that, but they were discovered in 5 DIFFERENT locations and over a period of 5 years! Explain how they assemble 1 creature from that
albinowonder00 10 months ago
@albinowonder00 I am not a christian and I want some answers for your question, too! I call BS. I have read darwin's BS and I say science contradicts his theory. REAL science, not your cocka mayme extrapolations and speculation, based on so precious little observed fact. Replace all instances of "Natural Selection" with anything denoting "creator/designer" and it almost sounds like Engineers tinkering with their invention, trying to get it right. Or is it all one big beautiful accident?
TheSleepChamber 10 months ago
Only Jesus can save you. Believe in him.
MrFabregas1987 10 months ago
@MrFabregas1987 or what because im a hindu
carnifex714 10 months ago
That original video shat all over itself at the end---it could have been credible had it not ran over to creationism at the end---what kind of fucking moron disproves one theory on non evidential ground to support another theory with ABSOLUTELY no evidence aswell? fucking garbage.
TheGreatDeciever55 1 year ago
I can't belived they put thoughs argument forward, thinks like it makes me think that all religions are hindering us and should be disbanded.
Christmasproductions 1 year ago
@TheNorthFakeFisherman i also gave proof of flaws in their theorys big blemish of a flaw plus their lil suicide koolaid party so i wasnt trolling but expressing my opinion
bryanbaez100 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman how am i trolling by the way wata fail maby your a grown up but ur still gay
bryanbaez100 1 year ago
Ur vid is gay. Evolution is a theory not a science. Do u really belive u came from a rock. Anyways u know over 900 of ur litle evolutionist buddies killed them selves with poison koolaid?! Plus i have proof evolution is a lie because u say u find the age of a layer of dirt by the fossils in it and the age of the fossils by the layer of dirt? Thats circular reasoning buddy we have the fossils my ass
bryanbaez100 1 year ago
@bryanbaez100 Blah, blah, blah. Obvious troll is obvious. Go back and play some CoD4 kid. Grownups are talking here.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@bryanbaez100 We came from microorganisms..not a rock. There is way too much evidence to back up evolution to deny the concept; go to school.
amplitude 1 year ago
There are no transitional fossils connecting primates and humans to a "common ancestor"__FACT
This is pure garbage.
If science ever found a "missing link" it would be all over the mainstream news.
Ev-LIE-ution is the laziest and most inaccurate THEORY to ever be vomitted into the human consciousness.
Thats why science is now taking a turn to ancient astronaut theory (the most plausible and credible of all theories on human origin)
buffboynick 1 year ago
@buffboynick Science /has/ found missing links. Archaeopteryx is a fossil discovered showing features of bird and reptile distinctions. There is also 'living' evidence of missing links. The Platypus, for instance, is half reptile, half mammal. When Darwin first wrote Origin of Species these links were the missing piece of the puzzle, but once Archaeopteryx was discovered, scientists realized Darwin's theory was fact.
Kittywhiskers1000 1 year ago
Evolution theory is total CRAP.
No transitional fossils have been found ever.
This video is a HUGE failure.
Macroevolution has NEVER been observed nor proven__FACT
buffboynick 1 year ago
we (humans) are created and did not evolve from anything on this planet.
faron27 1 year ago
No we are still missing several transitional fossils. There is a lack of fossils between archaic humans and homo habilis that requires more research.
And not for a second should you try to rebuttal my comment. By saying we require more research should spark an increase in curiousity in science and archaeology to discover more of them. It is not to state anything about proving creationism or ID.
It is to increase the interest in archaeology so we can have more of them. Please understand that.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
***SO...HOW OLD IS MAN KIND???***
radiodiary1 1 year ago
Darwinism a "fairytale"? lmao! Do some research and find that several people had the same idea before Darwin but didn't have the cajones to say anything because they were afraid the church would torture the!!! So explain to me how all these people could have the same idea at the same time without a bible, koran, or other "holy" book to spread the ideas? Because its based on EVIDENCE! not FAIRYTALES!
EdgeOfDaCoin 1 year ago
However the Evolutionist holds to their god.
A. "greater" is a perceptive value. (maybe human's are the bottom of the pool)
B. "transitional" is a perceptive value and a bias assumption.
C. Evolution unless a god with a mind cannot determine if a wing is "better" than a fin. It does not have a will nor a mind. To assume genetics or organics inherently have bio that morfs into adaptations to accommodate a situation is believing in a god.
JewLoco 1 year ago
Evolution is a religion. It contains all the tenements of organized religion. Fact, faith and perceptive values placed on those articles of faith.
Darwinsim and evolutionary theory is built upon certain faith based assumptions such as:
A. Macro evolution is an unveiling of greater exterior-species complexity.
B. The fossil record contains "transitional" fossil records.
C. Evolution, although a process contingent on various laws has a will in determining perceptive values for each species.
JewLoco 1 year ago
@JewLoco Fact and religion are anything but harmonious. What empirical evidence is there behind the Earth (according to the Bible) is 6,000 years old? How did God flood the Earth, yet there is no scientific remnants of it? Religion is about faith and faith only; there is no fact behind it.
amplitude 1 year ago
@amplitude see the thing is that people say that the bible says...but is not true... in the bible does not says earth is 6,000 years old....
camarada911 1 year ago
The unimaginable information in DNA — regarding all a person’s characteristics, from their physical appearance to the structure of their internal organs, is recorded in a special coding system inside DNA. If we were to put down this genetic information in DNA on paper, we would have to construct a giant library of 900 volumes containing 500 pages each. This unimaginable quantity of information is encoded in the parts of DNA known as “genes.” It is an absolute fact that DNA cannot form by chance.
CalmFrequency 1 year ago
Are you a scientist?
bhong32 1 year ago
1. The coelacanth existed 150-200 million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs.Put forward by scientists as the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates.Darwinists had made countless claims about the fossil Coelacanth, interpreting its fins as legs about to start walking and a fossilized oil sac as a primitive lung.
19Lion8 1 year ago
2.The capture of a living Coelacanth came as a terrible disappointment to Darwinists. In addition, the animals showed no sign of change over 450 million years. To put it another way, its complexity today is the same as it was 450 million years in the past.Following the scientific realization of all this, the Coelacanth assumed its place as an example of a living fossil and all the claims about its being a transitional form were withdrawn.
19Lion8 1 year ago
3.Darwinists lost yet another fossil they had speculated about so much. Had this animal not been found todays seas, then, just as with Archaeopteryx, there would have been no end to the Darwinist speculation regarding it. It would still be depicted as the greatest representative of the passage from water to land, and there would be thousands of pieces of conjecture about it being AS IF THE UNQUESTIONABLE FINEST TRANSITIONAL FORM.
19Lion8 1 year ago
Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your comments. They were marked as spam and ever sent to my e-mail account. Luckily, I am in the habit of reading old comments and happened upon these.
Another lucky thing I have answered this question several times for other creationists.
First, you have to understand that Coelacanth stands for an order level classification. Within this order, there have been several different families, genera, and species.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Second, you are mistaken on your dates. The modern Coelacanth (Latimeria) is closely related to the Cretaceous Coelacanth Macropoma (they both belong to the same family Latimeriidea). The Coelacanth that you are talking about, the one thought to be closely related to tetrapods are Miguashaia, which lived during the Devonian (4.16 – 359 Ba). This genus of Coelacanth was long extinct before Macropoma evolved.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Furthermore, Latimeria (the modern one) does have some fundamental differences with Macropoma. The first being that Latimeria is a lot larger and they live in completely different environments. Macropoma lived in shallow seas whereas Latimeria lives in deep oceans (which explains why we did not find any fossils of it).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Another thing, evolution only predicts that organisms will evolve to fit a niche. Once that niche is met, an organism is not under selective pressures anymore. With no selective pressure driving evolution, Latimeria was free to stay unchanged for millions of years. According to evolution, it does not have to change until its niche changes.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst I feel that your explanation of evolution is slightly inadequate here (I could definitely be wrong). I like to think of evolution as a continuous stream, so it never really stops, but can slow down drastically. I agree that an organism can more or less go more or less unchanged for millions of years, but it isn't necessarily done evolving (even if it's environment stays the same). In a way, we ourselves and all living things today are "intermediate forms" to future species.Good vid!
saxoman1 1 year ago
If it is inadequate in any way, it is because I am responding in 500 character boxes. Not the best way to explain ones self. About your idea of evolution, you are correct, and your analogy of it being a continuous stream is quite good. We are never done evolving. However, stasis is something that is seen in the fossil record, where creatures go for long periods with little change (Coelacanth).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Natural selection designs organisms to fit their niche and if the niche does not change, the organism does not have to change much. Nevertheless, this does not stop the slow build up of neutral mutations. That is why when we find “living fossils” they only resemble creatures from millions of years ago; they are not the same species. Their niche did not change for that long, but neutral mutations still changed them ever so slight.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst And if u think simple chemicals can form life,,u dont know basic chemistry.and u have some leap of faith in science..!!!
a PARADOX in science has in reached,as far as amino acids go.
Even by added time.scientist have still not answered the question.
and never will.Stanley Miller gave up,and no advancements have been made since 1953.ZERO!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Science has not been able to create one single Protein!!..do to the fact that u must have all LEFT handed amino acids..its a Paradox.to the highest lever. Miller failed back in 1953.and No advancements have been made..today science proves life can not emerge from simple chemicals.now science says it formed out in space on the backs of crystals..is that a testable science?.what a joke.u must have some faith inscience
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Another point is that not everything is an intermediate, at least not by how a transitional fossil is defined. If humans were to go extinct there would be no species after us, therefore, we would not be transitional. An example of this from the hominin lineage is Au. robustus. There are transitional fossils leading up to it, but it is the last of its lineage, therefore, it is not transitional, it left no descendents.
Last, thank you for liking my video.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst I most certainly concur that if humans were to go extinct, then indeed we would have been the final species in genus "homo." What I meant when I said that is that a lot of people (especially creationists) misunderstand evolution and think of it having a "goal" or animals today being in their "final stage." I am just trying to emphasis that evolution is continuous and is happening right now and given time, will lead many of these "modern" organisms to become new species altogether!
saxoman1 1 year ago
I see your point. Thanks for the clarification.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst No problem, sorry if my initial statement was a bit unclear. I just hate it when creationists use (whether intentionally or ignorantly) straw man representations of and/or gross misunderstandings of the (quite rigorous) theory of evolution. So I always find myself trying to clarify their understanding of it. Jeez, if these people are going to argue and disagree over it, you'd think they would at least try to "get" the full theory (although some of them do thankfully).
saxoman1 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst How do proteins select only left-handed amino acids????? And why do no right-handed ones ever creep in??? This is a question that evolutionists are unable to explain away, and cannot account for such a specialized, conscious selectivity.
,but iam sure u know more than leading scientist Dean Kenyon Biochemical chemist...who believed in evolution for 25 years and believes in Intelligence!!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst U dont know basic chemistry..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
huh lots of arguing here funny how people disregard things because they disagree If some you you guys paid atention you'd realize that humans have evolved i dont think from apes though if you'd pay attention you see that evolution is changing and adapting to your environment which is something EVERY human has done whether its as lil as being used to cold or something as big as a change in body structure I believe humans were created but if you pay attention evolution theory has some valid points
dacreator123 1 year ago
Humans are apes; we belong to the superfamily Hominidea.
Furthermore, hominin evolution is one of the most complete records we have.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst theres been scientitfic proof hominids didnt evolve in a straight line as believed. they found da fossils of a hominid that looks more like a modern human thats even older than lucy, who was thought to be one of the starting point of human/ape evolution
dacreator123 1 year ago