ill be more specific. what they draw is how they think it happend. its an assumption fromp their side therefore a belief in u think it happend that way.
@MrValidin Regardless of whether this is exactly how it happened, it is an explanation of a way it could possibly have happened, therefore destroying the argument that it is irreducably complex.
@JoolsCaesar this doesnt destroy anything. i agree its very simple for someone with a brain to put a bombarider beetle together. but that it all happend on luck, and just without reason that makes it impossible.
@MrValidin No one said it happened by luck. Natural selection is the opposite of luck. It is selection.
If I roll ten dice, and I only reroll the dice that don't show a six; sure there is a random element but you're not gonna be surprised when I get all sixes.
@JoolsCaesar yea but uts u thats rolling the cie at evolution there isn anyone one selecting. therefore its pure otehrwise u are claiming that natural selection means that nature has a consciousness and selects what he/she wnats to evolve.
@MrValidin No you're claiming that selection requires a consciousness. If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground. If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected). If they harm the organisms chances, it will likely die before passing them on (not selected). No consciousness required. Not random.
@JoolsCaesar "If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground" so the ball gains information or anything that prvios balls did not have then? no its still a ball then. probably a worse ball then therefore because he fell from a height.
@JoolsCaesar " If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected)" see thats something u cant proof that those genes got an "increase" of information. its an assumption. therefore its a belief. thats my whole point that u guys just admit that the major theorie of the evolution theorie is just a beliefe nothing more
@MrValidin I never even mentioned an "increase" in information. Did you quote the word "increase" from "If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies"? I know you people are partial to quote mining, but that is insane.
There's no information involved. It's a chain of base pairs. DNA does not inform anything. It's not information. You would need to suggest that protein synthesizers have conciousness and understand DNA for it to be information.
@JoolsCaesar how do u think when ur an embryo that ur cells grow arms, legs, theet, eyes,... and all that stuff? thats using information on how ull need to look when the growing process is complete. but u deny thats dna is information because thats something u cant see.
@MrValidin No, I denied that it is information because it does not inform anything. If you actually studied it, you would see inevitable chemical processes. There is no understanding by these molecules. A ribisome does not understand that it is matching rna to protein, it's just following the physical laws of the universe.
@JoolsCaesar thats how u can observe it. u can observe chemical processes and all that stuuf but u cant see nor study/know how the chemical processes know what they are doing, i now its weird but its the truth. physical laws in the universe how did that come?? from were did those laws come?
i cant believe people buy this shit really. the only thing i saw is how u showed us how to draw things using ur imagination. u can easely study how things work i agree on that. but that doenst mean that it evolved from lets say nothing to such a complexity. u can for example study the eye and say if we leave this and this then the light would come like this but what u guys are saying is that the eye did evolve. wrong. u dont know that, thats something u evolutionists just wants to believe.
@MrValidin The problem is the video specifically says it isn't meant as a proof that this is what happened. It is only meant to show that the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism isn't irreducibly complex.
@SuperMerlin100 not complex?? if u draw it like that then it does not look complex agreed. but try and open a bombarider beetle and say if its not so complex anymore then.
You said "invaginations evolve to hold extra quinones" please explain the mechanism used to alter the DNA code to allow for a change in the structure of the beetle. You cannot use mutation as this mechanism because it is harmful to the organism and has never been documented to provide repeated benefits.
@philackey the beatles with more surface in the skin survive because they have more quinones, after natural selection, we end up with the surface maximized, and because a bigger beatle is not necesarily beneficial, just the skin grew and formed invaginations just with the "goal" of having that good extra skin
This video is so stupid. The frequent use of the word evolve to explain this is a perfect example of how much this theory fails. You are't talking about how at all, you are just telling us what the beetle has and then telling us the parts came gradually. Not HOW the mutations that would do it happened from whatever its ancestor was or how. ALl you are saying is that it happened. i could describe the evolution of a car for your exactly like this. Its so sad how many people buy this garbage
@semitope Not knowing in detail the process of how mutations make the changes do not disproves evolution. The investigation in field like genetics is actualy answernig thos questions and up to day they only prove even more how evolution works
ID folks don't deny that someone can come up with a story. That isn't very difficult. But storytelling isn't science. And science is what you are claiming to depend on here.
@Catbird107 Nope, ID proponents state that it's impossible for such a structure to have come together, and therefore evolution is false. Mark and cdk007 showed that there are ways in which this could have evolved, using only chemicals and cells available to beetles.
I think that you have misstated your basic premise. ID folks don't think that it is impossible to make up a story about it. I can do that myself. I could likely come up with several stories for it. Coming up with a story isn't science. And that's what you claim to be using.
"If a system were truly Irreducibly Complex then it should be IMPOSSIBLE to even form a logically and scientifically sound hypothesis for its gradual evolution. "
That equates to 'If I think it is possible then it is.' This is deciding in your head, without any actual factual evidence or proof, that something is or is not possible. Evolve is not a magic word, but it sure gets a lot of stage time as one.
What's more logical? Assuming that random mutations in DNA which randomly assembled itself on "the backs of bubbles" resulted in something intelligible AND intelligent OR Something so obviously complex might have been designed... Evolution is a hypothesis dis-proven repeatedly by it's own data, but grasped onto desperately by people (most of whom do not understand the actual data that supposedly supports it) so that they will not have to answer to God for the evil that many try to deny exists.
The creator of this video has a lot of faith.. His faith is based of evolutionary assumptions of course idividuals can speculate but faith is faith. Both creationism and evolutionism are based on faith in assumptions at least creationism comes with a users manual that has withstood the test of time.. :)
The creator of this video has a lot of faith.. His faith is based of evolutionary assumptions of course idividuals can speculate but faith is faith. Both creationism and evolutionism are based on faith in assumptions at least creationism comes with a users manual that has withstood the test of time.. :)
Both creation and evolution are Actuality. Things were created then evolved. A baby evolves from the 1st cell of life into a complex multi-celled organism called an Adult. Even viruses evolve in closed in environments. Just as well, All things began from a central point. No separation. Wake up
Development is not evolution, BTW. Please do yourself a favour and read at least the Wikipedia entries on "Evolution" and "Human development (biology)" and try to figure out for yourself where the difference is.
Cool, I will do that and get back to you. I wont make a "specific" comment until I do; but... Do you think maybe you come off a lil' bit sensitive? (Note: It should be kept in mind that modern natural science claimed to discredit a lot of what was taught in the Eastern Hemisphere in antiquity, and now, finally, their machines are just beginning to get a glimpse into what deep meditation had already revealed to those great people - and Machines are proving it true.)
@IRONFISTENT My sensitivity springs from confrontation with the wilfully ignorant AKA creationists.
Again, you're making statements with no evidence or supporting facts at all as if it were common knowledge and taught in every university. I can't really see how "deep meditation" would provide insight into the often counter-intuitive findings of modern science, care to provide an example?
Always remember... Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You present yourself as an intelligent individual, so be mindful. "Quantum Physics" is just one example; and a powerful one enough as to where I don't need another. Help me to see how anything in modern science is counter-intuitive, or new... If you would sir. And, you must know sensitivity is an emotion, & emotions cloud judgement & anger blinds; offsetting ones clarity.
Huh? What evasion? I really don't know what you're getting at? I responded to every sentence in your response. Even still, I can see how natural scientist, who rely upon machinery to gather data can easily loose sight of the meaning of life. The highest planes of existence are Love, Peace, Joy & Happiness. How are these conversations going to get me closer to the life I want on Earth? Plus, I don't have enough space here to explain my point. I do respect Ur profession though.
@IRONFISTENT You didn't provide any evidence or facts... Natural sciences don't deal with philosophy, so you can't lose it.
But I agree with you (kind of) that social behaviour is good for all parties :) But I disagree that you have to invent some essentially unprovable concepts to get there. As a naturalist, my approach is fact based, which doesn't mean that I neglect my emotional side.
You made an alright argument but not really enough for me I'm afraid. Like 3:33 A heat resistant structure forms around the catalase and peroxidase. How? Magic? Evolution has too many holes in the theory for me and after all these years those holes haven't gone away, and too many assumptions are made to fill in these holes. Maybe its time for a new theory?
@taishanfox What form might this new theory take? I applaud your skepticism in not accepting statements presented without support, however I think it's misplaced. It seems silly to me to say evolution is too full of holes based the fact that a 5 minute YT video failed to completely explain some part of a beetle's evolution. Have you investigated this independently and can you confirm no working hypothesis for the formation of this structure exists? What holes in particular are you referencing?
@landfillpoet Hey thanks for your comment, this is kinda where I stand. I say holes but I probably mean more lack of fact because after 160 years this is still the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Law of Evolution" and a theory in its simplicity is only what someone thinks happened. And if you believe it, fine I support your right too. But I kinda dread videos like these as they only exist to try and convince you there way of thinking.
@landfillpoet cont.. I work in the field of Physics not Anthropology, but I understand fairly well. My main reason I don't believe it is I don't believe in random creation, as the universe is far to finely balanced and even the most simplistic of organisms are very complex sub-molecular and sub-atomically. But like I said if you believe it good on you. But finding flaws in theories is easy as I could make a video illustrating that evolution is false a creator just had several attempts at man.
@taishanfox "I work in the field of Physics". Obviously not true, you don't even know what a scientific theory is and why theory will never be "promoted" to law. You might qualify as janitor in a facility dedicated to physics. Or is bodybuilding physic for you?
It is a nice story but, where does the information come from for these changes to take place? What realizes it needs these defensive mechanisms? Because the beetle cannot say "hey this is what I need" and it happens. I believe that the biggest problem with evolution is the information needed for a cell to form or to do its tasks. I believe this information had to come from somewhere. Let's all keep an open mind for the truth be it evolution or intelligence.
great video - i thumbed it up to counteract all the self-centered nay-sayers. Face it folks Humans are PART of nature and not ABOVE it. If we don't come around that fact NATURE will take us out - through - yep you guessed it - NATURAL SELECTION.
Yeah, and all the hydrogen peroxide happened to deposit in one side, and all the quinones happened to deposit on the other side, handy! And the sphincter happened to keep them completely separate when they were depositing there. And the heat protection happened to form before there was heat caused by the reaction, because there are tons of insects that have developed heat protection randomly when they didn't need it. ... not This is a fairy tale that you can't think about in much detail.Fail
@enjoy8668 you clearly don't understand evolution. it isn't that all of the things in the video just happened, genes which allowed things similar to what's in the video would be selected for as they are beneficial to the beetle. i don't think you have a right to talk about evolution that way when you don't even seem to understand the key factor involved in it: natural selection. your comment is a fail, and so is your understanding of what you say is ridiculous.
@777lamppost a hypothesis is an idea that can be proven wrong or right through facts. i.e. a logical idea which has some evidence but is not certainly the answer to a question. hyopthesese are a key part in the scientific method, and if you think that they're far-fetched ridiculousness then go ahead and think that. just remember that wouldn't make a good scientist as you think that all hypothesese are far-fetched.
@atzutu you've got to be kidding. you think a horn would be the most effective defence for insects? seriously? are you really so closed minded that you refuse to accept evidence and instead say that all animals need the same defence? you might as well say that the poison arrow frog shouldn't have warning marks because they stand out over the environment. and evolution doesn't require several hypothesese to work. evolution is fact, and macroevolution and speciation have even been observed.
@Theonlykslawdog again, you seem to fail to understand evolution. to be honest with you, i'm surprised i'm going to debate a man who hasn't even researched the very thing he claims with such confidence is a fairy tale. just type in "list of transitional forms" on wikipedia or talkorigins and you'll get something several pages long. i don't even need to list anything, as EVERY fossil is a transitional form.
i didnt all watch but i'm sure you cannot explain why an unintelligent beetle would carry and develop extra organs
it would be better to develop a horn.. or some other physical defense, but never such a complex sets of chemical reactions. i think you really try to admit that probably evolution is false after all..
good initiative though.. evolutions needs thousands of hypotheses like these to work :)
I guess HYPOTHESIS can be rediculous as is this whole video, some people want to believe evolution therory so bad they get so far fected to make it happen, makes for good fiction though...
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
@achilles197474 Mutations that increase genetic information in Humans: Down Syndrome, Patau Syndrome, Edward's Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, XXX females, and XYY males. Seriously, these are strait from the internet. You don't have to dig very deep to find mutations the increase genetic information. I'm sure even you have heard of a couple of these...
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. Mutations do not drive the engine of evolution. It is a fairy tale.
@lordsong7 saying that your OPINION is that this is storytelling doesn't change the fact that it is a well supported hypothesis. get over the fact that you are wrong about some myth and that the only reason you don't believe in evolution is that you don't understand it.
Seems to me like the bombardier beetle went through a whole lot of trouble to develop this sophisticated mechanism, as if it had a goal in mind. Or did he get lucky and all of those steps and all of numerous ones you left out just fall into place.
@owensphil Parallel argument: Seems like the human being went though a lot of trouble developing the reproductive system,as if it had a goal in mind. Think of all the numerous evolutionary steps left out that just might produce malformed dickless embarrassments or females going through pseudo-menopause since birth with dysfunctional ovary's. (*ahem* sarcasm)
@owensphil The only way for a phenotype to survive is if it successfully leads to procreation. This "goal" doesn't require a mind, only an environment that allows well-adapted phenotypes to procreate and disallows poorly adapted phenotypes to procreate. It isn't random. It's amazingly simple, intuitive, and elegant. Different species have developed amazing tactics for achieving this goal and our current state of biodiversity is certainly awe-inspiring.
As always the Darwiener imagines a QUAINT STORY where in muscles, ejections systems, heat resistant cells etc. etc. arise magically by RM+NS & voilà the trick is solved!
How naive can 1 be to believe this codswallop is beyond comprehension
Sounds curiously similar to frogs to princes by the magic kiss of selection
The many thousands of intermediary steps are -AS ALWYAS- simply passed over in narrative gloss to make it sound credible to other naive & ignorant dupes
You know reading through your comment I could not figure out if you were joking. Sad to say you probably are not. There are currently 217,000 peer reviewed articles and 830,000 fossils that are all cited 50+ times and some as high as 3,500 citations. That means, when someone discovered something, they tested it, demonstrated it, than to validate it they enter it to academic arena called peer review. Other experts take the article, break it down, repeat tests then they give *continue*
Your right, I do reject unproven claims and claims with no peer review structure or clear models to describe what you are speaking about. Unfortunately we have those and you don't.
284,000 peer reviewed articles on pubmed. Can't link due to youtube. These were all taken and verified by the best. In fact a lot of these have been verified hundreds of times. Again what is your proof against evolution that is peer reviewed? Also, science doesn't meet the definition of religion.
Again stop asserting stuff I already shown to be ridiculous for you to argue against and put forth and proof of what you are talking about.
Until then automatically by the rules of debate the person with more evidence wins.
Again I showed that we have a heavily sources database on a model used to describe a function we observe in reality that succeeding generations tend to pass on favorable genes. This is your turn to try and rebuttal that.
I could care less how many atheists claim is there is no god and u r his prophet, much less how many blind followers ur St Darwin "peer-reviewed" this trash which is nothing but an insult to intelligence & true science
When u actually present the bio pathway from some "unarmed" ancestor insect to the bombardier, with a good part of the actual mutation sequence, selection events, etc i.e. real science, then someone with a brain may believe as U!
Until then its pure speculation & story telling. I'm amazed U cant tell the diff
Do U really believe presenting an imaginary story is actual empirical evidence?
U'd fit in well in Galileo's day with the flat earthers and their peer-reviewed consensus
Little confused you are talking to lordsong7 not me right? As I never said that and he hqs been. Can't get it through his sick twisted mind. Its funny though to see the retard make a fool of himself.
Wrong sorry kid. When presented with nothing but bare assertions -thats all this video presents since no specific mutations, no selection events, zero *empirical* evidence has been presented as an argument, I don't even have to rebut. Duh!
The author of this sorry piece of animated pseudo-science believes that his speculations -as to how such MAY have, could have, must have evolved- are true, but that is FAITH not fact
Even if there is no articles on evolution of bombardier beetle(pub med has 25 on the evolutionary process) what would it matter? If we had no evidence, we would say "We don't know how it could of evolved" that doesn't automatically make the position that "god did it" right. That is a leap, you need to demonstrate with repeatable and verifiable tests that are peer reviewed how god did it and the process used. Until then it's don't know, or most supported theory(Evolution).
Also no, sorry you are wrong. You(Notice how it's spelled you, not U) are blatantly lying or are a ignorant. You are incorrect about evolution and you are arguing against a model used to describe what we observe in reality. Evolution debate was settled long ago and you guys lost because your claims had no scientific basis. Science doesn't care about what result will happen, just that it produced the correct result. That is evolution, and we see intermediate species everywhere..
@JamesCizuz U R so far off here its ridiculous. Debate settled? ROTFLMAO!!! I'm incorrect about evol? I didn't even say anything on it yet! U have no model u twit! U have a story board and ZERO more! That isn't science. Get over it poor kid. How old r u anyway? 13? Sure sounds like it! Intermediates? Duh! Gee under evol theory everything, including U, is an intermediate! Can ya say unfalsifiable? My but u r slow!!!
But also remember I am already aware this is a useless conversation as you are already stuck into your preconceptions of the world and don't want to accept reality that is fine, because in an argument it is not my job to personally attack another like you started, nor is it to try to prove to the person of whom you are arguing with is wrong and convince them, it's for the benefit of the outside public. So when you make blind assertions it's laughable and general public can see that.
Funny how Darwinian fundamentalist dupes like u r so incapable of reasoning, all while being stuck in ur own little materialist world of hopelessly self-contradictory thinking.
No one denies reality more than atheists except Darwinists. U r the most religious people on earth and untouchable by reason or proof.
No one believes in fairy tale like pseudo-science as much a the Darwinian dupe. U've been brainwashed well and need de-programing.
Again you can keep making up words but it does not make them true. Again, "U and "R" are defeating the purpose in your argument.
So you failed to provide any evidence for your position again. So that is three strikes, now I get to officially only give you the reply "Sorry this conversation is going nowhere you don't care about the outcome, you are wrong, anyone reading can see that".
I will have to post that till you can verify your position.
Also you keep asserting I am somehow in a religion when a religion is a belief system.
You don't believe Scientific Theories, you understand them. Scientific theories are models used to describe what we observe in the world and what is demonstrable. I don't care whether evolution is true or not, it holds no basis for me. I do want to know what IS true, and I pick the path of most evidence. However again, prove your position and we would not be arguing. Until then, you're wrong.
ROTFLMAO is the only intelligent answer to such incredibly arrogant lame brained idiocy.
Read my blog at borne dot wordpress for starters if ur incapable of reading Myers Sig in the Cell, Behes Edge, Sanfords Genetic Entropy, Douglas Axe or Richard Sternbergs PRd etc. all papers showing why Darwinism CANT work etc
U have no clue at all what UR talking about but U still claim UR childish little story is scientific proof?!!
No I won't read your blog. I asked you to cite proof, not assertions. You keep demanding such so I told you where there is 284,000 articles on the subject of evolution that are all peer reviewed and vetted by the best.
Remember, reading something does not make it so. You can write a compelling argument for everything and to the uneducated they eat it up. That is why I make sure my position is verified, and backed up by empirical evidence and reality.
You have done just what I thought you would any you will again respond back like you are somehow shocked to what I had said and also you know what? Even if you were right I want to give you a tip. Do not use "U" or "UR" they are not words and have no meaning. When people are reading your arguments you appear as a 12 year old to lazy to type a whole word out so I would not bother with your "blog". Unless you can show me that it has been vetted by biologists and experts in the field.
Until then you appear as a sad little man replying back. So again, lets give you another try(This will be your third) to reply with any peer reviewed article disproving or showing that evolution is wrong in any way that has more then 50 citations from experts in the scientific community that have scoured the article or argument to show it's flaws or verify it is sound.
U clearly knowing nothing at all on information structures, statistical mechanics, combinatorial dependencies, algorithmic information theory, genetic entropy, and less than nothing of biosemiotics - which all by itself is making havoc of ur religion Darwinism.
Sad but like all Darwinists u fit Churchill's statement: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology
The first part of that quote is wrong and not the general concensus of the scientific community and in fact found a quick article that Jeffrey retracted the first part of the statement about demonstrable. The second part just says that evolution did occur but we can never know the true history. Which is correct since knowing requires absolute certainty. There will always be some things left un found. The point? The quote is positive evolutionist, not negative.
Algorithmic information theory coupled with biosemiotics destroys all hopes of Darwins inane idea.
But I now see that there is zero hope of ever getting anything that contradicts ur pathetic empty world-view across the barriers in ur brain.
You really need to go to the origin of life site at lifeorigin dot info - David Abel et al. - and start reading their PRd articles explaining why Darwinism doesn't & cannot work.
Til then u'll remain yet another ignorant Darwinian blowhard
Nope, very well know the two things you are claiming.
Biosemiotics incorporates evolution. In fact biosemiotics just sees evolution as a small part of a bigger theory which is fine, because evolution is once life exists evolution takes over, abiogensis is the formation of life in the first place.
You'll need to cite an article for Algorithmic information somehow disproving evolution. Could not find relative information, disbelief until then. 100+ Peer review signatures please.
Their approval on the article. These have been absolutely verified and in fact in the dover vs kitzmiller case the creationists were laughed out of court when they claimed the flagellum was IC and no books that were peer reviewed existed on the subject, than kitzmiller in a bit of court theater got a small supply of about 23 books all cited peer review signatures 100+ times, went down and slammed them in front of the creationists asking if they read these.
Then to insult them even more they told them this was a fraction, about 0.2% of the books and articles that are cited this much. They(creationists) were laughed out of court.
@callofduty497 Of course I can't answer your question. Its not my job to. I know the statistically significant rate in which human knowledge is growing. I dont actually have to know the knowledge - nor do I have to convey it to you - in order for it to be valid. Knowledge is valid without my input. (and without yours) Its shocking how you insist that you have to understand something in order for it to be correct. Be humble in your humanity. You cannot know everything. Thats why we have experts.
@callofduty497 Its interesting how you, someone completely uneducated in this are, assumes you understand the theory better than experts on the subject who have devoted their LIFE to understanding the theory. Where the overwhelming majority of experts agree that evolution is a fact, and have agreed on this for some 150 years. If everyone were as clever as you, we wouldnt need science and discovery.
humans didnt evolve from the star. i was just saying. big bang happend, the atoms and particles form explosion made planets. the particles form planets made small organism. which made us
@callofduty497 first cows do not evolve into whales but lets pretend they did Bluber is fat so yeah cows have fat. Also cows that had a deformity where they could swim faster would have a better chance to reproduce. These genes would be passed into the speices and more cows would be born that had this defomity. Those cows with greater deformitys that allowed faster travel in water would get more food and have babys. LOL
@callofduty497 You must be trolling. If you want answers to your questions, go ask someone credible or go to school and become an expert. I am not an expert, it is neither my responsibility to 1) know nor 2) educate you. If you want to get answers then go get answers. What you see as truth doesn't depend on what I message you, it depends on what you WANT to learn. I know, I know, I'm totally worth your time ;)
@pb2themax Huuu I have been asking for evidence and Never got any for a god/gods/magic tree. Also mans theorys made the computer you are typing on... What has god done.
@pb2themax Yeah zues is a great designer. Or was it Ra? perhapes Odin, or Allah? Or perhapes we might want to leave the storys to read to children before bed and actualy use our brains to figure things out. Mother goose is not for adults... And lets face it religion is a fairy tale
@ebilly99 You're right. It makes more sense that us highly advanced humans evolved from a booger on the bottom of the ocean. Now there's a good fairy tale.
@pb2themax Yeah it is much beter then some perfect eternal god creating a imperfect man out of dirt, then creating a clone out of a rib, and flooding a world becuase he didn't know that we would sin. Same god that is for human sacrifice and loves to rape virgins.
@ebilly99 Read the original translation. She sacrificed her life by becoming a "nun". She was not killed. No matter what Jephthah did or did not do, God is not to blame for it.
As for the virgin birth there was no sex therefore no rape. It was a miracle tho. Requiring some faith to believe. But no more faith than it takes to believe as a Big Bang or any other evolutionary theory.
@pb2themax Read the originol text.LOL the answer to everything well my freind can you give a website to where the original text is? Also another human sacrifice is jesus himself, or does that not count? The big bang is what is happing now, it is the expansion of the universe. Microwave radiation is the proof for that (Anyway whats your problem with big bang? I mean the cause is unknowen So god speaking the universe into existance at the moment of the big bang is not imposible) Evolution has _C_
@ebilly99 tons of evidence, no less so the evidence of shared retroviral dna from chimps and man. also there are the shared chromosones (Chromosone 2 is 2 fused chromosones, we know this by the location of the talimers. als if the earth is only 6000 years old how do you explain the fossiles?
@pb2themax the big bang was a exploding star. once they die they have a small chance to explode which ours will do when the sun goes out. thats the big bang! no faith at all just science.
@pb2themax not a booger with a single cellular structure. but whatev. ill stick to beleiving i was magically picked up by a guts of wind and into a human like ur fake religons brainwashed u 2 beleive ;)
@theBacklash4 Ok. I can say the same thing. A single cell organism magically morphed into a human, like some brainwashed biased "scientists" like to teach. Your theories require even more faith than mine. LOL.
@pb2themax dude what sense are u making! if u knew anything bout cells they divide! not single double, triple then they mass themselves into tissue and organs which explains us! im not sayign we magically regenerated but we obv werent human. u know a virus can make decisions and its single celled? u obv sure learn b4 u speak
@theBacklash4 The big bang has nothing to do with stars as there were none before the universe existed. The big bang is the event of a singularity expanding into the univerese we know now
@ebilly99 waaat?? the idea of the big bang theory is about a super nova that created our planets and our galaxy. which when our sun dies out will do the same thing
@ebilly99 the big bang is theory of OUR galaxy not others. those trillions of stars are from other stars. and u dont think a start exploding wont create particals from its outter layer then decompressed by the vaccum of space? its like the famous 1900's when they blew up that beached whale, fragments of it were made. just liek the big bang. but ill do addition research to check if im right or missing osme peices
@callofduty497 I dont have to answer this question. That is not my job. People out there dedicate their entire lives to figuring this stuff out. They have a lot of schooling, a lot of knowledge, and understand a great deal more than I do. I trust that someone smarter than me has a more valid opinion than me on the subject. I have no NEED to try to invent a theory on the spot for your amusement. If you want an answer then speak to someone who is a professional in the field.
@callofduty497 I'm not discussing it with you. I'm debating with you. I have already pointed out that I am NOT a scientist and I do NOT have the answer. My only point is that "god did it" is not a valid answer. If you lack the imagination to think up reasons as to HOW it could happen (other than 'magic') then that is your own shortcomings, not my own. I am not about to present a theory and try to validate it because THAT IS NOT MY JOB! If you want to do that, then make it your profession.
@callofduty497 Calling me 'sir' (i am a female btw) doesn't make your point any more valid. Let me entertain your explanation: I will ask you HOW god did it, and you will say 'i dont know', 'magic', 'it is not knowable to humans' or something to that extent. Which brings me back to my original point: saying 'god did it' doesnt explain ANYTHING. The purpose of science is to discover HOW something got there. I am not here to debate you. You don't have a valid point to make and I am not a scientist
@callofduty497 Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. But peoples' opinions dont have equal merit. The reason Creationists' opinions are tossed aside is because they tend to be illogical and close-minded. The comment "god did it" explains nothing, and therefore is unsatisfactory. If you want answers to your questions, I suggest you go back to school, study the subjects, get a job in the field, and do your own research. Otherwise let the experts do the talking. Their opinions are more valid
I actually laughed out loud watching this video. We see around us a natural breaking down of biological systems, such as disease and mutations. We don't observe life becoming more complex, only different, which are most often detrimental. Somehow, by allowing millions of years, we see amazing, complex systems, all by random processes. How does time somehow make possible what observed processes says is impossible? I tried watching this with an open mind.
@wally2910 you have answered your own question. I quote "We don't observe life becoming more complex, only different, which are most often detrimental" Most often it IS detrimental. These mutated species will usually die because of natural selection. the ones that have a beneficial change will survive and pass this on the there offspring. over billions of years a bacteria CAN through its offspring eventually evolve to something else
Nah - takes too much FAITH to believe all that "just happened"!
Kinda like - how long would we have had to wait for "time and chance" to produce even the HYPOTHESIS you put forward here? Surely this hypothesis shows evidence of "intelligent design"...
I am reminded of a common "natural law" of physics, something to the effect that "something does not come from nothing". Surely a fine "design" (like the bombardier beetle - or maybe, your hypothesis?) does not come about without a "designer"?!
"Erm... evolutionary biologists don't know what it means but you do? how very arrogant." I don't mean to sound arrogant but I think my definition is accurate "A transitional form would demonstrate these slow evolutionary changes from one species as it evolved into another" if you have a better one I'l be glad to hear it, the argument that "every animal is a transitional form" is nonsense, look at the fossil record, many types of sharks that haven't changed in 100 million years!
At 0:37 this video states that "investigation into each of these any(typo meant AND) many more has ALWAYS yielded evidence of gradual evolution" OH REALLY?!?! WHERE!!!!....... in the fossil record?, show me, if you have this evidence then show us! If you can't it's nothing but a bluff!!!!
I smiled at “the beetle evolves a new compound hydroquinones...” at 2:35 – as if the beetle were some sort of chemist “the beetle synthesises a new compound hydroquinones...”
Excellent video. It's a very well-educated hypothesis. Hopefully one day more evidence will surface to back it up and answer more questions regarding it. It does bug me, however, to see so many people in the comments here not realize that this is a HYPOTHESIS, I.E. an educated prediction of how something has occurred or will occur based on current knowledge and previous observations. You have the internet people; learn how science works so you don't make an ass of yourself.
Very well done video
CodyAustin3 1 month ago
ill be more specific. what they draw is how they think it happend. its an assumption fromp their side therefore a belief in u think it happend that way.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin Regardless of whether this is exactly how it happened, it is an explanation of a way it could possibly have happened, therefore destroying the argument that it is irreducably complex.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar this doesnt destroy anything. i agree its very simple for someone with a brain to put a bombarider beetle together. but that it all happend on luck, and just without reason that makes it impossible.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin No one said it happened by luck. Natural selection is the opposite of luck. It is selection.
If I roll ten dice, and I only reroll the dice that don't show a six; sure there is a random element but you're not gonna be surprised when I get all sixes.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar yea but uts u thats rolling the cie at evolution there isn anyone one selecting. therefore its pure otehrwise u are claiming that natural selection means that nature has a consciousness and selects what he/she wnats to evolve.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin No you're claiming that selection requires a consciousness. If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground. If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected). If they harm the organisms chances, it will likely die before passing them on (not selected). No consciousness required. Not random.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoolsCaesar
You know what his next comment is going to be, don't you?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar "If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground" so the ball gains information or anything that prvios balls did not have then? no its still a ball then. probably a worse ball then therefore because he fell from a height.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar " If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected)" see thats something u cant proof that those genes got an "increase" of information. its an assumption. therefore its a belief. thats my whole point that u guys just admit that the major theorie of the evolution theorie is just a beliefe nothing more
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin I never even mentioned an "increase" in information. Did you quote the word "increase" from "If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies"? I know you people are partial to quote mining, but that is insane.
There's no information involved. It's a chain of base pairs. DNA does not inform anything. It's not information. You would need to suggest that protein synthesizers have conciousness and understand DNA for it to be information.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar how do u think when ur an embryo that ur cells grow arms, legs, theet, eyes,... and all that stuff? thats using information on how ull need to look when the growing process is complete. but u deny thats dna is information because thats something u cant see.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin No, I denied that it is information because it does not inform anything. If you actually studied it, you would see inevitable chemical processes. There is no understanding by these molecules. A ribisome does not understand that it is matching rna to protein, it's just following the physical laws of the universe.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar thats how u can observe it. u can observe chemical processes and all that stuuf but u cant see nor study/know how the chemical processes know what they are doing, i now its weird but its the truth. physical laws in the universe how did that come?? from were did those laws come?
MrValidin 1 month ago
i cant believe people buy this shit really. the only thing i saw is how u showed us how to draw things using ur imagination. u can easely study how things work i agree on that. but that doenst mean that it evolved from lets say nothing to such a complexity. u can for example study the eye and say if we leave this and this then the light would come like this but what u guys are saying is that the eye did evolve. wrong. u dont know that, thats something u evolutionists just wants to believe.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin The problem is the video specifically says it isn't meant as a proof that this is what happened. It is only meant to show that the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism isn't irreducibly complex.
SuperMerlin100 1 month ago
@SuperMerlin100 not complex?? if u draw it like that then it does not look complex agreed. but try and open a bombarider beetle and say if its not so complex anymore then.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin Ir-re-duc-ible complexity is what I (and everyone else here) am talking about.
The only counter you can make is to say that one of the steps in the development presented in the video is irreducibly complex by its self.
Note: you must be specific about which and why.
SuperMerlin100 1 month ago
@UltraEpicLoser i'm not saying that you don't, i'm just saying that i don't understand why you do.
ragazoor 3 months ago
This is gotta be satire right?
smooveau 3 months ago
@smooveau
How so?
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
I'm very confused... how can people in the fucking 21th century still believe in intelligent design?
ragazoor 3 months ago
@ragazoor I do.
UltraEpicLoser 3 months ago
@ragazoor because God still searches for people and calls them to follow him everyday.
mariostrikersmaster 2 months ago
Surely irreducible complexity is the central "tenet" of Intelligent Design, rather than its middlemost paying guest.
v0idation 4 months ago
You said "invaginations evolve to hold extra quinones" please explain the mechanism used to alter the DNA code to allow for a change in the structure of the beetle. You cannot use mutation as this mechanism because it is harmful to the organism and has never been documented to provide repeated benefits.
philackey 5 months ago
@philackey How is it harmful?
xphreakyphilx 5 months ago
@philackey watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY
Explains it a little better.
M0rdH0rst 4 months ago
@philackey the beatles with more surface in the skin survive because they have more quinones, after natural selection, we end up with the surface maximized, and because a bigger beatle is not necesarily beneficial, just the skin grew and formed invaginations just with the "goal" of having that good extra skin
rsolano60 4 months ago
This video is so stupid. The frequent use of the word evolve to explain this is a perfect example of how much this theory fails. You are't talking about how at all, you are just telling us what the beetle has and then telling us the parts came gradually. Not HOW the mutations that would do it happened from whatever its ancestor was or how. ALl you are saying is that it happened. i could describe the evolution of a car for your exactly like this. Its so sad how many people buy this garbage
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope Not knowing in detail the process of how mutations make the changes do not disproves evolution. The investigation in field like genetics is actualy answernig thos questions and up to day they only prove even more how evolution works
shadowmax889 6 months ago
ID folks don't deny that someone can come up with a story. That isn't very difficult. But storytelling isn't science. And science is what you are claiming to depend on here.
Catbird107 7 months ago
@Catbird107 Nope, ID proponents state that it's impossible for such a structure to have come together, and therefore evolution is false. Mark and cdk007 showed that there are ways in which this could have evolved, using only chemicals and cells available to beetles.
Thunderios 6 months ago
@Thunderios read my comment. this is garbage
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope I read your comment; it is garbage, indeed.
Thunderios 6 months ago
I think that you have misstated your basic premise. ID folks don't think that it is impossible to make up a story about it. I can do that myself. I could likely come up with several stories for it. Coming up with a story isn't science. And that's what you claim to be using.
Catbird107 7 months ago
"If a system were truly Irreducibly Complex then it should be IMPOSSIBLE to even form a logically and scientifically sound hypothesis for its gradual evolution. "
That equates to 'If I think it is possible then it is.' This is deciding in your head, without any actual factual evidence or proof, that something is or is not possible. Evolve is not a magic word, but it sure gets a lot of stage time as one.
Comoloid 7 months ago
What's more logical? Assuming that random mutations in DNA which randomly assembled itself on "the backs of bubbles" resulted in something intelligible AND intelligent OR Something so obviously complex might have been designed... Evolution is a hypothesis dis-proven repeatedly by it's own data, but grasped onto desperately by people (most of whom do not understand the actual data that supposedly supports it) so that they will not have to answer to God for the evil that many try to deny exists.
DayStarShadow 7 months ago
The creator of this video has a lot of faith.. His faith is based of evolutionary assumptions of course idividuals can speculate but faith is faith. Both creationism and evolutionism are based on faith in assumptions at least creationism comes with a users manual that has withstood the test of time.. :)
njburgess13 7 months ago
The creator of this video has a lot of faith.. His faith is based of evolutionary assumptions of course idividuals can speculate but faith is faith. Both creationism and evolutionism are based on faith in assumptions at least creationism comes with a users manual that has withstood the test of time.. :)
njburgess13 7 months ago
Both creation and evolution are Actuality. Things were created then evolved. A baby evolves from the 1st cell of life into a complex multi-celled organism called an Adult. Even viruses evolve in closed in environments. Just as well, All things began from a central point. No separation. Wake up
IRONFISTENT 7 months ago
@IRONFISTENT LOL, got any evidence for that?
Development is not evolution, BTW. Please do yourself a favour and read at least the Wikipedia entries on "Evolution" and "Human development (biology)" and try to figure out for yourself where the difference is.
0x8x0 7 months ago
@0x8x0
Cool, I will do that and get back to you. I wont make a "specific" comment until I do; but... Do you think maybe you come off a lil' bit sensitive? (Note: It should be kept in mind that modern natural science claimed to discredit a lot of what was taught in the Eastern Hemisphere in antiquity, and now, finally, their machines are just beginning to get a glimpse into what deep meditation had already revealed to those great people - and Machines are proving it true.)
IRONFISTENT 7 months ago
@IRONFISTENT My sensitivity springs from confrontation with the wilfully ignorant AKA creationists.
Again, you're making statements with no evidence or supporting facts at all as if it were common knowledge and taught in every university. I can't really see how "deep meditation" would provide insight into the often counter-intuitive findings of modern science, care to provide an example?
0x8x0 7 months ago
@0x8x0
Always remember... Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You present yourself as an intelligent individual, so be mindful. "Quantum Physics" is just one example; and a powerful one enough as to where I don't need another. Help me to see how anything in modern science is counter-intuitive, or new... If you would sir. And, you must know sensitivity is an emotion, & emotions cloud judgement & anger blinds; offsetting ones clarity.
IRONFISTENT 7 months ago
@IRONFISTENT Please don't evade my questions.
0x8x0 7 months ago
@0x8x0
Huh? What evasion? I really don't know what you're getting at? I responded to every sentence in your response. Even still, I can see how natural scientist, who rely upon machinery to gather data can easily loose sight of the meaning of life. The highest planes of existence are Love, Peace, Joy & Happiness. How are these conversations going to get me closer to the life I want on Earth? Plus, I don't have enough space here to explain my point. I do respect Ur profession though.
IRONFISTENT 7 months ago
@IRONFISTENT You didn't provide any evidence or facts... Natural sciences don't deal with philosophy, so you can't lose it.
But I agree with you (kind of) that social behaviour is good for all parties :) But I disagree that you have to invent some essentially unprovable concepts to get there. As a naturalist, my approach is fact based, which doesn't mean that I neglect my emotional side.
0x8x0 7 months ago
@0x8x0 "Natural sciences don't deal with philosophy..." What? Science is a type of philosophy.
PoidHater 5 months ago
@0x8x0
If you find another place for us to write, where I'm not restricted to half thoughts; I would be glad to continue this exchange of ideas.
IRONFISTENT 7 months ago
You made an alright argument but not really enough for me I'm afraid. Like 3:33 A heat resistant structure forms around the catalase and peroxidase. How? Magic? Evolution has too many holes in the theory for me and after all these years those holes haven't gone away, and too many assumptions are made to fill in these holes. Maybe its time for a new theory?
taishanfox 8 months ago
@taishanfox What form might this new theory take? I applaud your skepticism in not accepting statements presented without support, however I think it's misplaced. It seems silly to me to say evolution is too full of holes based the fact that a 5 minute YT video failed to completely explain some part of a beetle's evolution. Have you investigated this independently and can you confirm no working hypothesis for the formation of this structure exists? What holes in particular are you referencing?
landfillpoet 8 months ago
@landfillpoet Hey thanks for your comment, this is kinda where I stand. I say holes but I probably mean more lack of fact because after 160 years this is still the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Law of Evolution" and a theory in its simplicity is only what someone thinks happened. And if you believe it, fine I support your right too. But I kinda dread videos like these as they only exist to try and convince you there way of thinking.
To be continued :)
taishanfox 8 months ago
@landfillpoet cont.. I work in the field of Physics not Anthropology, but I understand fairly well. My main reason I don't believe it is I don't believe in random creation, as the universe is far to finely balanced and even the most simplistic of organisms are very complex sub-molecular and sub-atomically. But like I said if you believe it good on you. But finding flaws in theories is easy as I could make a video illustrating that evolution is false a creator just had several attempts at man.
taishanfox 8 months ago
@taishanfox "I work in the field of Physics". Obviously not true, you don't even know what a scientific theory is and why theory will never be "promoted" to law. You might qualify as janitor in a facility dedicated to physics. Or is bodybuilding physic for you?
0x8x0 7 months ago
I made up my mind!
Evolutionists will never make a monkey out of me!
FindingJesusverytrue 8 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrue
Only one who can make you monkey is yourself
Kissimirri22 8 months ago
@Kissimirri22 But I am not!
I pray God bless you mightily in Jesus' Name!
A prayer that monkeys cannot pray! and monkeys cannot answer!
FindingJesusverytrue 3 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrue
Please, stop making yourself looking like an idiot...
Kissimirri22 3 months ago
It is a nice story but, where does the information come from for these changes to take place? What realizes it needs these defensive mechanisms? Because the beetle cannot say "hey this is what I need" and it happens. I believe that the biggest problem with evolution is the information needed for a cell to form or to do its tasks. I believe this information had to come from somewhere. Let's all keep an open mind for the truth be it evolution or intelligence.
Theonlykslawdog 8 months ago
Is this video supposed to be serious..?
grandmastersmith 8 months ago
you showed the gradual changes made all up until the peroxidases and catalases just popped out of nowhere.
how could they appear without information already being present in the species?
bunshine8plutz 8 months ago
great video - i thumbed it up to counteract all the self-centered nay-sayers. Face it folks Humans are PART of nature and not ABOVE it. If we don't come around that fact NATURE will take us out - through - yep you guessed it - NATURAL SELECTION.
DjDedan 8 months ago
Yeah, and all the hydrogen peroxide happened to deposit in one side, and all the quinones happened to deposit on the other side, handy! And the sphincter happened to keep them completely separate when they were depositing there. And the heat protection happened to form before there was heat caused by the reaction, because there are tons of insects that have developed heat protection randomly when they didn't need it. ... not This is a fairy tale that you can't think about in much detail.Fail
enjoy8668 9 months ago
@enjoy8668 you clearly don't understand evolution. it isn't that all of the things in the video just happened, genes which allowed things similar to what's in the video would be selected for as they are beneficial to the beetle. i don't think you have a right to talk about evolution that way when you don't even seem to understand the key factor involved in it: natural selection. your comment is a fail, and so is your understanding of what you say is ridiculous.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
@777lamppost a hypothesis is an idea that can be proven wrong or right through facts. i.e. a logical idea which has some evidence but is not certainly the answer to a question. hyopthesese are a key part in the scientific method, and if you think that they're far-fetched ridiculousness then go ahead and think that. just remember that wouldn't make a good scientist as you think that all hypothesese are far-fetched.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@atzutu you've got to be kidding. you think a horn would be the most effective defence for insects? seriously? are you really so closed minded that you refuse to accept evidence and instead say that all animals need the same defence? you might as well say that the poison arrow frog shouldn't have warning marks because they stand out over the environment. and evolution doesn't require several hypothesese to work. evolution is fact, and macroevolution and speciation have even been observed.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG where are the missing links? No fact or evidence in that.
Theonlykslawdog 8 months ago
@Theonlykslawdog again, you seem to fail to understand evolution. to be honest with you, i'm surprised i'm going to debate a man who hasn't even researched the very thing he claims with such confidence is a fairy tale. just type in "list of transitional forms" on wikipedia or talkorigins and you'll get something several pages long. i don't even need to list anything, as EVERY fossil is a transitional form.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
i didnt all watch but i'm sure you cannot explain why an unintelligent beetle would carry and develop extra organs
it would be better to develop a horn.. or some other physical defense, but never such a complex sets of chemical reactions. i think you really try to admit that probably evolution is false after all..
good initiative though.. evolutions needs thousands of hypotheses like these to work :)
God save Darwin.. lol
atzutzu 9 months ago
I guess HYPOTHESIS can be rediculous as is this whole video, some people want to believe evolution therory so bad they get so far fected to make it happen, makes for good fiction though...
777lamppost 9 months ago
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
@achilles197474 Mutations that increase genetic information in Humans: Down Syndrome, Patau Syndrome, Edward's Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, XXX females, and XYY males. Seriously, these are strait from the internet. You don't have to dig very deep to find mutations the increase genetic information. I'm sure even you have heard of a couple of these...
godlynessdog 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. Mutations do not drive the engine of evolution. It is a fairy tale.
achilles197474 9 months ago
@lordsong7 saying that your OPINION is that this is storytelling doesn't change the fact that it is a well supported hypothesis. get over the fact that you are wrong about some myth and that the only reason you don't believe in evolution is that you don't understand it.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
Seems to me like the bombardier beetle went through a whole lot of trouble to develop this sophisticated mechanism, as if it had a goal in mind. Or did he get lucky and all of those steps and all of numerous ones you left out just fall into place.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil Parallel argument: Seems like the human being went though a lot of trouble developing the reproductive system,as if it had a goal in mind. Think of all the numerous evolutionary steps left out that just might produce malformed dickless embarrassments or females going through pseudo-menopause since birth with dysfunctional ovary's. (*ahem* sarcasm)
shoulderkolibri 9 months ago
@shoulderkolibri
¨Seems like the human being went though a lot of trouble developing the reproductive system,as if it had a goal in mind¨
I agree. The simultaneous evolution of compatible human male and female reproductive systems both anatomically and biochemically is quite absurd.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil The only way for a phenotype to survive is if it successfully leads to procreation. This "goal" doesn't require a mind, only an environment that allows well-adapted phenotypes to procreate and disallows poorly adapted phenotypes to procreate. It isn't random. It's amazingly simple, intuitive, and elegant. Different species have developed amazing tactics for achieving this goal and our current state of biodiversity is certainly awe-inspiring.
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 9 months ago
This is truly hilarious
As always the Darwiener imagines a QUAINT STORY where in muscles, ejections systems, heat resistant cells etc. etc. arise magically by RM+NS & voilà the trick is solved!
How naive can 1 be to believe this codswallop is beyond comprehension
Sounds curiously similar to frogs to princes by the magic kiss of selection
The many thousands of intermediary steps are -AS ALWYAS- simply passed over in narrative gloss to make it sound credible to other naive & ignorant dupes
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
You know reading through your comment I could not figure out if you were joking. Sad to say you probably are not. There are currently 217,000 peer reviewed articles and 830,000 fossils that are all cited 50+ times and some as high as 3,500 citations. That means, when someone discovered something, they tested it, demonstrated it, than to validate it they enter it to academic arena called peer review. Other experts take the article, break it down, repeat tests then they give *continue*
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I see that u r the joker here.
Telling me how many PRed articles exist on Darwinism is useless - it answer nothing to the point & answers nothing I said.
The rest of ur empty rant is even worse. Kitzmiller? I wish u were joking
Behe's IC has already been vindicated. To bad u ignore anything that contradicts ur religion
Allow me to remind u that Galileo (and 100s of others) was threatened "out of court"
Ur religious belief in consensus science is appalling
...
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Your right, I do reject unproven claims and claims with no peer review structure or clear models to describe what you are speaking about. Unfortunately we have those and you don't.
284,000 peer reviewed articles on pubmed. Can't link due to youtube. These were all taken and verified by the best. In fact a lot of these have been verified hundreds of times. Again what is your proof against evolution that is peer reviewed? Also, science doesn't meet the definition of religion.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
We? Who is we?
I don't? How the hell would u know?!
Articles on what? The Bombardier? The step by step pathway in its evolution to what it is from something else? Sorry but u don't have a clue.
Science/religion? Religion drives science and Darwinism is the most religious "theory" of them all
If u at least knew what ur talking about it would help, but u obviously don't
Show us the PR articles demonstrating the stepwise evol of the Bombardier.
There are 0 an u know it
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
The scientific community.
Again stop asserting stuff I already shown to be ridiculous for you to argue against and put forth and proof of what you are talking about.
Until then automatically by the rules of debate the person with more evidence wins.
Again I showed that we have a heavily sources database on a model used to describe a function we observe in reality that succeeding generations tend to pass on favorable genes. This is your turn to try and rebuttal that.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
U r the nitwit asserting irrelevant nonsense
U showed nothing but a story. Stories inventing genetic pathways r not evidence of anything but an imagination.
Ur little story here is not science at all. Science isn't telling stories.
If u had proof, u'd show it -and no doubt win a Nobel since no such step by step evol pathway has ever been given for the beetle.
Where's ur demonstration of the step by step evol of the Bombardier?
Got none? Just a story? Gee what a surprise.
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
You have to rebuttal it with a source, not assertions. So again, it's your turn up at bat, let's see a swing and a miss.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
right, and you have a source and not bare assertions huh? rotfl
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Another swing and a miss. Aain I already posted the biggest collection of peer review journals and articles. Your turn.
Also yay you now know how to type out the word "you" horray congratualations. Now learn to captialize your words.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
No u didn't
I could care less how many atheists claim is there is no god and u r his prophet, much less how many blind followers ur St Darwin "peer-reviewed" this trash which is nothing but an insult to intelligence & true science
lordsong7 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
When u actually present the bio pathway from some "unarmed" ancestor insect to the bombardier, with a good part of the actual mutation sequence, selection events, etc i.e. real science, then someone with a brain may believe as U!
Until then its pure speculation & story telling. I'm amazed U cant tell the diff
Do U really believe presenting an imaginary story is actual empirical evidence?
U'd fit in well in Galileo's day with the flat earthers and their peer-reviewed consensus
lordsong7 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Organisms change over time. Get over it.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@godlynessdog
Little confused you are talking to lordsong7 not me right? As I never said that and he hqs been. Can't get it through his sick twisted mind. Its funny though to see the retard make a fool of himself.
JamesCizuz 9 months ago
@JamesCizuz Sorry.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@JamesCizuz Organisms change over time. Get over it.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godlynessdog
¨Organisms change over time.¨
Of course you´ve said nothing here.
owensphil 9 months ago
Respond to this video...
Wrong sorry kid. When presented with nothing but bare assertions -thats all this video presents since no specific mutations, no selection events, zero *empirical* evidence has been presented as an argument, I don't even have to rebut. Duh!
The author of this sorry piece of animated pseudo-science believes that his speculations -as to how such MAY have, could have, must have evolved- are true, but that is FAITH not fact
Darwinists are pathetically religious
lordsong7 10 months ago
Even if there is no articles on evolution of bombardier beetle(pub med has 25 on the evolutionary process) what would it matter? If we had no evidence, we would say "We don't know how it could of evolved" that doesn't automatically make the position that "god did it" right. That is a leap, you need to demonstrate with repeatable and verifiable tests that are peer reviewed how god did it and the process used. Until then it's don't know, or most supported theory(Evolution).
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
Where are the 1000s of missing steps in this lame brained video's explanation (just-so story)?
U have none, but instead of being honest & admitting the video's scenario is laughably childish u point me to PRed literature. Amazing!
Go through the literature all u please, u will find ZERO step by step, mutation + selection, pathways from some ordinary beetle to the Bombardier
Or anything else!!
Sad u cant tell the diff between speculative stories & empirical evidence
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Also no, sorry you are wrong. You(Notice how it's spelled you, not U) are blatantly lying or are a ignorant. You are incorrect about evolution and you are arguing against a model used to describe what we observe in reality. Evolution debate was settled long ago and you guys lost because your claims had no scientific basis. Science doesn't care about what result will happen, just that it produced the correct result. That is evolution, and we see intermediate species everywhere..
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
But also remember I am already aware this is a useless conversation as you are already stuck into your preconceptions of the world and don't want to accept reality that is fine, because in an argument it is not my job to personally attack another like you started, nor is it to try to prove to the person of whom you are arguing with is wrong and convince them, it's for the benefit of the outside public. So when you make blind assertions it's laughable and general public can see that.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
Funny how Darwinian fundamentalist dupes like u r so incapable of reasoning, all while being stuck in ur own little materialist world of hopelessly self-contradictory thinking.
No one denies reality more than atheists except Darwinists. U r the most religious people on earth and untouchable by reason or proof.
No one believes in fairy tale like pseudo-science as much a the Darwinian dupe. U've been brainwashed well and need de-programing.
Dream on dream on little man...
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Again you can keep making up words but it does not make them true. Again, "U and "R" are defeating the purpose in your argument.
So you failed to provide any evidence for your position again. So that is three strikes, now I get to officially only give you the reply "Sorry this conversation is going nowhere you don't care about the outcome, you are wrong, anyone reading can see that".
I will have to post that till you can verify your position.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Also you keep asserting I am somehow in a religion when a religion is a belief system.
You don't believe Scientific Theories, you understand them. Scientific theories are models used to describe what we observe in the world and what is demonstrable. I don't care whether evolution is true or not, it holds no basis for me. I do want to know what IS true, and I pick the path of most evidence. However again, prove your position and we would not be arguing. Until then, you're wrong.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@lordsong7 I was wondering if you actually had an arguement?
gamesbok 10 months ago
@lordsong7
So once again, please post any proof of intelligent design and I will tear it down, not for you, but for the people reading.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
ROTFLMAO is the only intelligent answer to such incredibly arrogant lame brained idiocy.
Read my blog at borne dot wordpress for starters if ur incapable of reading Myers Sig in the Cell, Behes Edge, Sanfords Genetic Entropy, Douglas Axe or Richard Sternbergs PRd etc. all papers showing why Darwinism CANT work etc
U have no clue at all what UR talking about but U still claim UR childish little story is scientific proof?!!
UR no scientist thats for sure.
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
No I won't read your blog. I asked you to cite proof, not assertions. You keep demanding such so I told you where there is 284,000 articles on the subject of evolution that are all peer reviewed and vetted by the best.
Remember, reading something does not make it so. You can write a compelling argument for everything and to the uneducated they eat it up. That is why I make sure my position is verified, and backed up by empirical evidence and reality.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
You have done just what I thought you would any you will again respond back like you are somehow shocked to what I had said and also you know what? Even if you were right I want to give you a tip. Do not use "U" or "UR" they are not words and have no meaning. When people are reading your arguments you appear as a 12 year old to lazy to type a whole word out so I would not bother with your "blog". Unless you can show me that it has been vetted by biologists and experts in the field.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Until then you appear as a sad little man replying back. So again, lets give you another try(This will be your third) to reply with any peer reviewed article disproving or showing that evolution is wrong in any way that has more then 50 citations from experts in the scientific community that have scoured the article or argument to show it's flaws or verify it is sound.
Swing and a miss guys? I guess so.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
U clearly knowing nothing at all on information structures, statistical mechanics, combinatorial dependencies, algorithmic information theory, genetic entropy, and less than nothing of biosemiotics - which all by itself is making havoc of ur religion Darwinism.
Sad but like all Darwinists u fit Churchill's statement: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
lordsong7 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I need to bust ur foolish little bubble :
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
The first part of that quote is wrong and not the general concensus of the scientific community and in fact found a quick article that Jeffrey retracted the first part of the statement about demonstrable. The second part just says that evolution did occur but we can never know the true history. Which is correct since knowing requires absolute certainty. There will always be some things left un found. The point? The quote is positive evolutionist, not negative.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
Algorithmic information theory coupled with biosemiotics destroys all hopes of Darwins inane idea.
But I now see that there is zero hope of ever getting anything that contradicts ur pathetic empty world-view across the barriers in ur brain.
You really need to go to the origin of life site at lifeorigin dot info - David Abel et al. - and start reading their PRd articles explaining why Darwinism doesn't & cannot work.
Til then u'll remain yet another ignorant Darwinian blowhard
lordsong7 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Nope, very well know the two things you are claiming.
Biosemiotics incorporates evolution. In fact biosemiotics just sees evolution as a small part of a bigger theory which is fine, because evolution is once life exists evolution takes over, abiogensis is the formation of life in the first place.
You'll need to cite an article for Algorithmic information somehow disproving evolution. Could not find relative information, disbelief until then. 100+ Peer review signatures please.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Their approval on the article. These have been absolutely verified and in fact in the dover vs kitzmiller case the creationists were laughed out of court when they claimed the flagellum was IC and no books that were peer reviewed existed on the subject, than kitzmiller in a bit of court theater got a small supply of about 23 books all cited peer review signatures 100+ times, went down and slammed them in front of the creationists asking if they read these.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@lordsong7
Then to insult them even more they told them this was a fraction, about 0.2% of the books and articles that are cited this much. They(creationists) were laughed out of court.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@callofduty497 Of course I can't answer your question. Its not my job to. I know the statistically significant rate in which human knowledge is growing. I dont actually have to know the knowledge - nor do I have to convey it to you - in order for it to be valid. Knowledge is valid without my input. (and without yours) Its shocking how you insist that you have to understand something in order for it to be correct. Be humble in your humanity. You cannot know everything. Thats why we have experts.
SezSays 10 months ago
@callofduty497 Its interesting how you, someone completely uneducated in this are, assumes you understand the theory better than experts on the subject who have devoted their LIFE to understanding the theory. Where the overwhelming majority of experts agree that evolution is a fact, and have agreed on this for some 150 years. If everyone were as clever as you, we wouldnt need science and discovery.
SezSays 10 months ago
humans didnt evolve from the star. i was just saying. big bang happend, the atoms and particles form explosion made planets. the particles form planets made small organism. which made us
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@callofduty497 first cows do not evolve into whales but lets pretend they did Bluber is fat so yeah cows have fat. Also cows that had a deformity where they could swim faster would have a better chance to reproduce. These genes would be passed into the speices and more cows would be born that had this defomity. Those cows with greater deformitys that allowed faster travel in water would get more food and have babys. LOL
ebilly99 11 months ago
@callofduty497 You must be trolling. If you want answers to your questions, go ask someone credible or go to school and become an expert. I am not an expert, it is neither my responsibility to 1) know nor 2) educate you. If you want to get answers then go get answers. What you see as truth doesn't depend on what I message you, it depends on what you WANT to learn. I know, I know, I'm totally worth your time ;)
SezSays 11 months ago
This hypothesis is weak, and a stretch. Intelligent Design FTW.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax This hypothesis is weak so I will go after the one with absolutly no evidence... NICE
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 My evidence is tangible all around us. Yours is just a mans theory, an idea. Thats weak.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax Huuu I have been asking for evidence and Never got any for a god/gods/magic tree. Also mans theorys made the computer you are typing on... What has god done.
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 LOL. God made mans brain and fingers that made my iPhone that I'm using now. We are not here by chance. It's by design. :)
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax Yeah zues is a great designer. Or was it Ra? perhapes Odin, or Allah? Or perhapes we might want to leave the storys to read to children before bed and actualy use our brains to figure things out. Mother goose is not for adults... And lets face it religion is a fairy tale
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 You're right. It makes more sense that us highly advanced humans evolved from a booger on the bottom of the ocean. Now there's a good fairy tale.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax Yeah it is much beter then some perfect eternal god creating a imperfect man out of dirt, then creating a clone out of a rib, and flooding a world becuase he didn't know that we would sin. Same god that is for human sacrifice and loves to rape virgins.
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 LOL. Sacrificing humans and raping virgins? Wow. Yur out there dude. Good luck with your search for the truth.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax please explain judges 11 and the virgin birth if you would then?
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 Read the original translation. She sacrificed her life by becoming a "nun". She was not killed. No matter what Jephthah did or did not do, God is not to blame for it.
As for the virgin birth there was no sex therefore no rape. It was a miracle tho. Requiring some faith to believe. But no more faith than it takes to believe as a Big Bang or any other evolutionary theory.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax Read the originol text.LOL the answer to everything well my freind can you give a website to where the original text is? Also another human sacrifice is jesus himself, or does that not count? The big bang is what is happing now, it is the expansion of the universe. Microwave radiation is the proof for that (Anyway whats your problem with big bang? I mean the cause is unknowen So god speaking the universe into existance at the moment of the big bang is not imposible) Evolution has _C_
ebilly99 11 months ago
@ebilly99 tons of evidence, no less so the evidence of shared retroviral dna from chimps and man. also there are the shared chromosones (Chromosone 2 is 2 fused chromosones, we know this by the location of the talimers. als if the earth is only 6000 years old how do you explain the fossiles?
ebilly99 11 months ago
@pb2themax the big bang was a exploding star. once they die they have a small chance to explode which ours will do when the sun goes out. thats the big bang! no faith at all just science.
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@theBacklash4 Stars can explode all they want, but humans evolving from it.....sounds like a bad movie.
pb2themax 10 months ago
@theBacklash4 UM.... No the big bang is the name of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. When a star blows up it is called a supernova
ebilly99 10 months ago
@pb2themax not a booger with a single cellular structure. but whatev. ill stick to beleiving i was magically picked up by a guts of wind and into a human like ur fake religons brainwashed u 2 beleive ;)
theBacklash4 11 months ago
@theBacklash4 Ok. I can say the same thing. A single cell organism magically morphed into a human, like some brainwashed biased "scientists" like to teach. Your theories require even more faith than mine. LOL.
pb2themax 11 months ago
@pb2themax dude what sense are u making! if u knew anything bout cells they divide! not single double, triple then they mass themselves into tissue and organs which explains us! im not sayign we magically regenerated but we obv werent human. u know a virus can make decisions and its single celled? u obv sure learn b4 u speak
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@ebilly99 the big bang theory tho is the explosion of a star which is a super nova which created our universe.
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@theBacklash4 The big bang has nothing to do with stars as there were none before the universe existed. The big bang is the event of a singularity expanding into the univerese we know now
ebilly99 10 months ago
@ebilly99 waaat?? the idea of the big bang theory is about a super nova that created our planets and our galaxy. which when our sun dies out will do the same thing
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@ebilly99 the big bang is theory of OUR galaxy not others. those trillions of stars are from other stars. and u dont think a start exploding wont create particals from its outter layer then decompressed by the vaccum of space? its like the famous 1900's when they blew up that beached whale, fragments of it were made. just liek the big bang. but ill do addition research to check if im right or missing osme peices
theBacklash4 10 months ago
@callofduty497 I dont have to answer this question. That is not my job. People out there dedicate their entire lives to figuring this stuff out. They have a lot of schooling, a lot of knowledge, and understand a great deal more than I do. I trust that someone smarter than me has a more valid opinion than me on the subject. I have no NEED to try to invent a theory on the spot for your amusement. If you want an answer then speak to someone who is a professional in the field.
SezSays 11 months ago
@callofduty497 I'm not discussing it with you. I'm debating with you. I have already pointed out that I am NOT a scientist and I do NOT have the answer. My only point is that "god did it" is not a valid answer. If you lack the imagination to think up reasons as to HOW it could happen (other than 'magic') then that is your own shortcomings, not my own. I am not about to present a theory and try to validate it because THAT IS NOT MY JOB! If you want to do that, then make it your profession.
SezSays 11 months ago
@SezSays I'm NOT* debating with you. Ahhhh typos. Forgetting entire words, now.
SezSays 11 months ago
@callofduty497 Calling me 'sir' (i am a female btw) doesn't make your point any more valid. Let me entertain your explanation: I will ask you HOW god did it, and you will say 'i dont know', 'magic', 'it is not knowable to humans' or something to that extent. Which brings me back to my original point: saying 'god did it' doesnt explain ANYTHING. The purpose of science is to discover HOW something got there. I am not here to debate you. You don't have a valid point to make and I am not a scientist
SezSays 11 months ago
@callofduty497 Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. But peoples' opinions dont have equal merit. The reason Creationists' opinions are tossed aside is because they tend to be illogical and close-minded. The comment "god did it" explains nothing, and therefore is unsatisfactory. If you want answers to your questions, I suggest you go back to school, study the subjects, get a job in the field, and do your own research. Otherwise let the experts do the talking. Their opinions are more valid
SezSays 11 months ago
lol. nice solution that doesn't prove anything. it just says how it works. But you did a good job on the diagrams. lol
747blackknight 11 months ago
I actually laughed out loud watching this video. We see around us a natural breaking down of biological systems, such as disease and mutations. We don't observe life becoming more complex, only different, which are most often detrimental. Somehow, by allowing millions of years, we see amazing, complex systems, all by random processes. How does time somehow make possible what observed processes says is impossible? I tried watching this with an open mind.
wally2910 11 months ago
@wally2910 you have answered your own question. I quote "We don't observe life becoming more complex, only different, which are most often detrimental" Most often it IS detrimental. These mutated species will usually die because of natural selection. the ones that have a beneficial change will survive and pass this on the there offspring. over billions of years a bacteria CAN through its offspring eventually evolve to something else
stormer55 11 months ago
@callofduty497
If you ask me, you dont know the first thing about science, how it works, how a hypothesis develops, and what a 'theory' is.
SezSays 11 months ago
Nah - takes too much FAITH to believe all that "just happened"!
Kinda like - how long would we have had to wait for "time and chance" to produce even the HYPOTHESIS you put forward here? Surely this hypothesis shows evidence of "intelligent design"...
I am reminded of a common "natural law" of physics, something to the effect that "something does not come from nothing". Surely a fine "design" (like the bombardier beetle - or maybe, your hypothesis?) does not come about without a "designer"?!
SalerPaul 11 months ago
@SalerPaul You're failing on too many levels to count. Watch the rest of his videos as he deconstructs everything you've just said step by step.
hockeater 11 months ago
wow!
taneaux 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Erm... evolutionary biologists don't know what it means but you do? how very arrogant." I don't mean to sound arrogant but I think my definition is accurate "A transitional form would demonstrate these slow evolutionary changes from one species as it evolved into another" if you have a better one I'l be glad to hear it, the argument that "every animal is a transitional form" is nonsense, look at the fossil record, many types of sharks that haven't changed in 100 million years!
CommonSense1208 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At 0:37 this video states that "investigation into each of these any(typo meant AND) many more has ALWAYS yielded evidence of gradual evolution" OH REALLY?!?! WHERE!!!!....... in the fossil record?, show me, if you have this evidence then show us! If you can't it's nothing but a bluff!!!!
CommonSense1208 1 year ago
Comment removed
CommonSense1208 1 year ago
Comment removed
CommonSense1208 1 year ago
Comment removed
CommonSense1208 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's no doubt that God created all things in this universe.
But soon, God will destroy this earth and universe.
Judgment Day begins on May 21, 2011
wwwYoutubeCom/watch?v=0SVrlm4BXFM
wwwEBibleFellowshipCom/WeCanKnow/
wwwWorldEndsMay21Com
FamilyRadioCom
may God have mercy on us sinners!
WeCanKnowDottCom 1 year ago
I smiled at “the beetle evolves a new compound hydroquinones...” at 2:35 – as if the beetle were some sort of chemist “the beetle synthesises a new compound hydroquinones...”
gkescott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In The Name of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful
He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)
O people he is Allah the one who created everything .
77705000000000000000 1 year ago
Excellent video. It's a very well-educated hypothesis. Hopefully one day more evidence will surface to back it up and answer more questions regarding it. It does bug me, however, to see so many people in the comments here not realize that this is a HYPOTHESIS, I.E. an educated prediction of how something has occurred or will occur based on current knowledge and previous observations. You have the internet people; learn how science works so you don't make an ass of yourself.
Omnywrench 1 year ago