@ManOfDeath567 Plants, animals, fungi, and some single-celled organisms like amoebae. In other words, anything not a bacteria, archaea, or virus. Eukaryotes are built on cells that have a nucleus that stores DNA and mitochondria that regulate the cell's functions.
@ManOfDeath567 don't ever feel shame for asking a question as long as you are trying to. learn something. if you don't ask questions thats when we call you a creastionist
You stated a fruit fly remains a fruit fly and other examples. Now your getting it! but you failed to say how the KINDS of animals to begin with got here. So you actual prooved creationism. What a looney tune!
There is NO such scientific distinction as "kind." NONE. Evolution is a tree; fruit flies will always become fruit flies, and if it happened any other way IT WOULD FALSIFY EVOLUTION!!!
THIS is why we insult you pathetic creationists: you ask a question that there's a perfectly good answer to, and then call it "nonsense" showing that you're not at all open to the answer!
The only "observed fact" is micro evolution , a dog will produce a dog and a cat will produce a cat..etc...please provide a link to your claim were evolution was successfully replicated in a lab.
Mircoevolution + Time = Macroevolution (like a Microwalk(2m) + Time = Macrowalk (200m))
So of cause a dog will produce a dog. But if we extrapolate into the future we might see something like a Canis Lupus Colossus (a theoretical animal that looks like a dog the size of a polar bear) and the Canis Lupus Sapiens (another theoretical animal that could look like a dog with a flat face and hands and with a big brain).
lol, I'd love to see how it would look to see Harry Potter scream in terror at the sight of an aardvark instead of a three-headed dog gaurding the door to the sorcerer's stone.
@shanedk (Um, that's Cerebus that's the aardvark of course. Nothing spoils a perfectly good smart-ass remark about someone's typo more than making one yourself...)
unfortuntatly this is only pseudo speciation my freind, not one genus evolvding into anohter such as the supposed lizard mamalian evolution, its only say one type of flower branching off into another modified flower!!!
@rkyeun Mammals evolved through reptiles. We actually have a very good series of transitionals showing the change from the multiple-boned reptilian jaw to the single-boned mammalian jaw, the rest becoming the bones of the ear.
The NCBI taxonomy database lists Mammalia and Sauropsida as subgroups of Amniota. Do you have a different source with a better statement of the matter I should be going by instead?
@rkyeun I'm pretty sure that the only clade that includes all the things normally meant by the term 'reptile' would be Amniota, since the defining characteristic of the transition from amphibians to everything that came later is the development of the amnion. All the things that emerged from the initial radiation after the amnion arose would certainly be what we now mean by 'reptile.' Later on, two subclades evolved (very different) insulation and (very different) warm-bloodedness.
actually we don't know if apes and humans can breed, since there aren't any well document instances of anyone trying. also mixing human DNA with animal DNA is considered very bad from a bioethics point of view.
Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov artificially inseminated 3 female chimpanzees with healthy human sperm, his attempts failed, There was only 3 documented cases but many observers say it was more.
Natural selection only SELECTS from what's there. It only keeps the species alive and going, it doesn't change the animal into a different kind of animal. I can't believe your outdated arguements as proof for evolution.
This is how fundamentally dishonest creationists are: they say natural selection only selects what's there. This is true. They say that mutations cannot control if their beneficial. That's true, too. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER ONE'S FOR!!!
It's like saying the gas in your car has no gears, and the gears in your car are not fuel, therefore your car cannot go.
"Natural selection only SELECTS from what's there"
That is true, however mutations provide a constant stream of new variations to select from. "What's there" is constantly changing from one generation to the next.
Humans are each born with aprox 175 point mutations out of 6 bil base pairs. In 2008 134M children were born. Multiply the two, & we get aprox 23 bil mutations in 2008 alone.
Obviously not all are unique or beneficial, but it does show the potential for new useful variation.
I also covered it in "David Berlinski and Whale Evolution," and Richard Dawkins shows some of the fossils directly in a video on his RichardDawkinsDotNet channel.
Wow another theory, so we found dinosaur bones and other extinct species from millions of years ago but our only supposed evidence of evolution is a freaking whale, common....
For crying out loud, that's not our ONLY evidence, you moron! We've got LOTS of land mammal-whale transitionals, dinosaur-bird transitionals, lobe-finned fish-tetrapod transitionals, I can keep going all day!
I cover whale transitionals in "David Berlinski and Whale Evolution," I cover others in "How Evolution is Scientific," human-ape links in my video on Piltdown Man, and others.
Not that you'll accept it; you're way too deluded for that...
i dont get the probability argument, i mean it;s a large universe, REALLY LARGE, even the chances are 1 to 1000000000000 thats still too little. creationsists should watch The System by Derren Brown. yeah
Thanks for the vid, it gave me many new bits of information I didn't have before (not that I believed the disproved vid anyway, I just didn't have the facts to do it myself).
Would you mind explaining the evolution into different branches of species' though. That was one of the original points and I think you missed it.. "Invertebrates stay invertebrates, vertebrates stay..." How did they get to be vertebrates from singe celled organisms? Must be an answer, just haven't heard it yet! THNX
oh, ok, so instead of believing that God made us the way we are, you believe nature did it. Ok, so it's just like he said, it is a faith.
Seriously, you talk about nature and then say natural selection ISN'T random!?!?!? Seems like you believe in a God with less proof then we have of the real God.
And natural selection ISN'T random. By definition, there's NOTHING random about it! In fact, hardly ANYTHING in nature is random! Maybe the decay of radioactive isotopes, and we're not even certain about that!
The bible can't hurt you unless you try to make yourself believe it. Only a few people seem to be capable of that anyways. Most everyone else is just humoring them to keep the peace.
Thanks so much for posting this. I was getting a headache trying to figure out how to type a rebuttal to those ridiculous arguments in these little comment boxes.
Question: Evolution is based on the idea that any physical or behavioral trait that increases an organisms' ability to pass on its genes will become dominant over time. Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Moslems, etc. tend to have large families. Secular people tend not to. Could certain religions be seen as behavioral survival traits, while secularism is an evolutionary dead-end?
"Evolution is based on the idea that any physical or behavioral trait that increases an organisms' ability to pass on its genes will become dominant over time." No. That's a misinterpretation. Perhaps you should take another stab at understanding it.
You know what's funny? This video stated that evolution of an animal or plant only stays on its branch in the evolutionary tree, but does not jump onto another branch (example: a human evolving into a dinosaur--wrong)
You say that, and yet evolutionists want to create a link between Archaeopteryx (ancient reptile-like bird) and modern birds, but studies have proven that archaeopteryx has more in common with dinosaurs and other reptiles than it does with birds....
the fact that most of this type of video has consistently 5-star ratings and creationist videos consistently have 2-3 stars gives me hope for humanity.
When they stump you with a claim, they consider it a win. When you come back the next day with the refutation of the previous claim, they "gish" out more claims until there's one you not certain about and they count that as two wins, even though the first was refuted.
This is a wonderful debunk of bisbas' video. He's recently used it to respond to mine and started trolling me. Has he seen the video or responded in any way?
Why is this statemnt always parroted: "evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life". This is comparable to building a house from the top down. Evolution has everything to do with origins of life, the origin is assumed to be accidentental.
That's just about as wrong as you can be. Evolution is a theory of biology. Abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. That's two completely separate fields of science!
And no, it didn't happen accidentally; it happened through physical law. Things don't "accidentally" fall down.
The point is simple either you know the origin or you don't. Until then, calling people stuipd creationist, then saying evolution has nothing to do with origin makes you look stupid.
"The point is simple either you know the origin or you don't"
NOBODY knows the origins because we weren't there. WHY wont christians STOP pretending they know?? At least scientific theory is based on the actual evidence and not some old book written by desert dwelling nomads!
bullshit. science makes no comment on the supernatural, science doesn't care whether there is a god or not.
"Evidence is only as good as the theory."
Theories are based on the evidence NOT the other way around. It's faith based stuff that START with an assumption, then try to shoe-horn fit the observations and evidence to fit their beliefs.
"Saying there is no God is a statment about origin"
Nonsense. absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!
No, the origins are not assumed to be accidental, they are just assumed to be there. You can build the exact same house in the tundra of siberia as you can on a tropical island or on the bottom of the ocean.
Any origin of life, along with the current parameters of the universe, will result in evolution.
There is clearly a misunderstanding here. Saying there is no god is a statement about origin. So when the question is posed "where did the matter come from?" evolutionist can conveniently avoid responsibility for thier belief in a miraculous creation by saying "thats not my area". Maybe accidental isn't a good word so we'll use miraculous, something coming from nothing.
Every language in the world derives from Hebrew. Every religion in the world derives from the bible. The way the first book of the bible is written makes it clear that this person named Adam wrote it and claimed to have met god. How do we explain this? I'm guessing you're not familiar with quantum physics. You don't see me calling athiest stupid.
That was supposed to be a sepperate paragraph. quantum physics has nothing to do with languages obviously.
The chinese "legends" are a lot of the same stories we find in the bible but thats not the point. Name one language that came before hebrew according to our historical record
yeah yeah. Potato, patacho. My theory is if evolution is true then we wouldn't find any religion at all. Like i said below by the way the bible is written at least as far as we understand Adam was realy a person who claimed to be the first man. Maybe he was the frist of the human race but he didn't understand how he got here. Of course i wasn't there so i don't know.
I just looked them up: Sumerian and Egyptian both exist as written languages going back about 5,200 years. The oldest Hebrew tablet is 3,000 years old, and even then there's still some dispute as the alphabet it uses is apparently a precursor to Hebrew.
So in the end we can't realy say anything for sure... So like i was saying earlier there's never any reason to fight over these issues. No creationist has taken your freedom to come on the internet and curse people who don't agree with you. In fact as far as i've seen we're the minority.
No, every language on the world derives from the language the San speak.
Greek, Indian, Latin, Phoenician, African, proto-European, Celtic, Mayan, Incan and Aztec religions existed before the Bible (crude sculptures have been found around the world outdating the Bible by a long shot).
Adam wrote Genesis? Why did he write in the third person about himself? How did he know the flood would come?
Because Adam wrote genesis, i'm dumb to not know about quantum physics? Right...
As you may have noticed Deu 34 is the very last chapter in the 5 books written by Moses. Clearly Moses didnt write the last chapter. Its beieved to have been Joshua who wrote that last chapter.
Jos 24:26 And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God, and took a great stone and set it up there under an oak by the sanctuary of Jehovah.
Scripture states Joshua did write in the book of the Law.
A little research never hurt anyone. Im glad you enjoy ignorance...
Jos 24 is a covenant made with the tribes of Israel gathered at Shechem. So when Jos says "Joshua wrote these words" he's talking about a new covenant.
The last chapter of Deu has absolutely nothing to do with a covenant.
So your evidence that Joshua wrote the last book of Deut is Jos quoting the fact that Joshua wrote something in Deut that isn't in the book.
Joshua did write some of the bible. Its obvious Moses didnt write the last chapter of Deut so someone else did. Since Joshua is the one preceeding Moses its only logical to assume he wrote it. As to who wrote it isnt as important as who designed it to be written.
He may have written Deu 33. Who knows. Its of minor importance who the Holy Spirit used.
Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth.)
Moses wrote the book of Numbers & here he is saying he is the most humble person on earth. When someone is writing scripture by the Holy Spirit its the Spirit writing the Word through that person & so people use their own names instead of "I".
"Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth.)"
Some of those other examples in those books "written" by Moses have descriptions of a man who is the complete opposite of meek and written in the 3rd person talking about Moses. So saying Moses was very meek lends credence to the argument that he didn't write them.
Thats why people have written their weaknesses & failures in Gods Word because it is the Spirit writing about them. People will not mention their weaknesses, failures, own sins etc when writing because it isnt something we like to admit to.
"because you have ZERO empirical evidence to back it up!"
Unfortunatly all i have to work with in the area of science is what the scientist provide. The evidence is clear when you take the blinders off. Did flowers evolve to be appealing to our eyes? It's clearly a created wold, you spend more time rationalizing that fact.
"No more than a book about Harry Potter proves the existence of wizards!"
Harry potter is known to be fiction. The bible is known to be historical fact (for the most part).
"No, it isn't, and most of its historical "facts" are contradicted by other historical writings and by archaeological evidence."
This is why i added "(for the most part)". I like how you didn't quote that. When the dead sea scrolls were found archaeologist assumed, with evolution as the basis, that the writings were not prophetic but only influenced future societys. It's impossible to argue against that type of reasoning.
Nina science is making observations. You correctly state that it doesnt ask the question of God's existence. You know why? Because it partially involves faith. Now Evolution claims to be science...but its not. Because it requires faith and assumptions. You remove the "chance" factor from evolution....it collapses miserably.
"You know why? Because it partially involves faith"
instead of stating this as if it were fact, you really should provide an example.
"Now Evolution claims to be science...but its not."
it's the foundation of modern biology. you've sounding pretty stupid by saying that. Evolution is a fact and has been observed countless times. it DOES NOT require faith or assumptions.
"You remove the "chance" factor from evolution....it collapses miserably."
Evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with chance
"it's the foundation of modern biology. you've sounding pretty stupid by saying that."
First of all the word evolution doesn't only apply to biology. Look up the word cosmology and you'll find the word evolution in the definitions.
The problem with evolution and science is that today they used mathematics as an absolute. Go look up irrational numbers, or maybe you should go back to second grade.
"Evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with chance"
1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language;
Empirical-
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
No. At best you can say its an argument from authority. The scientific consensus was based upon MOUNTAINS of empirical evidence, direct observations, thousands of peer reviewed papers, and it has stood up to 150 yrs of INTENSE scrutiny. The geologic column, genome mapping, ERVs, atavisms, fused chromosomes, RC dating, ice cores, medicines and more. With each new discovery and advance in technology it is reinforced further. Your side has ZERO supporting evidence
"The scientific consensus was based upon MOUNTAINS of empirical evidence"
No independant thinking required.
By the way, like i said earlier, if you look up the word empirical the definition has actualy been changed to support evolution theory. You realy don't have empirical evidence.
You mean materially observed phenomena? Just who runs this zany conspiracy on youre world?
And how does "independant thinking" conflict with understanding evidence that is repeatedly tested, and peer-reviewed? Do you thow out the manuals for your computer, or DVD player or your car because you're a wild maverick?
A scientific consensus isn't authoritarian; it isn't a majority vote. It's the result of numerous separate and independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. It is the RESULT of independent thinking!
And empirical evidence is observational evidence. There are TONS of observational evidence for evolution!
well, there CERTAINLY isnt any going on in YOUR home, is there!?
Apparently you think Einstein started from scratch when he developed his special theory of relativity, and hadn't studied Maxwell's Electromagnetic theory in school!?
Even Darwin expounded his ideas from those first put forth from Mendel and Wallace.
No, according to you, NO scientist ever started with data from a peer reviewed journal!
You sound like you're a few fries short of a happy meal.
"Mithra, Dionysus, orpheus, isis, ra, thor, ptah, mut, mihos, khonsu, opet, set, thoth, yah, shango, bumba... MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of others."
A lot of those, if not all of them, are mutiple "gods" from the same religion. For example the hindus don't believe there is a literal "god", they were atheists. What one of those gods is the creator? There is only 2 or 3 in the list that was thought to be the actual creater and not some force of nature.
"For example the hindus don't believe there is a literal "god", they were atheists. What one of those gods is the creator? "
STOP moving the goalposts! Typical disingenuous tactic... my original statement was "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Then you asked me for my evidence, which I dutifully provided you.
"There is only 2 or 3 in the list that was thought to be the actual creater"
Thor, the god of what? Thunder right? Yeah. Zues, actualy has a lot in common with thor, the god of thunder and lightning. Ra and Apollo, the sun. Cupid, love. Osiris, death. Isis, snake venom (believed to be our medical symbol). Not to mention a lot of those gods are the same with different names.
There's no goalposts moving from me my ignorant and gullible friend. You're constantly contradicting your own lack of logic.
"Thor, the god of what? Thunder right? Zues, actualy has a lot in common with thor, the god of thunder and lightning"
You're desperately trying to changing the argument. My original comment was that "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
and you asked me to provide evidence to back my claim.
"You're constantly contradicting your own lack of logic."
Didn't i say that to you first? Remember you accused me of "popularity fallacy" then you went ahead and used it yourself. That's cute.
"My original comment was that "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible."
You didn't read my response. I told you that what you mentioned are gods. Pantheism is mentioned in the bible. Aslo a couple of those "gods" are mentioned. It's real simple if you weren't so simple minded.
"then you went ahead and used it yourself. That's cute."
idiot, i explained why it was NOT a popularity fallacy
"Didn't i say that to you first?"
But you provided ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is therefore invalid until you produce said evidence
"Aslo a couple of those "gods" are mentioned"
/banging head on desk/
WHICH PART of "many religions and thousands of gods predate the bible Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses" are you having a problem comprehending?
Five? There are more than five religions native to the sandbox your mish-mash came from. Not to mention Eastern religions, native north American, African, South American. Someone needs a refresher on world religions.
So, Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? God created it, of course. Why am i stupid for believing that? Just because all of creation has something in common? What they have in common is the creator.
I say there is no god, shanedk says there is no god, but evolution does not say there is no god. "Evolutionists" don't say there is no god. Atheists say there is no god. Not all "evolutionists" are atheists.
They will only say that when discussing evolution, because then you are not talking about origins. If you want to talk about origins, you shouldn't talk to an "evolutionist".
You should accept that sometimes people will refuse to change the subject.
"You should accept that sometimes people will refuse to change the subject."
And that we're tired of being dicked around by creationists moving the goalposts and having to move around from biology to chemistry to thermodynamics to cosmology to...
1. What does quantum physics have to do with anything? :P
2. I know only what I have seen from a discovery channel documentary and the first paragraphs of a wikipedia article.
3. You have no reason to call me a retard, just because I don't know many things. It would be more retarded to think you know every answer to things that people who know more than you don't know the answer to.
I agree, not all evolutionists are atheists, but they are antitheists. They know God exists and they are trying hard to disprove His existence, with all these nonsense transpecies evolution theories.
No, in fact, many are Christians, like Ken Miller.
This is just a pathetic ad hominem that a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't be relevant even if it were. It's just desperation on the part of the creationists.
Well you are wrong. How can somebody be a Christian, believe in God and at the same time believe that everything appeared on its own without the intervention of an intelligent power? As a scientist and a Christian I believe that God created all living organisms first and placed evolution as an intraspecies maintenance mechanism. You use this God-made adaptation mechanism to distort the truth about God and creation!!!!!!
I don't understand how anyone can believe that species were created separately yet somehow LOOK exactly as if they came about by common descent. But maybe that's just me...
Can theists be antitheists? No, they can not. Evolution does not disprove God - no science does. Science is the opposite of religion - one deals with faith, the other with evidence. Faith does not rely on evidence, so how could there be a disproval of it?
Only if one says their faith is backed up by evidence, can that faith be undone. You creationists brought it onto yourselves.
Oh I know. The point is specific to creationism, not everything, (I should have clarified). If creationism was true (i.e. empirical evidence to support) it would replace our current scientific understanding with a new one.
"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him."
The RCC only lays claim to the initial creation and that God created man's soul.
"Saying there is no god is a statement about origin."
RIDICULOUS! No more than saying "there is no pink unicorns" is a statement about origin! First you must provide evidence there IS a god before anyone worries about whether he was the creator or not!
"are you a physicist? If so do you know how the earth began?"
Are YOU? then HOW can you possibly be sure yourself?!
"then you are not quaified to call creationist or anyone stupid."
But can you build a house starting from the top? what would you put the roof shingle on? The point was that you can't start from the end of a book and read it backwards. So yes a begining is assumed as being accidental until further notice.
Unfortunately, AIDS is the biggest problem in Africa, and Africans don't have this mutation unless they have some European ancestry. The Europeans only got it after one-third of their population was wiped out.
Comment removed
omni2145 8 months ago
Thanks =)
nctrls2 1 year ago
Hey shanedk! Please forgive me for being a biology "noob" or whatever but what exactly is a "eukaryote"?
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
@ManOfDeath567 Plants, animals, fungi, and some single-celled organisms like amoebae. In other words, anything not a bacteria, archaea, or virus. Eukaryotes are built on cells that have a nucleus that stores DNA and mitochondria that regulate the cell's functions.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Is a slime mold single celled?
majoraswrath132 1 year ago
@majoraswrath132 Molds are multicellular fungi. They're eukaryotes.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Cheers.
majoraswrath132 1 year ago
@ManOfDeath567 don't ever feel shame for asking a question as long as you are trying to. learn something. if you don't ask questions thats when we call you a creastionist
kokofan50 1 year ago
I love your taste in music :D
TF2Invisibleman 1 year ago
Hehe, borrowing from cdk007 a bit in this vid huh? ;)
evilotakuneko 2 years ago
You stated a fruit fly remains a fruit fly and other examples. Now your getting it! but you failed to say how the KINDS of animals to begin with got here. So you actual prooved creationism. What a looney tune!
micah1116 2 years ago
Sigh...someone else who doesn't get it.
There is NO such scientific distinction as "kind." NONE. Evolution is a tree; fruit flies will always become fruit flies, and if it happened any other way IT WOULD FALSIFY EVOLUTION!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
So why can't apes and humans breed? Since a Ape has always been a ape...stop this nonsense.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Because of SPECIATION. Look it up.
THIS is why we insult you pathetic creationists: you ask a question that there's a perfectly good answer to, and then call it "nonsense" showing that you're not at all open to the answer!
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
Just throw in another theory with no backing "might", "maybe", "it seems" is not factual, you're the idiot. that can't make up your own judgment.
mackjeez 2 years ago
No, IDIOT, this is OBSERVED FACT. Speciation has been observed NUMEROUS TIMES in the wild AND replicated in the lab!
You're a delusional fuckwit.
shanedk 2 years ago
The only "observed fact" is micro evolution , a dog will produce a dog and a cat will produce a cat..etc...please provide a link to your claim were evolution was successfully replicated in a lab.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Speciation HAS been observed and HAS been replicated. My previous response to you specified videos for you to watch to see for yourself.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk You go, Shane Killian! I'm your cheerleader!
UnmaskedTuxedo 1 year ago
@mackjeez To prevent microevolution becoming macroevolution requires some mechanism, some limiting system. Do you propose a system that can do this?
gamesbok 1 year ago
@mackjeez
Let's get one thing straight!
Mircoevolution + Time = Macroevolution (like a Microwalk(2m) + Time = Macrowalk (200m))
So of cause a dog will produce a dog. But if we extrapolate into the future we might see something like a Canis Lupus Colossus (a theoretical animal that looks like a dog the size of a polar bear) and the Canis Lupus Sapiens (another theoretical animal that could look like a dog with a flat face and hands and with a big brain).
jxvwp 1 year ago
@jxvwp
Sorry.
Should have been "Canis Lupus Familiaris Colossus" and "Canis Lupus Familiaris Sapiens"
jxvwp 1 year ago
@jxvwp
On one hand we'd have a real-life Cerebus, only with one head, and the other we get Wile Coyote.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 Do you mean Cerberus? Ceberus is an aardvark.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
lol, I'd love to see how it would look to see Harry Potter scream in terror at the sight of an aardvark instead of a three-headed dog gaurding the door to the sorcerer's stone.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@shanedk (Um, that's Cerebus that's the aardvark of course. Nothing spoils a perfectly good smart-ass remark about someone's typo more than making one yourself...)
shanedk 1 year ago
unfortuntatly this is only pseudo speciation my freind, not one genus evolvding into anohter such as the supposed lizard mamalian evolution, its only say one type of flower branching off into another modified flower!!!
zenithar6666 1 year ago
Uh... mammals didn't evolve from lizard. Mammals and reptiles both evolved from tetrapods.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Mammals evolved through reptiles. We actually have a very good series of transitionals showing the change from the multiple-boned reptilian jaw to the single-boned mammalian jaw, the rest becoming the bones of the ear.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
The NCBI taxonomy database lists Mammalia and Sauropsida as subgroups of Amniota. Do you have a different source with a better statement of the matter I should be going by instead?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun I'm pretty sure that the only clade that includes all the things normally meant by the term 'reptile' would be Amniota, since the defining characteristic of the transition from amphibians to everything that came later is the development of the amnion. All the things that emerged from the initial radiation after the amnion arose would certainly be what we now mean by 'reptile.' Later on, two subclades evolved (very different) insulation and (very different) warm-bloodedness.
evensgrey 1 year ago
'So why can't apes and humans breed?'
actually we don't know if apes and humans can breed, since there aren't any well document instances of anyone trying. also mixing human DNA with animal DNA is considered very bad from a bioethics point of view.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov artificially inseminated 3 female chimpanzees with healthy human sperm, his attempts failed, There was only 3 documented cases but many observers say it was more.
mackjeez 2 years ago
@Fernoe
Being members of Hominidae (the apes), humans can breed very well with at least one species of apes, namely other humans.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Natural selection only SELECTS from what's there. It only keeps the species alive and going, it doesn't change the animal into a different kind of animal. I can't believe your outdated arguements as proof for evolution.
micah1116 2 years ago
No, that's what mutations are for. You need BOTH.
This is how fundamentally dishonest creationists are: they say natural selection only selects what's there. This is true. They say that mutations cannot control if their beneficial. That's true, too. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER ONE'S FOR!!!
It's like saying the gas in your car has no gears, and the gears in your car are not fuel, therefore your car cannot go.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Natural selection only SELECTS from what's there"
That is true, however mutations provide a constant stream of new variations to select from. "What's there" is constantly changing from one generation to the next.
Humans are each born with aprox 175 point mutations out of 6 bil base pairs. In 2008 134M children were born. Multiply the two, & we get aprox 23 bil mutations in 2008 alone.
Obviously not all are unique or beneficial, but it does show the potential for new useful variation.
zebraone100 2 years ago
Your still using "whale evolution" you've got to be kidding me. How long ago was that proven wrong.
micah1116 2 years ago
No, it wasn't. You're a lying troll.
shanedk 2 years ago
They found the whale transitional fossils. search 'ken miller whale'
gregrutz 2 years ago
I also covered it in "David Berlinski and Whale Evolution," and Richard Dawkins shows some of the fossils directly in a video on his RichardDawkinsDotNet channel.
shanedk 2 years ago
Wow another theory, so we found dinosaur bones and other extinct species from millions of years ago but our only supposed evidence of evolution is a freaking whale, common....
mackjeez 2 years ago
For crying out loud, that's not our ONLY evidence, you moron! We've got LOTS of land mammal-whale transitionals, dinosaur-bird transitionals, lobe-finned fish-tetrapod transitionals, I can keep going all day!
THOUSANDS of transitional fossils!
DEAL with it.
shanedk 2 years ago
Please provide a link and please make sure its not speculation, real facts only.
mackjeez 2 years ago
I cover whale transitionals in "David Berlinski and Whale Evolution," I cover others in "How Evolution is Scientific," human-ape links in my video on Piltdown Man, and others.
Not that you'll accept it; you're way too deluded for that...
shanedk 2 years ago
well since the creationists have no evidence whatsoever even with only one transitional whale fossil the evoloutionary theory still comes out on top
excandersham 2 years ago
regarding the "shotgun method":
I can't help but wonder how much of socialism and the anti-free market crowd uses this tactic.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
A lot.
shanedk 2 years ago
i dont get the probability argument, i mean it;s a large universe, REALLY LARGE, even the chances are 1 to 1000000000000 thats still too little. creationsists should watch The System by Derren Brown. yeah
ciucinciu 2 years ago
Thanks for the vid, it gave me many new bits of information I didn't have before (not that I believed the disproved vid anyway, I just didn't have the facts to do it myself).
Would you mind explaining the evolution into different branches of species' though. That was one of the original points and I think you missed it.. "Invertebrates stay invertebrates, vertebrates stay..." How did they get to be vertebrates from singe celled organisms? Must be an answer, just haven't heard it yet! THNX
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
See my video "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."
shanedk 2 years ago
oh, ok, so instead of believing that God made us the way we are, you believe nature did it. Ok, so it's just like he said, it is a faith.
Seriously, you talk about nature and then say natural selection ISN'T random!?!?!? Seems like you believe in a God with less proof then we have of the real God.
tj1271 2 years ago
No, it's not a faith, because I have EVIDENCE.
And natural selection ISN'T random. By definition, there's NOTHING random about it! In fact, hardly ANYTHING in nature is random! Maybe the decay of radioactive isotopes, and we're not even certain about that!
shanedk 2 years ago
Wow, the first argument with the maiden kissing a frog and turning into a prince...10/10, would get trolled again.
civver3 2 years ago
The bible can't hurt you unless you try to make yourself believe it. Only a few people seem to be capable of that anyways. Most everyone else is just humoring them to keep the peace.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Thanks so much for posting this. I was getting a headache trying to figure out how to type a rebuttal to those ridiculous arguments in these little comment boxes.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Question: Evolution is based on the idea that any physical or behavioral trait that increases an organisms' ability to pass on its genes will become dominant over time. Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Moslems, etc. tend to have large families. Secular people tend not to. Could certain religions be seen as behavioral survival traits, while secularism is an evolutionary dead-end?
chodeshadar18 2 years ago
"Evolution is based on the idea that any physical or behavioral trait that increases an organisms' ability to pass on its genes will become dominant over time." No. That's a misinterpretation. Perhaps you should take another stab at understanding it.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
You know what's funny? This video stated that evolution of an animal or plant only stays on its branch in the evolutionary tree, but does not jump onto another branch (example: a human evolving into a dinosaur--wrong)
You say that, and yet evolutionists want to create a link between Archaeopteryx (ancient reptile-like bird) and modern birds, but studies have proven that archaeopteryx has more in common with dinosaurs and other reptiles than it does with birds....
chadpron1 2 years ago
Birds are a branch off of the Theropods. See my video, "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."
shanedk 2 years ago
alrighty....will do. thanks man.
chadpron1 2 years ago
the fact that most of this type of video has consistently 5-star ratings and creationist videos consistently have 2-3 stars gives me hope for humanity.
purpleletters 3 years ago
When they stump you with a claim, they consider it a win. When you come back the next day with the refutation of the previous claim, they "gish" out more claims until there's one you not certain about and they count that as two wins, even though the first was refuted.
8WholeThing 3 years ago
Hi shanedk,
This is a wonderful debunk of bisbas' video. He's recently used it to respond to mine and started trolling me. Has he seen the video or responded in any way?
AndromedasWake 3 years ago
Why is this statemnt always parroted: "evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life". This is comparable to building a house from the top down. Evolution has everything to do with origins of life, the origin is assumed to be accidentental.
Crumkins 3 years ago
That's just about as wrong as you can be. Evolution is a theory of biology. Abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. That's two completely separate fields of science!
And no, it didn't happen accidentally; it happened through physical law. Things don't "accidentally" fall down.
shanedk 3 years ago
The point is simple either you know the origin or you don't. Until then, calling people stuipd creationist, then saying evolution has nothing to do with origin makes you look stupid.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"The point is simple either you know the origin or you don't"
NOBODY knows the origins because we weren't there. WHY wont christians STOP pretending they know?? At least scientific theory is based on the actual evidence and not some old book written by desert dwelling nomads!
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"NOBODY knows the origins because we weren't there. WHY wont christians STOP pretending they know??"
It's the scientist who pretend they know.
"At least scientific theory is based on the actual evidence."
Evidence is only as good as the theory.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"It's the scientist who pretend they know."
bullshit. science makes no comment on the supernatural, science doesn't care whether there is a god or not.
"Evidence is only as good as the theory."
Theories are based on the evidence NOT the other way around. It's faith based stuff that START with an assumption, then try to shoe-horn fit the observations and evidence to fit their beliefs.
"Saying there is no God is a statment about origin"
Nonsense. absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"WHY wont christians STOP pretending they know??"
I think you just don't want there to be a God. That's your problem, there is no need to take it out on others.
Crumkins 3 years ago
No, the origins are not assumed to be accidental, they are just assumed to be there. You can build the exact same house in the tundra of siberia as you can on a tropical island or on the bottom of the ocean.
Any origin of life, along with the current parameters of the universe, will result in evolution.
philip1201 3 years ago
There is clearly a misunderstanding here. Saying there is no god is a statement about origin. So when the question is posed "where did the matter come from?" evolutionist can conveniently avoid responsibility for thier belief in a miraculous creation by saying "thats not my area". Maybe accidental isn't a good word so we'll use miraculous, something coming from nothing.
Crumkins 3 years ago
What?
f1rz3nz3r0 3 years ago
Where?
Crumkins 3 years ago
"evolutionist can conveniently avoid responsibility for thier belief in a miraculous creation by saying "thats not my area"."
No, they say that because IT'S NOT THEIR AREA. Their area is biology, not physics. It's physics that says how matter first formed.
shanedk 3 years ago
Ok, are you a physicist? If so do you know how the earth began?
If you answered no to either of these questions then you are not quaified to call creationist or anyone stupid.
Crumkins 3 years ago
No, but luckily I know something about it. Not much and I'm not sure if it's completely true.
Of course we are: you answer yes to the second question for stupid reasons and say you are certain. You also are stupid at areas we DO know about.
A stupid person can know more then a smart person. I have a right to say it is stupid to know pi to the millionth decimal even though I don't.
philip1201 3 years ago
Every language in the world derives from Hebrew. Every religion in the world derives from the bible. The way the first book of the bible is written makes it clear that this person named Adam wrote it and claimed to have met god. How do we explain this? I'm guessing you're not familiar with quantum physics. You don't see me calling athiest stupid.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"Every language in the world derives from Hebrew."
I'd love to see some evidence of that. How does Chinese derive from Hebrew?
And what does quantum physics have to do with it?
shanedk 3 years ago
That was supposed to be a sepperate paragraph. quantum physics has nothing to do with languages obviously.
The chinese "legends" are a lot of the same stories we find in the bible but thats not the point. Name one language that came before hebrew according to our historical record
Crumkins 3 years ago
First, that isn't what you said; you said the languages DERIVE from Hebrew.
Ancient Hebrew first appeared around the 10th Century BC. LOTS of languages are older.
shanedk 3 years ago
yeah yeah. Potato, patacho. My theory is if evolution is true then we wouldn't find any religion at all. Like i said below by the way the bible is written at least as far as we understand Adam was realy a person who claimed to be the first man. Maybe he was the frist of the human race but he didn't understand how he got here. Of course i wasn't there so i don't know.
Crumkins 3 years ago
Supposedly (i haven't seen them myself) we have clay tablets dating back around 4000 years with hebrew writtings on it.
Crumkins 3 years ago
I'd like to see a reference for that, but even so it's still a millennium or two after many other languages.
shanedk 3 years ago
I just looked them up: Sumerian and Egyptian both exist as written languages going back about 5,200 years. The oldest Hebrew tablet is 3,000 years old, and even then there's still some dispute as the alphabet it uses is apparently a precursor to Hebrew.
shanedk 3 years ago
So in the end we can't realy say anything for sure... So like i was saying earlier there's never any reason to fight over these issues. No creationist has taken your freedom to come on the internet and curse people who don't agree with you. In fact as far as i've seen we're the minority.
Crumkins 3 years ago
Then why do we have to spend so much time fighting creationists in court? Why do we have to deal with them infiltrating local and state governments?
No, they have made their intentions very clear, and so they should be vigorously fought wherever they rear their dishonest, self-righteous heads.
shanedk 3 years ago
"So in the end we can't realy say anything for sure..."
HUH?? 2 minutes ago, you said ALL languages derived from hebrew and that ALL religions came from the bible!
"In fact as far as i've seen we're the minority"
with nearly 75% of the US beliving in god, you can't possibly be looking very hard!
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"HUH?? 2 minutes ago, you said ALL languages derived from hebrew and that ALL religions came from the bible!"
You could have quoted me a little better. I have no idea what i'm responding to here.
"with nearly 75% of the US beliving in god, you can't possibly be looking very hard!"
I'm surprised you're not saying "even a lot of christians believe in evolution". You'll never get your facts straight.
Crumkins 3 years ago
No, every language on the world derives from the language the San speak.
Greek, Indian, Latin, Phoenician, African, proto-European, Celtic, Mayan, Incan and Aztec religions existed before the Bible (crude sculptures have been found around the world outdating the Bible by a long shot).
Adam wrote Genesis? Why did he write in the third person about himself? How did he know the flood would come?
Because Adam wrote genesis, i'm dumb to not know about quantum physics? Right...
philip1201 3 years ago
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible, known to the Jews as the Torah.
coreva 3 years ago
First 5 books of the bible have at least 4 different authors. The first book written is the book of job...
Terrencje 3 years ago
Im talking about what order they are placed in the bible itself. Gen, Exo, Lev, Num, Deu.
The flying spaghetti monster is an idol. Im glad im dead to idols & alive to the living God.
coreva 3 years ago
"Im talking about what order they are placed in the bible itself. Gen, Exo, Lev, Num, Deu."
I know, but those where written long after the death of Mozes (if he really exsisted)
first book written is the book of job about 1500-1200 BC
No flying spaghetti monster is just as valid as your little imaginary friend ;)
Terrencje 3 years ago
Crumkins said Adam wrote genesis.
philip1201 3 years ago
Dont know who this Crumkins fellow is but he is incorrect. Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wrote first 5 books in the bible.
coreva 3 years ago
That's not what bible scholars say.
philip1201 3 years ago
coreva "Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible,.."
Deuteronomy 34
"5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."
Hey genius,
How did Moses write about his own death and burial?
Ignorance is bliss, I'll think for you.
justintempler 3 years ago
As you may have noticed Deu 34 is the very last chapter in the 5 books written by Moses. Clearly Moses didnt write the last chapter. Its beieved to have been Joshua who wrote that last chapter.
Jos 24:26 And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God, and took a great stone and set it up there under an oak by the sanctuary of Jehovah.
Scripture states Joshua did write in the book of the Law.
A little research never hurt anyone. Im glad you enjoy ignorance...
coreva 3 years ago
coreva,
Jos 24 is a covenant made with the tribes of Israel gathered at Shechem. So when Jos says "Joshua wrote these words" he's talking about a new covenant.
The last chapter of Deu has absolutely nothing to do with a covenant.
So your evidence that Joshua wrote the last book of Deut is Jos quoting the fact that Joshua wrote something in Deut that isn't in the book.
That makes perfect sence, NOT!
Try and explain that one.
justintempler 3 years ago
Joshua did write some of the bible. Its obvious Moses didnt write the last chapter of Deut so someone else did. Since Joshua is the one preceeding Moses its only logical to assume he wrote it. As to who wrote it isnt as important as who designed it to be written.
coreva 3 years ago
coreva "Its obvious Moses didnt write the last chapter of Deut"
and just as obvious:
Deut 33:1 And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
Make that the last 2 chapters. :0
There are more examples but I'll leave it that. I've made my point.
justintempler 3 years ago
He may have written Deu 33. Who knows. Its of minor importance who the Holy Spirit used.
Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth.)
Moses wrote the book of Numbers & here he is saying he is the most humble person on earth. When someone is writing scripture by the Holy Spirit its the Spirit writing the Word through that person & so people use their own names instead of "I".
coreva 3 years ago
corvena,
"Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth.)"
Some of those other examples in those books "written" by Moses have descriptions of a man who is the complete opposite of meek and written in the 3rd person talking about Moses. So saying Moses was very meek lends credence to the argument that he didn't write them.
So don't make him appear too meek ok? LOL
justintempler 3 years ago
Scripture states Moses wrote them. God told Moses to write them.
coreva 3 years ago
Thats why people have written their weaknesses & failures in Gods Word because it is the Spirit writing about them. People will not mention their weaknesses, failures, own sins etc when writing because it isnt something we like to admit to.
coreva 3 years ago
proof that reading the bible causes mental retardation in some: "Every language in the world derives from Hebrew"
Care to supply evidence to back the claim?
"Every religion in the world derives from the bible"
STUPID! Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses.
"Adam wrote it"
There is Absolutely ZERO evidence someone named adam existed or that he wrote the bible.
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"Every language in the world derives from Hebrew"
"Care to supply evidence to back the claim?"
Sumarian language isn't a whole lot different from hebrew.
"Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Care to supply evidence for THIS claim?
"There is Absolutely ZERO evidence someone named adam existed or that he wrote the bible."
So a book about a guy named Adam wouldn't count as evidence?
Crumkins 3 years ago
"Sumarian language isn't a whole lot different from hebrew."
Yes, because Hebrew came FROM Sumerian, not the other way around!!!
Now, how does Chinese compare to it?
"So a book about a guy named Adam wouldn't count as evidence?"
No, it wouldn't, and if you can't see why, you need SERIOUS psychological help before you become a danger to others!
shanedk 3 years ago
"Yes, because Hebrew came FROM Sumerian, not the other way around!!!"
Hebrew evolved from sumerian?
"No, it wouldn't, and if you can't see why, you need SERIOUS psychological help before you become a danger to others!"
If you don't see how historical writtings could be used as evidence, psychological treatment is the least of your concerns.
Crumkins 3 years ago
Crumkins, I had to delete a libelous statement you made against Nina. Don't do it again or I'll have to block you.
shanedk 3 years ago
"Crumkins, I had to delete a libelous statement you made against Nina."
I wasn't judging.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"How do you know i'm not?"
because you have ZERO empirical evidence to back it up!
"Oh, so we evolved? Lol."
Non-sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other and you know this.
and the answer to your question, is yes
"So a book about a guy named Adam wouldn't count as evidence?"
No more than a book about Harry Potter proves the existence of wizards!
"Sumarian language isn't a whole lot different from hebrew"
THIS is your evidence?! even if you didnt have it backwards this proves NOTHING!
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"because you have ZERO empirical evidence to back it up!"
Unfortunatly all i have to work with in the area of science is what the scientist provide. The evidence is clear when you take the blinders off. Did flowers evolve to be appealing to our eyes? It's clearly a created wold, you spend more time rationalizing that fact.
"No more than a book about Harry Potter proves the existence of wizards!"
Harry potter is known to be fiction. The bible is known to be historical fact (for the most part).
Crumkins 3 years ago
"Harry potter is known to be fiction. The bible is known to be historical fact"
No, it isn't, and most of its historical "facts" are contradicted by other historical writings and by archaeological evidence.
shanedk 3 years ago
"No, it isn't, and most of its historical "facts" are contradicted by other historical writings and by archaeological evidence."
This is why i added "(for the most part)". I like how you didn't quote that. When the dead sea scrolls were found archaeologist assumed, with evolution as the basis, that the writings were not prophetic but only influenced future societys. It's impossible to argue against that type of reasoning.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"If you don't see how historical writtings could be used as evidence"
it's NOT the kind of evidence you're suggesting it does.
"science makes no comment on the supernatural, science doesn't care whether there is a god or not."
EXACTLY!"
erm, so you agree with me that your previous statement was nonsensical? Great! you're on your way!
"Saying there is no god is the same as saying it happend by accident"
bullshit. This is NOT an "if not A then B" scenario, also, NOBODY says it was an accident.
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
Nina science is making observations. You correctly state that it doesnt ask the question of God's existence. You know why? Because it partially involves faith. Now Evolution claims to be science...but its not. Because it requires faith and assumptions. You remove the "chance" factor from evolution....it collapses miserably.
bisbas3232 3 years ago
"You remove the "chance" factor from evolution....it collapses miserably."
Quoted for truth. Not to mention there is no chance in even trillions of years of such things happening without cause.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"You know why? Because it partially involves faith"
instead of stating this as if it were fact, you really should provide an example.
"Now Evolution claims to be science...but its not."
it's the foundation of modern biology. you've sounding pretty stupid by saying that. Evolution is a fact and has been observed countless times. it DOES NOT require faith or assumptions.
"You remove the "chance" factor from evolution....it collapses miserably."
Evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with chance
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"it's the foundation of modern biology. you've sounding pretty stupid by saying that."
First of all the word evolution doesn't only apply to biology. Look up the word cosmology and you'll find the word evolution in the definitions.
The problem with evolution and science is that today they used mathematics as an absolute. Go look up irrational numbers, or maybe you should go back to second grade.
"Evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with chance"
Why did fish develope spines?
Crumkins 3 years ago
"First of all the word evolution doesn't only apply to biology."
Yes, it does.
"Look up the word cosmology and you'll find the word evolution in the definitions."
To mean "change" and "development," yes, but NOT to mean the theory of evolution with mutation and natural selection.
Irrational numbers are numbers like pi. Are you saying scientists don't use pi???
shanedk 3 years ago
Dictionary-
1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language;
Empirical-
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
Crumkins 3 years ago
thank you for posting these definitions for someone who doesn't understand the terms... saves me some time from doing so myself.
Thanks!
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"Unfortunatly all i have to work with in the area of science is what the scientist provide"
NONSENSE! you are welcome to provide your own evidence.
"The evidence is clear when you take the blinders off"
Yes, and this evidence is SO clear, that there's an OVERWHELMING 99.98% scientific consensus for it!
"Did flowers evolve to be appealing to our eyes?"
no.
"Harry potter is known to be fiction. The bible is known to be historical fact (for the most part)."
BULLSHIT! The exact opposite is true.
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"NONSENSE! you are welcome to provide your own evidence."
"OVERWHELMING 99.98% scientific consensus for it!"
There it is. popularity fallacy? At least be consistant in your delusion.
"Harry potter is known to be fiction. The bible is known to be historical fact (for the most part)."
"BULLSHIT! The exact opposite is true."
...
Crumkins 3 years ago
"There it is. popularity fallacy?"
No. At best you can say its an argument from authority. The scientific consensus was based upon MOUNTAINS of empirical evidence, direct observations, thousands of peer reviewed papers, and it has stood up to 150 yrs of INTENSE scrutiny. The geologic column, genome mapping, ERVs, atavisms, fused chromosomes, RC dating, ice cores, medicines and more. With each new discovery and advance in technology it is reinforced further. Your side has ZERO supporting evidence
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"The scientific consensus was based upon MOUNTAINS of empirical evidence"
No independant thinking required.
By the way, like i said earlier, if you look up the word empirical the definition has actualy been changed to support evolution theory. You realy don't have empirical evidence.
Crumkins 3 years ago
You mean materially observed phenomena? Just who runs this zany conspiracy on youre world?
And how does "independant thinking" conflict with understanding evidence that is repeatedly tested, and peer-reviewed? Do you thow out the manuals for your computer, or DVD player or your car because you're a wild maverick?
GabrieLaVedier 3 years ago
A scientific consensus isn't authoritarian; it isn't a majority vote. It's the result of numerous separate and independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. It is the RESULT of independent thinking!
And empirical evidence is observational evidence. There are TONS of observational evidence for evolution!
shanedk 3 years ago
"No independant thinking required"
well, there CERTAINLY isnt any going on in YOUR home, is there!?
Apparently you think Einstein started from scratch when he developed his special theory of relativity, and hadn't studied Maxwell's Electromagnetic theory in school!?
Even Darwin expounded his ideas from those first put forth from Mendel and Wallace.
No, according to you, NO scientist ever started with data from a peer reviewed journal!
You sound like you're a few fries short of a happy meal.
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Care to supply evidence for THIS claim?"
Mithra, Dionysus, orpheus, isis, ra, thor, ptah, mut, mihos, khonsu, opet, set, thoth, yah, shango, bumba, orishas, elegua, feng-du, guan-yu, hades, atlas, apollo, aphrodite, cronus, zeus, venus, mars, cupid, mercury, bacchus, ishtar, apsu, anu, baba-yaga, and MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of others.
and whatever god(s) the Metyktire worship
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"Mithra, Dionysus, orpheus, isis, ra, thor, ptah, mut, mihos, khonsu, opet, set, thoth, yah, shango, bumba... MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of others."
A lot of those, if not all of them, are mutiple "gods" from the same religion. For example the hindus don't believe there is a literal "god", they were atheists. What one of those gods is the creator? There is only 2 or 3 in the list that was thought to be the actual creater and not some force of nature.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"For example the hindus don't believe there is a literal "god", they were atheists. What one of those gods is the creator? "
STOP moving the goalposts! Typical disingenuous tactic... my original statement was "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Then you asked me for my evidence, which I dutifully provided you.
"There is only 2 or 3 in the list that was thought to be the actual creater"
so, 10 down, 10K to go...
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"STOP moving the goalposts!"
Thor, the god of what? Thunder right? Yeah. Zues, actualy has a lot in common with thor, the god of thunder and lightning. Ra and Apollo, the sun. Cupid, love. Osiris, death. Isis, snake venom (believed to be our medical symbol). Not to mention a lot of those gods are the same with different names.
Do you at least know the deffenition of God?
Crumkins 3 years ago
There's no goalposts moving from me my ignorant and gullible friend. You're constantly contradicting your own lack of logic.
"Thor, the god of what? Thunder right? Zues, actualy has a lot in common with thor, the god of thunder and lightning"
You're desperately trying to changing the argument. My original comment was that "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible. Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
and you asked me to provide evidence to back my claim.
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"You're constantly contradicting your own lack of logic."
Didn't i say that to you first? Remember you accused me of "popularity fallacy" then you went ahead and used it yourself. That's cute.
"My original comment was that "Many religions and thousands of gods pre-date the bible."
You didn't read my response. I told you that what you mentioned are gods. Pantheism is mentioned in the bible. Aslo a couple of those "gods" are mentioned. It's real simple if you weren't so simple minded.
Crumkins 3 years ago
"then you went ahead and used it yourself. That's cute."
idiot, i explained why it was NOT a popularity fallacy
"Didn't i say that to you first?"
But you provided ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is therefore invalid until you produce said evidence
"Aslo a couple of those "gods" are mentioned"
/banging head on desk/
WHICH PART of "many religions and thousands of gods predate the bible Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses" are you having a problem comprehending?
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
"Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Lets put it this way... There are only about five religions in the world ok? Some of them are pantheistic.
You need to get yourself a dictionary i can't keep having to explain basic stuff.
Crumkins 3 years ago
[Citation Please]
Five? There are more than five religions native to the sandbox your mish-mash came from. Not to mention Eastern religions, native north American, African, South American. Someone needs a refresher on world religions.
GabrieLaVedier 3 years ago
"There are only about five religions in the world ok?"
There are tens of thousands. There are 22 of them with over half a million devotees.
And you still have shown NO evidence that i was wrong when I stated:
"Many cultures have NEVER been exposed to your god or moses."
Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance
And your acceptance of there NOT being any prophecies in the bible has been duly noted. (none that came true anyway)
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
So, Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? God created it, of course. Why am i stupid for believing that? Just because all of creation has something in common? What they have in common is the creator.
Crumkins 3 years ago
I say there is no god, shanedk says there is no god, but evolution does not say there is no god. "Evolutionists" don't say there is no god. Atheists say there is no god. Not all "evolutionists" are atheists.
philip1201 3 years ago
They will only say that when discussing evolution, because then you are not talking about origins. If you want to talk about origins, you shouldn't talk to an "evolutionist".
You should accept that sometimes people will refuse to change the subject.
philip1201 3 years ago
"You should accept that sometimes people will refuse to change the subject."
And that we're tired of being dicked around by creationists moving the goalposts and having to move around from biology to chemistry to thermodynamics to cosmology to...
shanedk 3 years ago
what about quantum physics?
At least you're not calling people names this time as if you're beyond human. Just to be fair i'm gonna call you a retard.
Crumkins 3 years ago
I still want to know what quantum physics has to do with any of this.
shanedk 3 years ago
Philip: "Of course we are: you answer
yes to the second question for
stupid reason"
Crumkins: "I'm guessing you're not familiar
with quantum physics"
Shanedk: "What does quantum physics have
to do with anything"
I wasn't talking to you.
Crumkins 3 years ago
1. What does quantum physics have to do with anything? :P
2. I know only what I have seen from a discovery channel documentary and the first paragraphs of a wikipedia article.
3. You have no reason to call me a retard, just because I don't know many things. It would be more retarded to think you know every answer to things that people who know more than you don't know the answer to.
philip1201 3 years ago
I agree, not all evolutionists are atheists, but they are antitheists. They know God exists and they are trying hard to disprove His existence, with all these nonsense transpecies evolution theories.
mouzouki 3 years ago
No, in fact, many are Christians, like Ken Miller.
This is just a pathetic ad hominem that a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't be relevant even if it were. It's just desperation on the part of the creationists.
shanedk 3 years ago
Well you are wrong. How can somebody be a Christian, believe in God and at the same time believe that everything appeared on its own without the intervention of an intelligent power? As a scientist and a Christian I believe that God created all living organisms first and placed evolution as an intraspecies maintenance mechanism. You use this God-made adaptation mechanism to distort the truth about God and creation!!!!!!
God created everything including evolution.
mouzouki 3 years ago
Your incredulity doesn't make it so.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that species were created separately yet somehow LOOK exactly as if they came about by common descent. But maybe that's just me...
shanedk 3 years ago
Can theists be antitheists? No, they can not. Evolution does not disprove God - no science does. Science is the opposite of religion - one deals with faith, the other with evidence. Faith does not rely on evidence, so how could there be a disproval of it?
Only if one says their faith is backed up by evidence, can that faith be undone. You creationists brought it onto yourselves.
philip1201 3 years ago
If your faith is backed up by evidence it is no longer faith. It is proof and of the natural world therefore SCIENCE.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Just because something is true doesn't make it science. Unfortunately, creationism isn't backed up by any evidence.
philip1201 3 years ago
Oh I know. The point is specific to creationism, not everything, (I should have clarified). If creationism was true (i.e. empirical evidence to support) it would replace our current scientific understanding with a new one.
Of course creationism is complete and bs.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
(Damn Typos)
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Someone forgot to tell the Catholic Church:0
"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him."
The RCC only lays claim to the initial creation and that God created man's soul.
I guess all Catholics are antitheists now?
justintempler 3 years ago
"Saying there is no god is a statement about origin."
RIDICULOUS! No more than saying "there is no pink unicorns" is a statement about origin! First you must provide evidence there IS a god before anyone worries about whether he was the creator or not!
"are you a physicist? If so do you know how the earth began?"
Are YOU? then HOW can you possibly be sure yourself?!
"then you are not quaified to call creationist or anyone stupid."
Do you perhaps like the label "retard" more??
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
But can you build a house starting from the top? what would you put the roof shingle on? The point was that you can't start from the end of a book and read it backwards. So yes a begining is assumed as being accidental until further notice.
Crumkins 3 years ago
pwnd
Eyedunno 3 years ago
Eventualy aids will become less and less common.
Until it either dies out or changes.
As is the way of evolution
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago
AIDS changes all the time. It's extremely mutagenic. That's why it's so hard to fight.
shanedk 3 years ago
Thanks :D
Im glad you told me that, I almost forgot.
I was more addressing the effects that the resistance gene will have on aids, and the effects aids will have on how common the gene is.
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago
Unfortunately, AIDS is the biggest problem in Africa, and Africans don't have this mutation unless they have some European ancestry. The Europeans only got it after one-third of their population was wiped out.
shanedk 3 years ago