@Cronos269 Evolution is illogical and irrational. Objects never order anything without being ordered.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
No, it's not fair. If we are going to consider creationism, we must consider ALL creationism, and man has come up with alot of batshit theories in the last few thousand years. Should Zeus be part of our consideration?
@JungleJargon *checks*...nope, evolution still works. I can only imagine the Keystone Capers that would go on if scientists tried using science with creationism. That would be hilarious! No, really, science won't shun evolution until it stops working with all the rest of the sciences, regardless of all the hootin' and hollerin' the Bible Thumpin' Elite enjoy.
@alphaenemy Credit for the limited variations of the species does not go to evolution. All the credit goes to the limited preexisting information already in the genome.
Random mutations do not work together to order anything. The credit for the variation of species goes to the genome that is already ordered.
Random mistakes do not order any functions. They only change functions that already exist.
Imagined evolution is a disgrace to real science.
Random mutations are only one aspect of speciation. Selection is just as important. If a mutation in the genom results in a better adaption of the organism to its environment it will reproduce and a new species will be formed. Why do you have such intellectual problems with this simple concept?
@ksqoo Selection is a function of the genome because you have to have a selection before there can be any selection. Any change to the genome is a change to preexisting orders. Mutations can only change existing information, they cannot order any information. This is true both experimentally and true in the fossil record.
That is just gibberish. You don't understand what selection means. I'll try one more time: A change in the genome results into a change in the phenotype of an organism. These changes happen nearly all the time. Some are detrimental and might kill the organism before it can reproduce, but some are beneficial for the organism's survival and reproduction. And these changes will be carried on to the organism's offspring or in other words are selected.
Furthermore you seem to think that the genes in the genome represent "ordered information". Since you seem to like the term "function" please do the following for me: 1. Define a mathematical function that assigns an amount of "order" to a given gene-sequence. 2. Then show that any change in that sequence results in a decrease in "order".
You will already fail at (1) but not only because of your stupidity but because there is no meaningfull definition to the word "order".
@ksqoo I will do that when you show me another function that does not have a maker. All other lesser functions have a Maker. I didn't even say "ordered function". I said a mere function.
What part did you not understand about mutations not being able to order any functions? They can only change existing information, corrupted or otherwise.
You just said life forms are not meaningful because it is that order that made the life forms. That means that you just said you are not meaningful.
You state "mutations not being able to order any functions" For this statement to be true, you must first define the term "order" in a measureable manner. And secondly you must then show that given any genome, every possible mutation of this genome results in less "order". As long as you can't meaningfully define, let alone measure, "order" I can only assume that your statement is just utter pseudoscience bullshit, which only a scientific illiterate can come up with. Understand?
@ksqoo Tell me what order mutations have? I defined order as the information that makes you what you are. It orders your existence. You exist only because you were ordered to exist by a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have.
Do you want some mutations to see if they give you more order?
The reason you fall apart when you get older is because of mutations so just wait awhile and see if they give you eternal life.
Ohoh, and now you define "order" with the term "information"! How do you define then "information"?! You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You simply do not have the intellectual capacity to do so and keep on rambling "random mutations cannot possibly create new stuff"... blablabla. When in actuallity its your small intellectual capacity that just can't create new stuff in your brain.
But I pity you in your futile attempts so I will help you a little:
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. You claim that "NO INFORMATION CAN BE CREATED BY MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!" and you now have to prove (at least) Lenski, Alves, Brown, Hughes, Friedman, Lynch, Conery, Ohta, Knox, Park, Prijambada to be wrong. Have fun you genius!
Don't argue with him.. he is either trolling or just reading off one of his websites. They say random mutations cannot increase genetic information, then after you explain it they say random mutations cannot create morphological changes, then they say random mutations cannot create new species, etc etc.
Their goal posts are on wheels... they move faster than you can type.
But I think that it is just not right to not oppose these idiots. I will quite surely not change this creationist's mind, but maybe someone else's who happens to read this.
Indeed. Your prediction was pretty accurate though :)
I'm really looking forward to him posting some links to where his informations come from. He probably won't, but if he does that might turn out to be rather entertaining.
Well I asked him for links of papers that he feels I should read. I'm waiting on that because unlike him I may actually READ them. I find a sort of pleasure reading scientific papers that creationists cite, just to realize that the content of the paper is completely different. I have Potholder54 to thank for that hobby.
Let me know if he links you anything interesting in a private message or on your wall.
@A0DBOB That is the "advice" that "top scientists" are giving because they know they will lose the debates with creationists and yet they want to continue to poison kids with their virulent belief that objects do things without trying ...even greater things than the Maker of all of their functions, not even mentioning the preexisting word that orders hydrogen and most of the most common elements into being life forms.
No, that's actually the advice I give from my personal experience with creationists on YouTube, random forums, IRC, via email etc.
I've encountered EXACTLY what I said no less than 15, probably more, times. It is almost comical how it goes from beneficial random mutation -> morphological change -> species -> "kinds". I say comical because it repeats itself over and over, like they are reading off Answers in Genesis or some other creationist site.
Let me put it this way: If I did not have other things to do now (catching up on some gaming) I would bite at your comments and ask you to explain what parts of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution you don't agree with. You'd return to me with an answer that I've probably seen hundreds of times in the past. Then we'd go back and forth to learn your position. After a week or two you'd slowly disappear as I present evidence and papers.
I can only pray that ksqoo is entertained by your tomfoolery and not beating his head against the wall.
Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe you have ideas that are worth listening too, maybe you think that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research is insane. Maybe your argument is not Biblically based, but instead based on science. Unfortunately from past events I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
Ya.. definitely cannot give you that benefit of the doubt that you have something intelligent to say... sorry. At least you didn't have any Kent Hovind videos or The Way of the Master videos Favorited, that would seal your coffin of ignorance.
@A0DBOB Nothing you are saying is proving anything.
Would you like to discuss the 60 million cubic miles of sediments covering all living things on earth?
Would you like to discuss the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have obeying the orders of a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have?
Would you like to discuss the fact that mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything because they only change information?
Feel free to just link me to whatever website you use for your information. Please make sure it is a reputable source (Not Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Discovery Institute, Conservapedia, Creation Research Society, etc).
From there I will be glad to read what the source says, after all trying to describe and explain a scientific paper 500 characters at a time gets us nowhere.
Choose the top 4-5 papers that you think I should read. We can start with your three previous topics: Sediment, atomic ordered functions and mutation accumulation.
You may either private message me or leave the websites on my wall. Thank you.
@JungleJargon the chemical properties of elements follow the number of protons, neutrons and electrons that comprise the elements. The periodic table is arranged to show those properties. Its simply following some laws of physics which may or may not have had a creator.
@ksqoo Only what is compatible with the preexisting design is useable.
Mutations can only change information that already exists. Mutations do not coordinate to order new life forms. In real life, that translates to no accumulations of mutations amounting to anything because random mutations cannot work together for anything. This is true in testing, observations and in the fossil record.
Science confirms that mutations do not accumulate.
Some mutations of bacteria survive from sheer numbers.
And that brings us back to the start. You are ignoring the concept of selection AND you are ignoring the actual evidence for the forming of new species. You are an ignorant, scientific illiterate claiming to "know" what science confirms. You knowingly lie about what science actually confirms. You try to decieve inexperienced individuals into rejecting reality and into believing in your sky-daddy. Disgusting individuals like you try to catapult us back into the Dark Ages.
@ksqoo You just made yourself an enemy of science because what I have said is what science has determined: that mutations do not accumulate, not experimentally, not in real life and not in the fossil record.
You are saying less and less because there is nothing you can say.
You should have known that mutations would not be able to order anything.
Repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make your bullshit in any way less bullshit.
I will give you a little advice: If you want to make a claim look like it might be scientificly backed up, you should actually provide some scientific papers which at least seem to support this claim. Please give me at least something to laugh at :)
Erm yes, I can and I did back these claims up. You just chose to ignore the links I gave to you.
"My claims are backed up because there is no evolution in the fossil record or anywhere in real life."
That is just circular reasoning. You claim that there is no evolution and you "back up" this claim by again claiming that there is no evolution. You still need to provide sources other than your own personal belief.
To your questions: You seem to imply that there are no explanations other than your beloved great flood. There are plenty of other mechanisms that transport sediments. The fossil record does actually contradict your "great flood"-hypothesis. The vertical distribution of the fossils is the same all over the earth. The chaotic forces of masses of water plowing over the earth would have just scrambled around all the living beings. No specific vertical order would be present.
"Why are the sediments not gone after your supposed billions of years?"
This question is explicitly stupid. Where do you think sediments should go? Unless they magically float away into space, defying gravity, they should stay on the planet earth, right?
And again you refuse to present any source that supports your claims. But that is fine with me. It just confirms the irrationality of your standpoint.
"The sediments would be in the oceans if the earth really was billions of years old."
1. Of course you do believe in your 6000 year-old earth, but given that the earth is 4,5 billion years old (which admittedly might be hard for you to imagine): Do you really think that the oceans were the same as lets say 1 billion years ago?!
2. You imply that there is a geological theory that suggests that all the sediments should be in the oceans by now. This is a typical straw-man argument which reveals your lack of knowledge of geology. If there is one then please show it me!!!!
I especially recommend to you: "Geology For Dummies" which can be found on amazan(dot)com.
The sediments, all life on earth buried under the sediments, the function of hydrogen, most of the most common elements working together inside of us, the transforming power of the word of the Lord by the grace of God.(the truth has to be believed for that to happen it will not happen by way of a lie). `
So the fossils are covered by sediments. And our bodies are made of different elements.
So what?!
You imply that there is no explanation for these phenomena, except for "goddidit". I have to disappoint you but there ARE natural explanations. You are just unable to understand these explanations or you chose to be completely ignorant.
But either way: Your "god" is an outdated and completely unnecessary concept. Your concept of "god" is just there to comfort you and nothing more.
@ksqoo No, not sediments, 125 million cubic miles of sediments that you can't account for.
We consist of most of the most common elements that are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
There are no natural explanations because objects don't get the credit for that.
There's nothing comforting about having the responsibility to teach people that don't want to hear or know truth.
Wow... you have deluded yourself to the point where you think that little fairies have covered the fossils with sediments and that they also make the elements in our bodies work together. Your self-delusion goes even further: You think that everyone who tries to tell you that there are no fairies IS ACTUALLY SENT BY THE EVIL FAIRIES and thereby you self-reinforce your believe in fairies.
"125 million cubic miles of sediments that you can't account for." Wasn't it 60 million cubic miles just before? But lets go with your 125. Lets assume the sediments now form a uniform layer on the earth's surface. Given your volume of 125 million cubic miles that layer would have a thickness of roughly 1 mile. Now lets assume that erosion and sedimentation started maybe 1 billion years ago and produces a constant volume of sediments each year.
@ksqoo It is many consecutive layers that make up the strata that was put down by the global flood. That is the only way that sediments deposit in layers and those are the layers that covered every living thing on earth.
Billions of year would have eroded the sediments and they would all be in the ocean instead of on land where they are found in real life.
To produce a layer of that thickness in 1 billion years it would need a growth of about 5*10^(-10) miles per year or ~0,5 µm each year. I have rounded all the numbers I used in favor of your argument but still:
Your average household-dust-layer grows several times faster than that!
So please stop using this stupid number. You are embarrassing yourself and your fellow creationists. You don't need a flood to account for the sediments.
@ksqoo By your beliefs, the sediments would all be in the oceans instead of on land where they are in real life, you failed to say how the sediments got on land.
We can only go by the evidence that we have and ordered functions require a Maker.
"You did not account for where the sediments came from" Haha, so you want me to list all the different kinds of sediments and how they are produced? Grab a book and educate yourself you dumbfuck. And by the way you are the one who thinks that the sediments magically came into existence.
And please... even IF there was once a great flood, which is an incredibly stupid and unnecessary concept, THAT WOULDN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR STUPID FAIRIES!
@ksqoo Yes, there was a flood and it proves that everything living on earth was buried by the global flood which means there is no evolution and mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything in the real world anyway.
We have to go by the evidence that we have and simple function always requires a maker.
@JungleJargon I suggest you look up potholer54's video noah's ark, and find out for yourself why the flood is completely and totally fiction. This video covers all the scientific reasons why it could not have happened. Why don't you look at it before you say such stupid things.
@nancy6ify You cannot explain how over 100 million cubic miles of strata came to cover everything that was living on earth so you cannot tell me anything about whether survivors of the flood are possible.
There was a global flood and we are descendants of the survivors of that flood. That is the only reason we are alive to see the layers of the Grand Canyon a mile deep that are evidence of the global flood.
@JungleJargon@ndrthrdr1 The video is great! This is a troll, right? It's pointing out how little creationists understand about evolution, right? It's a little mean though, just because creationists are uneducated doesn't mean they are stupid, which is what the video is implying
@Floortjahh People were never taught the facts in school. Objects never order anything without being ordered. There is no mechanism for evolution.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
You are ignoring modern science and it's achievements. You pretend to be in favor for science when in actuality you despise and fight against it because it contradicts your idiotic bible. Science does not need the concept of "a maker"! In fact, progress can only be made in science IF YOU DOUBT THAT THINGS ARE THERE BECAUSE FAIRIES MADE THEM and THEN LOOK FOR NATURAL EXPLANATIONS. You are an enemy of progress and I will not allow you to spout your nonsense here unscathed.
@ksqoo You and your "scientists" are the ones giving all of the credit to objects in nature that are able to do nothing of themselves. There is no evidence that objects have magic to order themselves. You have failed to offer any valid explanation. That is not my fault, it is your fault. You are your own enemy. Don't blame me for your own lack of any substance.
The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements reqire having a Maker.
"Don't blame me for your own lack of any substance." *facepalm*
"The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements reqire having a Maker."
They only require a maker in your own personal, limited and uneducated view on the world. You are a remnant of the ancient ages were people thought that lightnings come from Zeus or Thor. You are the one who believes in magic. Your inabiltiy to understand modern science only proves your stupidity not the existence of a "maker".
@ksqoo There is no evidence of magic. There is only evidence of a Maker greater than all of the hydrogen in the universe because the essential functions that hydrogen has in life forms requires a Maker. That means that the Maker of our functions is the Maker of all matter in the universe. It is observable evidence of a Maker.
Just like a bear track is observable evidence of a bear, the function of hydrogen inside of us is observable evidence that we have a great Maker who ordered our existence.
@JungleJargon Hm, you like to ignore what other people say to you, do you?
The functions of the elements in our body only require a maker in your own personal, limited and uneducated view on the world. Your constant denial and ignorance of science and your obvious inability to understand it does not prove the existince of your sky-daddy. It only makes you look stupid.
Please try to get this into your head: "I dont understand it." does not imply "God must have created it."
@ksqoo The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations. Orderly uniform variations are not brought on by mutations.
Evolution is a belief and evolution is not science. Atheism is also a false belief not based on observable evidence of ordered functions in life forms that all require a Maker.
So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived?
Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils.
« The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations »
Except that such mutations can be measured. Mind you, mutation is *not* the only mechanism to introduce variation in a population: reproductive combination is also very important. Almost every form of life has mechanisms in the genome that 'shuffle' genes around in order to introduce new variants into the genepool. Why? Because having genetic diversity increases fitness.
« So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived? »
Nowhere, since such "uniform layered sediments" do not exist. The Earth's geological strata are jumbled, one way in one place, completely different a few miles over. Landmasses tilt due to tectonics, one part undergoes erosion, the other part is submerged and sediments are deposited. And so forth.
@JungleJargon atheism isn't a belief, it's a single position on a single issue.
Do you buy the god claims - answer no ---> you're an atheist.
It has absolutely nothing to do with you believing in evolution or religion or any ideology. You can be an atheist and a budhist at the same time. Infact all budhists are atheists per definition. So it has nothing to do with belief, it doesn't have any dogma, no one is telling what an atheist has to believe in. You can even be an atheist and believe in ID
« Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils »
False. No species extant today existed ten million years ago. Sure, there are many lineages that appear superficially similar - but even the slightest scrutiny shows that these lifeforms are not the same species as those that existed before; usually not even the same *genera*.
"Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils" so what of it? they have found their niche and it didn't change since then. they had no selective pressure and didnt evolve.
"So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived?" your number changed several times now: first 60 then 125 now 100. how do even come up with these numbers?
And secondly sediments don't cover everything that ever lived. fossilisation is a rare event. the sediments are mainly created by rain, flowing water, wind and ice crumbling rocks to pebbles and sand. they pretty much are transported by the same means. and these means are perfectly capable of forming uniform layers. your little creationist brain just fails when it comes to long periods of time.
"Atheism is also a false belief" Atheism is the LACK of a believe in a maker. Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
"Evolution is a belief and evolution is not science" no. but even if it were: exchanging one wrong belief system with another wouldn't help science at all.
"Orderly uniform variations are not brought on by mutations." what do you even mean by "uniform variations"?! the word variation implys the absence of order and uniformity.
"The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations."
you admit that there are variations within a species and these variations come from slightly different genes. so there must be a process that causes small changes in the genes: mutation. you may not like this word but the actual process does exist.
now you have natural selection which is the process of favoring certain mutations if they benefit the survival of this species thus changing this species.
@JungleJargon If you send me your address I will send you the middle school science book that you clearly need. Please read something other than the bible. You're not dumb, just incredibly ignorant, which isnt your fault. Its just not ok for you to make things up and state them as fact.
@JungleJargon Oh I have a small error there: the rate of growth would be 1 µm per year. So before you jump on that: I have seen this myself, alright? :)
Everytime you creationists see something in nature that is too difficult for your little minds to understand you say "God did it!". I always imagine how you guys sit there drooling, scratching your small monkey-head and saying: "i dont get this, this must have been GOD'S doing." Hilarious! :D
And if you think you can improve on the theory of evolution then write down your new theory and send it to a peer-reviewed journal. But remember! "God did it!" is not a theory.
THIS PLANET IS TOO PERFECT TO JUST BE A SERIES OF CHANCES , FROM IT'S AMOUNT OF SUBSTANCES , TO IT'S PERFECT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN , TO IT'S ROTATIONS , SEASONS , AND THE PERFECT RELATION WITH IT'S MOON .
TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLE ACCUMULATION OF CHANCES , WHICH HASN'T CHANGED, IS NATURAL , WELL YOU WOULD WIN ALL THE LOTTERIES THERE ARE . THIS PLANET AND CORRESPONDENT SOLAR SYSTEM IS TOO STABLE RIGHT AT THIS POINT , MAKING IT MANAGEABLE .
The amount of organisms on the Earth is not automatically proof that there's a God. The Earth can move quite a distance towards or away from the Sun and we'll be fine. Earth's rotation and seasons are due to it's orbit, no God, and out relationship with the moon is only perfect for now.
Natural selection is not chance. The mutations that come about are in some ways, but natural selection is the exact opposite.
Please, research these things before you act like an authority on them.
Each star has what is called a habitable zone. Our Sun's habitable zone ranges from roughly just past Venus to just before Mars, meaning that we could go quite a ways towards the sun or away from it and probably be fine.
The moon's orbit around Earth is getting larger and larger as time goes on. Eventually, the moon's orbit will take it outside the pull of Earth's gravity, and it will go off into space. Look this stuff up.
And you implied that life on Earth is a product of god.
@9493760 Yeah..It seems great and well planned..Does it MEAN that a god made it?
Of course not..That's a no brainer.Find proof in favour of your "God" and then speak about him.The fact that the universe is "fine tuned" proves nothing.
@9493760 I'm sorry if this is a news flash for you but chickens don't have teeth.Ok..since you are probably incapable of understanding it let me rephrase my question : Why do whales have genes for making legs?And yes WHALES DON'T HAVE LEGS.
So Mr.Fronzi let me make something clear.Those "leg genes" in whales is not responsible for the development of their fins.Other genes are responsible for that.So whales have genes that are responsible for LEG development and by leg I mean those that animals use to walk on land.Yes whales have genes for that.
@Stevoukos HOW CAN YOU DISCERN LEG GENES FROM FIN GENES ? YOUR TRYING TO SAY A MAMMAL WITH THE MAKE UP OF A WHALE WALKED ON LAND ? I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUND ANY FOSSILS TO PROVE THIS THEORY ? YES CHICKENS , IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THEIR BEAKS , THERE IS INDENTATIONS LIKE A ROW OF TEETH , CULMINATING INTO A BEAK. . GENES DON'T CHANGE BECAUSE OF NEEDS , THEY ARE EITHER MISTAKES , OR ARE FOLLOWING A GUIDED PATTERN .
@9493760 Chickens DON'T have teeth.And you know why?Because the genes responsible for teeth are deactivated.They have the genes-The genes don't work.This is completely inexplicable by creationism but perfectly normal when you look at it from an evolutionary perspective.
Now if you can't distinguish the difference between a fin and a leg I can't help you with that.
You said : "A MAMMAL WITH THE MAKE UP OF A WHALE WALKED ON LAND"Bearing in mind that whales are mammals I will reply that (cont)
@9493760 (cont) that whales had an ancestor who was a mammal who walked on land.This is the ONLY way that you can explain why : whales are mammals but live on water and also have leg genes.I'll repeat again : They have leg AND fin genes.
@Stevoukos WHALES HAVE BOTH LEG AND FIN GENES ? IF THAT IS SO THEN WE'VE REALLY GOT A MIXED BAG OF USELESS GENES LAYING AROUND . DOES THE HUMAN HAVE ANY ?
@9493760 Of course we do.About 75% of our genome contains no information.So only 25% of our genome is actually genes that contain any sort of information.The rest is just "junk".Again this is not explainable by creationism.
@9493760 What the fuck are you talking about?Stop being so myopic and see the world for what it really is.We come from years of evolution and that is why we have genes that don't work and 75% of non coding DNA.
These are facts and no matter what you do they will NEVER fit your "special creation" theory.It's not good to think that the universe was created especially for us.
@Stevoukos YOUR PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH , I DIDN'T SAY THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED JUST FOR US . BUT I DO BELIEVE AND HAVE SEEN UNKNOWN ANOMALIES THAT LET ME BELIEVE THERE IS AN UNSEEN STRUCTURE TO THIS REALITY .
@9493760 What are these anomalies that you are referring to?
And of course you believe that the universe is created just for us.If you believe in a creator(and especially in the Christian one) then you do believe that he created the universe especially for mankind.
@Stevoukos Empty genes are most likely genes that have turned themselves off because their material was unneeded. Since they didn't get in the way in their turned-off state
A beak is NOT a remnant of chickens teeth. A beak is a protrubence of a chickens skull.
And when it comes back to the fin/leg argument, then let's rephrase it like that: whales do not have hind legs, but they do have genes corresponding to these legs. These genes are inactive. I believe even snakes have leg genes.
@Mirhaus Who said anything about the beak?Genetically chickens have teeth genes which are de-activated.The beak has nothing to do with it.As you said the beak is a part of the skull.
I'm just pointing out this fact which clearly contradicts creationism.
@Mirhaus The problem is that people like 9493760 fail to grasp even basic biology and end up trolling.I wasted my time trying to discuss anything with such a stupid man.
@Stevoukos ALRIGHT STEVOUKOS , YOU ARE RIGHT , I AM STUPID. AND BIOLOGY EVEN THE BASIC IS PROOF OF MY STUPIDITY . I WILL NOT ARGUE ANY FURTHER ON THIS UNARGUABLE TOPIC . WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT . FOR IF THE ARGUMENT EXISTS , IT IS STILL UNFINISHED , BY YOU OR ME .
@9493760 Although your actions in this argument are rather trollish I'd like to chime in and request you go read the article aboult "Evolution of cetaceans" on wikipedia. Then perhaps compare it to other websites or books. Whale evolution is relatively well documented. One can see how the skull structure and anatomy of these proto-cetaceans becomes more and more whale like. Not only do they have leg-genes but their ancestry is supported by the fossil records as well.
"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.
Sure and all history teachers have to teach that the holocaust just PROBABLY happened, and they have to teach all the conspiracy theories. Gravity should be taught along with the "what goes up ,comes down" theory (which IS gravity just diferent). And of course, Math is simply a theory, and should not be taugh AT ALL; LOL:
What bothers me most about the Creationist argument is the conceit that anything anti-evolution is ;pro creationism. What absence in the case of Evolution lets ID or Creationism pull ahead of Ancient Astronauts or other alternatives?
Yes!! Eugenie Scott, You run the NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION!! sounds like that should be a skyscraper. Ive seen the building. Its literally the size of a snowball shack. Evolution is stupid. Trying to lower us to all to monkeys. Who you calling a monkey? Go start your own private school for that nonsense. Teach actual science instead of indoctrinating kids with your evolution garbage. Teach the kids theyre soulless animals. They may just act like a soulless animal. Remember 1963??????
@Daedocuras Start our own schools? No everyone deserves an education! Homeschool your kids if you want idiots (stone them if they disobey as your master commands)
Desertphile - evolution vs. creationism is like hearing both sides on spherical Earth vs. flat Earth
Please don't make comments like this in ignorance. Reasearch the other side at answersingenesis dot organisation
then I'll listen to you
Evolutionists generally resort to mocking, making unsupported statements e.g. "the undeniable truth of evolution" meaningless AND the nazistyle media blackout of creationism as argued in this video
"Please don't make comments like this in ignorance."
- it's not ignorance that leads one to compare creationism to belief in a flat earth, it's acceptance in the scientific community and it's evidentiary support are equal.
@1998vidmaster The only ones who make unsupported statements and claim to have the "absolute" or "undeniable truth" are the religious. Nothing in science is ever claimed to be the truth. That's because every working scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable and as a result can never be proven "true". The Germ theory of medicine can't be proven true, but to deny its validity as a working theory is to invite the alternative use of faith healers, witch doctors, exorcists, and homeopathy.
@1998vidmaster Exactly! I only ever hear evolutionists make rude comments, make vague statements about how evolution is fact, or ridicule creationism. I haven't heard one explanation of why evolution is fact. Someone tell me why!
@DonataII please read the greatest show on earth by richard dawkins... I agree, we learned this from scratch and you're asking for our hard-earned knowledge? do your own learning!
@DonataII I will tell you why the theory of evolution is accepted as correct. 1) It is verifiable and falsifiable 2) It has not been falsified. No contradictory evidence has been found. 3) It has been verified, its predictions have all been confirmed. 4) It works when applied to technological developement, the hallmark of a correct theory 5) Microevolution is observable, and you cannot have microevolution without macroevolution, as they are really the same thing.
@labrat1807 This exactly the kind of comment that we're talking about. It is vague and fact-less. You say "microevolution" has been observed, but I have never heard of an actual evolution from species to species, which is what needs to be observed in order to make the theory *plausable.* Then you would still have to find a way to prove that evolution was definitely the way the universe got here.
@DonataII Every one of my numbered points is a fact, every one. You cannot have microevolution without accepting at least the possibility of macroevolution. Its like saying you believe in hurricanes but not in wind.
Evolution is not the way the universe got here. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is a set of theories regarding the origin of life. Cosmology is a set of theories regarding how the universe got here.
Is it really so irrational to believe in a creator? Let me ask you this: if I showed you my fine precision 23-jewel railroad watch and told you it was not made in a factory at all--not designed, planned or put together by any watchmaker--that it just happened--that the iron ores just brought themselves up out of the ground, refined themselves, formed and shaped themselves into the delicate little cogs and wheels and other pieces; the silicon just came of its own accord out of the
Helacyton gartleri is proof of current speciation. It developed from human cancer cells on its own, and can no longer reproduce with human cells; it is a new species.
@labrat1807 Evolution hasn't been proved as even possible, and it has most certainly not been proved as the definite method way we all got here. This leaves your theory a faith. There's nothing wrong with that and you are most welcome to believe it. At least I admit that I believe creationism on faith.
@DonataII I'm glad that you admit your faith is just that, a faith. Science however is not faith based. Claim it all you want but you're wrong. Science is evidence based. If you read about the history of science (start with Aristotle) you will see that literally thousands of theories have been proposed, accepted and then rejected in light of new evidence. You admit that there is no evidence that could change your theism. I maintain that there is no theory theory that is immune to evidence.
@1998vidmaster pls, pls, pls, do research, read books, do some learning! and please put out all religious bias out of the way when reading these books. Why? because they tend to cloud your judgement wherever the evidence might lead you... Scientists are not blocking you... You just want to skip due process, and that's not good science!
@Law19157 Really? Just how will they be able to do that? Why would you say a scientist will do that when religion already says god exists. Maybe, they will find out that fairies do too.
@spareaxe Because everything that exists is the product of Grand Architect (that's our claim) anybody that is in pursuit of Knowledge will find God if they don't ignore things that currently don't make sense, because Knowledge will ultimately lead to God (because he made everything [thats the claim]) why do I say Scientist will do it (a non biased Scientist) to confirm & or prove our claims to be true...and my faith has nothing to do with religion that's just theological ignorance
@LaFolledeChaillot yes that's nice, except that we do have evidence to support our claims & whats with you people comparing our beliefs with fairies & Unicorns? that has nothing to do with the existence of God, it has little to no importance whether those 2 things exist or not appart from making a few kids happy
@Law19157 "except that we do have evidence to support our claims"
The only evidence you have for the validity of your holy book is the holy book itself (Circular reasoning). Other than that all you have is faith, and faith is belief without evidence.
"whats with you people comparing our beliefs with fairies & Unicorns?"
To show you they have as much evidentiary support as your beliefs. You know.... none. :)
@Law19157 "modern day physics will prove God exits"
Modern physics just proved the opposite. According to Stephen Hawking's new book, the laws of physics are sufficient to explain how the universe can and will create itself from nothing, possibly for multiple times (the Big Bang doesn't need a cause).
Listen if we're going to talk about Creationism let's do it in the right place Talk about it in a religious studies class, or in a social studies class Creationism is a religious belief It's NOT a scientific theory so it can't be taught in a Science Class This is America. We have freedom of religion. By teaching YOUR religion on MY science class you are violating my rights. If you wanna talk about your religion lets do it in social studies when we can talk about everybody else's too.
@NicoleAgent I agree, but the problem is some science teachers have no problem with telling their students that God doesn't exist. Science teachers can't prove that evolution was not the means in which God used to create everything on earth, but it doesn't stop them from teaching that evolution is incompatible with a God, and not specifically the one in Genesis, just a God.
Is it fair ? Would you tell your children the facts of life and then tell them they were brought by the stork?
daverigby23 1 month ago
@JungleJargon
You clearly have no idea of what evolution explains.
Evolution explains the Diversity of Life, not how it arose.
Cronos269 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cronos269 Evolution is illogical and irrational. Objects never order anything without being ordered.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
Go on, Kill a Creationist today. You know it makes sense
jontibloom 3 months ago
No, it's not fair. If we are going to consider creationism, we must consider ALL creationism, and man has come up with alot of batshit theories in the last few thousand years. Should Zeus be part of our consideration?
rudygetsplenty 3 months ago
where were the tits?
MrJuide 3 months ago
Kenneth Miller hit the nail in the coffin there.
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
You don't want to hear the lies. Evolution is all lies.
Mutations do not order anything. You are dreaming!
Everything about a life form requires a Maker.
The evidence is that the ordered functions that most of the most common elements have in life forms require a Maker.
Evolution is not science. It does not belong in the classroom.
Evolution is a lie and a fraud.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon *checks*...nope, evolution still works. I can only imagine the Keystone Capers that would go on if scientists tried using science with creationism. That would be hilarious! No, really, science won't shun evolution until it stops working with all the rest of the sciences, regardless of all the hootin' and hollerin' the Bible Thumpin' Elite enjoy.
alphaenemy 5 months ago
@alphaenemy Credit for the limited variations of the species does not go to evolution. All the credit goes to the limited preexisting information already in the genome.
Random mutations do not work together to order anything. The credit for the variation of species goes to the genome that is already ordered.
Random mistakes do not order any functions. They only change functions that already exist.
Imagined evolution is a disgrace to real science.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Random mutations are only one aspect of speciation. Selection is just as important. If a mutation in the genom results in a better adaption of the organism to its environment it will reproduce and a new species will be formed. Why do you have such intellectual problems with this simple concept?
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Selection is a function of the genome because you have to have a selection before there can be any selection. Any change to the genome is a change to preexisting orders. Mutations can only change existing information, they cannot order any information. This is true both experimentally and true in the fossil record.
Scientists should have figured this out by now.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
That is just gibberish. You don't understand what selection means. I'll try one more time: A change in the genome results into a change in the phenotype of an organism. These changes happen nearly all the time. Some are detrimental and might kill the organism before it can reproduce, but some are beneficial for the organism's survival and reproduction. And these changes will be carried on to the organism's offspring or in other words are selected.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
Furthermore you seem to think that the genes in the genome represent "ordered information". Since you seem to like the term "function" please do the following for me: 1. Define a mathematical function that assigns an amount of "order" to a given gene-sequence. 2. Then show that any change in that sequence results in a decrease in "order".
You will already fail at (1) but not only because of your stupidity but because there is no meaningfull definition to the word "order".
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo I will do that when you show me another function that does not have a maker. All other lesser functions have a Maker. I didn't even say "ordered function". I said a mere function.
What part did you not understand about mutations not being able to order any functions? They can only change existing information, corrupted or otherwise.
You just said life forms are not meaningful because it is that order that made the life forms. That means that you just said you are not meaningful.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
You state "mutations not being able to order any functions" For this statement to be true, you must first define the term "order" in a measureable manner. And secondly you must then show that given any genome, every possible mutation of this genome results in less "order". As long as you can't meaningfully define, let alone measure, "order" I can only assume that your statement is just utter pseudoscience bullshit, which only a scientific illiterate can come up with. Understand?
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Tell me what order mutations have? I defined order as the information that makes you what you are. It orders your existence. You exist only because you were ordered to exist by a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have.
Do you want some mutations to see if they give you more order?
The reason you fall apart when you get older is because of mutations so just wait awhile and see if they give you eternal life.
Address the issues.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
Ohoh, and now you define "order" with the term "information"! How do you define then "information"?! You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You simply do not have the intellectual capacity to do so and keep on rambling "random mutations cannot possibly create new stuff"... blablabla. When in actuallity its your small intellectual capacity that just can't create new stuff in your brain.
But I pity you in your futile attempts so I will help you a little:
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
We have observed the evolution of
1. increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
2. increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
3. novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
4. novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Source: talkorigins
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (3)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. You claim that "NO INFORMATION CAN BE CREATED BY MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!" and you now have to prove (at least) Lenski, Alves, Brown, Hughes, Friedman, Lynch, Conery, Ohta, Knox, Park, Prijambada to be wrong. Have fun you genius!
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo A change of information is not new information.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
What the FUCK. I cant believe it how dense you are... lets make it even simpler:
01010001100 -> thats information! now I CHANGE the information to:
10101110101 -> why is that no NEW information?
YOU MAKE NO FUCKING SENSE!
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo
Don't argue with him.. he is either trolling or just reading off one of his websites. They say random mutations cannot increase genetic information, then after you explain it they say random mutations cannot create morphological changes, then they say random mutations cannot create new species, etc etc.
Their goal posts are on wheels... they move faster than you can type.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB
Yeah, I'm well aware of that ;)
But I think that it is just not right to not oppose these idiots. I will quite surely not change this creationist's mind, but maybe someone else's who happens to read this.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo
Wow that was fast... see he wanted to see a change in information and now he wants to see a change in speciation/kinds.
I must admit.. its unusual to skip the "morphological change" step.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB
Indeed. Your prediction was pretty accurate though :)
I'm really looking forward to him posting some links to where his informations come from. He probably won't, but if he does that might turn out to be rather entertaining.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo
Well I asked him for links of papers that he feels I should read. I'm waiting on that because unlike him I may actually READ them. I find a sort of pleasure reading scientific papers that creationists cite, just to realize that the content of the paper is completely different. I have Potholder54 to thank for that hobby.
Let me know if he links you anything interesting in a private message or on your wall.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB That is the "advice" that "top scientists" are giving because they know they will lose the debates with creationists and yet they want to continue to poison kids with their virulent belief that objects do things without trying ...even greater things than the Maker of all of their functions, not even mentioning the preexisting word that orders hydrogen and most of the most common elements into being life forms.
You can be sure your lies will find you out.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
No, that's actually the advice I give from my personal experience with creationists on YouTube, random forums, IRC, via email etc.
I've encountered EXACTLY what I said no less than 15, probably more, times. It is almost comical how it goes from beneficial random mutation -> morphological change -> species -> "kinds". I say comical because it repeats itself over and over, like they are reading off Answers in Genesis or some other creationist site.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Let me put it this way: If I did not have other things to do now (catching up on some gaming) I would bite at your comments and ask you to explain what parts of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution you don't agree with. You'd return to me with an answer that I've probably seen hundreds of times in the past. Then we'd go back and forth to learn your position. After a week or two you'd slowly disappear as I present evidence and papers.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
I can only pray that ksqoo is entertained by your tomfoolery and not beating his head against the wall.
Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe you have ideas that are worth listening too, maybe you think that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research is insane. Maybe your argument is not Biblically based, but instead based on science. Unfortunately from past events I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
> Evidence that Noahs flood was real
> Dr. Patton videos
Ya.. definitely cannot give you that benefit of the doubt that you have something intelligent to say... sorry. At least you didn't have any Kent Hovind videos or The Way of the Master videos Favorited, that would seal your coffin of ignorance.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB Nothing you are saying is proving anything.
Would you like to discuss the 60 million cubic miles of sediments covering all living things on earth?
Would you like to discuss the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have obeying the orders of a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have?
Would you like to discuss the fact that mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything because they only change information?
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Feel free to just link me to whatever website you use for your information. Please make sure it is a reputable source (Not Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Discovery Institute, Conservapedia, Creation Research Society, etc).
From there I will be glad to read what the source says, after all trying to describe and explain a scientific paper 500 characters at a time gets us nowhere.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Choose the top 4-5 papers that you think I should read. We can start with your three previous topics: Sediment, atomic ordered functions and mutation accumulation.
You may either private message me or leave the websites on my wall. Thank you.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
I also would like confirmation that you've read the some of the papers that ksqoo linked.
Namely:
"Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi" Hughes and Friedman 2003.
It is only 14 pages long, easily found with a google search (full text available without any journal subscription.
I ask this of you because you answered ksqoo within MINUTES of his post. So unless you had these papers memorized I highly doubt you read them.
A0DBOB 5 months ago
@A0DBOB I suppose that means, "No", you would not like to discuss any of the elephant in the room issues.
How about explaining in your own words what it is that you believe as to how objects manage to do everything that they do.
Did the fungi change into anything else?
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon the chemical properties of elements follow the number of protons, neutrons and electrons that comprise the elements. The periodic table is arranged to show those properties. Its simply following some laws of physics which may or may not have had a creator.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
@ksqoo Only what is compatible with the preexisting design is useable.
Mutations can only change information that already exists. Mutations do not coordinate to order new life forms. In real life, that translates to no accumulations of mutations amounting to anything because random mutations cannot work together for anything. This is true in testing, observations and in the fossil record.
Science confirms that mutations do not accumulate.
Some mutations of bacteria survive from sheer numbers.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
And that brings us back to the start. You are ignoring the concept of selection AND you are ignoring the actual evidence for the forming of new species. You are an ignorant, scientific illiterate claiming to "know" what science confirms. You knowingly lie about what science actually confirms. You try to decieve inexperienced individuals into rejecting reality and into believing in your sky-daddy. Disgusting individuals like you try to catapult us back into the Dark Ages.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo It is a selection of a variation of a preexisting genome. That is *not* a new species.
You proved nothing. The genome goes with what it has.
Variations are limited because the information in the genome is limited.
Mutations do not accumulate experimentally because mutations do not order anything and so they do not amount to anything in real life.
That means that evolution has never occurred. It doesn't even almost occur.
There is more variation from the genome than from mutations.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make your bullshit in any way less bullshit.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo You just made yourself an enemy of science because what I have said is what science has determined: that mutations do not accumulate, not experimentally, not in real life and not in the fossil record.
You are saying less and less because there is nothing you can say.
You should have known that mutations would not be able to order anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
Repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make your bullshit in any way less bullshit.
I will give you a little advice: If you want to make a claim look like it might be scientificly backed up, you should actually provide some scientific papers which at least seem to support this claim. Please give me at least something to laugh at :)
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Hey there Mr. Creationst. Don't you want to try to back up your outrageous claims? I promise I won't laugh at you (at first) and read your sources.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Can you back up your claims that objects design, manufacture and then order themselves?
My claims are backed up because there is no evolution in the fossil record or anywhere in real life.
Address the issues.
Where did the 60 million cubic miles of sedments come from to cover all living things on earth?
How did the sediments get here?
Why are the sediments not gone after your supposed billions of years?
You have said nothing because you have nothing to say.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
Erm yes, I can and I did back these claims up. You just chose to ignore the links I gave to you.
"My claims are backed up because there is no evolution in the fossil record or anywhere in real life."
That is just circular reasoning. You claim that there is no evolution and you "back up" this claim by again claiming that there is no evolution. You still need to provide sources other than your own personal belief.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
To your questions: You seem to imply that there are no explanations other than your beloved great flood. There are plenty of other mechanisms that transport sediments. The fossil record does actually contradict your "great flood"-hypothesis. The vertical distribution of the fossils is the same all over the earth. The chaotic forces of masses of water plowing over the earth would have just scrambled around all the living beings. No specific vertical order would be present.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (3)
Oh and: "You have said nothing because you have nothing to say." That one goes right back to you :)
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (4)
"Why are the sediments not gone after your supposed billions of years?"
This question is explicitly stupid. Where do you think sediments should go? Unless they magically float away into space, defying gravity, they should stay on the planet earth, right?
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo The sediments would be in the oceans if the earth really was billions of years old.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
And again you refuse to present any source that supports your claims. But that is fine with me. It just confirms the irrationality of your standpoint.
"The sediments would be in the oceans if the earth really was billions of years old."
1. Of course you do believe in your 6000 year-old earth, but given that the earth is 4,5 billion years old (which admittedly might be hard for you to imagine): Do you really think that the oceans were the same as lets say 1 billion years ago?!
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
2. You imply that there is a geological theory that suggests that all the sediments should be in the oceans by now. This is a typical straw-man argument which reveals your lack of knowledge of geology. If there is one then please show it me!!!!
I especially recommend to you: "Geology For Dummies" which can be found on amazan(dot)com.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
And btw: You are saying less and less because you have nothing to say.
LOL :D
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo I am saying less because it is taking less and less effort to refute what you try to say.
...and if I do say more, you will just ignore the elephant in the room anyway.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Did you even read my other comments? Oh boy, talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!
What is your supposed elephant in the room? The great flood? HAHAHAH :D
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo There is a herd of elephants in the room.
The sediments, all life on earth buried under the sediments, the function of hydrogen, most of the most common elements working together inside of us, the transforming power of the word of the Lord by the grace of God.(the truth has to be believed for that to happen it will not happen by way of a lie). `
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
So the fossils are covered by sediments. And our bodies are made of different elements.
So what?!
You imply that there is no explanation for these phenomena, except for "goddidit". I have to disappoint you but there ARE natural explanations. You are just unable to understand these explanations or you chose to be completely ignorant.
But either way: Your "god" is an outdated and completely unnecessary concept. Your concept of "god" is just there to comfort you and nothing more.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo No, not sediments, 125 million cubic miles of sediments that you can't account for.
We consist of most of the most common elements that are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
There are no natural explanations because objects don't get the credit for that.
There's nothing comforting about having the responsibility to teach people that don't want to hear or know truth.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Wow... you have deluded yourself to the point where you think that little fairies have covered the fossils with sediments and that they also make the elements in our bodies work together. Your self-delusion goes even further: You think that everyone who tries to tell you that there are no fairies IS ACTUALLY SENT BY THE EVIL FAIRIES and thereby you self-reinforce your believe in fairies.
That's pretty sad man.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Sad is what you just said about believing in fairies.
The evidence is still there of our Maker. It will never go away as long and the constansts remain as they are.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
"125 million cubic miles of sediments that you can't account for." Wasn't it 60 million cubic miles just before? But lets go with your 125. Lets assume the sediments now form a uniform layer on the earth's surface. Given your volume of 125 million cubic miles that layer would have a thickness of roughly 1 mile. Now lets assume that erosion and sedimentation started maybe 1 billion years ago and produces a constant volume of sediments each year.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo It is many consecutive layers that make up the strata that was put down by the global flood. That is the only way that sediments deposit in layers and those are the layers that covered every living thing on earth.
Billions of year would have eroded the sediments and they would all be in the ocean instead of on land where they are found in real life.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
To produce a layer of that thickness in 1 billion years it would need a growth of about 5*10^(-10) miles per year or ~0,5 µm each year. I have rounded all the numbers I used in favor of your argument but still:
Your average household-dust-layer grows several times faster than that!
So please stop using this stupid number. You are embarrassing yourself and your fellow creationists. You don't need a flood to account for the sediments.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Erosion works much faster than sedimentation falling from the sky.
...and you did not account for where the sediments came from besides the sky.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
See, you really think that everything we see around us, was magically "poofed" into existence by fairies. Except you just call the fairies "maker".
"That is the only way that sediments deposit in layers" Wrong.
"Billions of year would have eroded the sediments and they would all be in the ocean instead" Wrong.
You are just talking out of your ass here. Please at least try to back your shit up.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo By your beliefs, the sediments would all be in the oceans instead of on land where they are in real life, you failed to say how the sediments got on land.
We can only go by the evidence that we have and ordered functions require a Maker.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
"You did not account for where the sediments came from" Haha, so you want me to list all the different kinds of sediments and how they are produced? Grab a book and educate yourself you dumbfuck. And by the way you are the one who thinks that the sediments magically came into existence.
And please... even IF there was once a great flood, which is an incredibly stupid and unnecessary concept, THAT WOULDN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR STUPID FAIRIES!
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo Yes, there was a flood and it proves that everything living on earth was buried by the global flood which means there is no evolution and mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything in the real world anyway.
We have to go by the evidence that we have and simple function always requires a maker.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon I suggest you look up potholer54's video noah's ark, and find out for yourself why the flood is completely and totally fiction. This video covers all the scientific reasons why it could not have happened. Why don't you look at it before you say such stupid things.
nancy6ify 3 months ago
@nancy6ify You cannot explain how over 100 million cubic miles of strata came to cover everything that was living on earth so you cannot tell me anything about whether survivors of the flood are possible.
There was a global flood and we are descendants of the survivors of that flood. That is the only reason we are alive to see the layers of the Grand Canyon a mile deep that are evidence of the global flood.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon I watched that ridiculous video clip. It's nonsense.
Can't you realize that we know and understand the evidence that proves evolution?
You're like a little kid telling the grownups that Santa's real. We know better.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 You failed to prove anything because you failed to address any of the issues.
Saying that objects ordered life forms is illogical and irrational.
Saying that mechanisms that function as ordered is logical and rational.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon @ndrthrdr1 The video is great! This is a troll, right? It's pointing out how little creationists understand about evolution, right? It's a little mean though, just because creationists are uneducated doesn't mean they are stupid, which is what the video is implying
Floortjahh 1 month ago in playlist Evolution vs. Creationism ( QRC study 24 Videos )
This has been flagged as spam show
@Floortjahh People were never taught the facts in school. Objects never order anything without being ordered. There is no mechanism for evolution.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon (3)
You are ignoring modern science and it's achievements. You pretend to be in favor for science when in actuality you despise and fight against it because it contradicts your idiotic bible. Science does not need the concept of "a maker"! In fact, progress can only be made in science IF YOU DOUBT THAT THINGS ARE THERE BECAUSE FAIRIES MADE THEM and THEN LOOK FOR NATURAL EXPLANATIONS. You are an enemy of progress and I will not allow you to spout your nonsense here unscathed.
ksqoo 5 months ago
@ksqoo You and your "scientists" are the ones giving all of the credit to objects in nature that are able to do nothing of themselves. There is no evidence that objects have magic to order themselves. You have failed to offer any valid explanation. That is not my fault, it is your fault. You are your own enemy. Don't blame me for your own lack of any substance.
The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements reqire having a Maker.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
"Don't blame me for your own lack of any substance." *facepalm*
"The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements reqire having a Maker."
They only require a maker in your own personal, limited and uneducated view on the world. You are a remnant of the ancient ages were people thought that lightnings come from Zeus or Thor. You are the one who believes in magic. Your inabiltiy to understand modern science only proves your stupidity not the existence of a "maker".
ksqoo 4 months ago
@ksqoo There is no evidence of magic. There is only evidence of a Maker greater than all of the hydrogen in the universe because the essential functions that hydrogen has in life forms requires a Maker. That means that the Maker of our functions is the Maker of all matter in the universe. It is observable evidence of a Maker.
Just like a bear track is observable evidence of a bear, the function of hydrogen inside of us is observable evidence that we have a great Maker who ordered our existence.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Hm, you like to ignore what other people say to you, do you?
The functions of the elements in our body only require a maker in your own personal, limited and uneducated view on the world. Your constant denial and ignorance of science and your obvious inability to understand it does not prove the existince of your sky-daddy. It only makes you look stupid.
Please try to get this into your head: "I dont understand it." does not imply "God must have created it."
ksqoo 4 months ago
@ksqoo You did not prove anything.
You failed to show me one other simple function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon That beatiful animal in your avatar has something you lack: a brain.
Science is not a believe, you fucking dumb-ass.
The oceans today are not the oceans of the past due to plate tectonics -> now use your "brain" plz.
the flood would have scrambled all the living beings around, leaving no specific vertical order behind. -> flood fail.
mutations can and do accumulate given enough time -> you are an ignorant idiot.
end of story
ksqoo 4 months ago
@ksqoo The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations. Orderly uniform variations are not brought on by mutations.
Evolution is a belief and evolution is not science. Atheism is also a false belief not based on observable evidence of ordered functions in life forms that all require a Maker.
So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived?
Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations »
Except that such mutations can be measured. Mind you, mutation is *not* the only mechanism to introduce variation in a population: reproductive combination is also very important. Almost every form of life has mechanisms in the genome that 'shuffle' genes around in order to introduce new variants into the genepool. Why? Because having genetic diversity increases fitness.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived? »
Nowhere, since such "uniform layered sediments" do not exist. The Earth's geological strata are jumbled, one way in one place, completely different a few miles over. Landmasses tilt due to tectonics, one part undergoes erosion, the other part is submerged and sediments are deposited. And so forth.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
Comment removed
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
@JungleJargon atheism isn't a belief, it's a single position on a single issue.
Do you buy the god claims - answer no ---> you're an atheist.
It has absolutely nothing to do with you believing in evolution or religion or any ideology. You can be an atheist and a budhist at the same time. Infact all budhists are atheists per definition. So it has nothing to do with belief, it doesn't have any dogma, no one is telling what an atheist has to believe in. You can even be an atheist and believe in ID
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils »
False. No species extant today existed ten million years ago. Sure, there are many lineages that appear superficially similar - but even the slightest scrutiny shows that these lifeforms are not the same species as those that existed before; usually not even the same *genera*.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@JungleJargon (1)
"Things living today are unchanged froom when they were fossils" so what of it? they have found their niche and it didn't change since then. they had no selective pressure and didnt evolve.
"So where did 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments come from that now cover everything that ever lived?" your number changed several times now: first 60 then 125 now 100. how do even come up with these numbers?
ksqoo 4 months ago
@JungleJargon (2)
And secondly sediments don't cover everything that ever lived. fossilisation is a rare event. the sediments are mainly created by rain, flowing water, wind and ice crumbling rocks to pebbles and sand. they pretty much are transported by the same means. and these means are perfectly capable of forming uniform layers. your little creationist brain just fails when it comes to long periods of time.
ksqoo 4 months ago
@JungleJargon (3)
"Atheism is also a false belief" Atheism is the LACK of a believe in a maker. Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
"Evolution is a belief and evolution is not science" no. but even if it were: exchanging one wrong belief system with another wouldn't help science at all.
"Orderly uniform variations are not brought on by mutations." what do you even mean by "uniform variations"?! the word variation implys the absence of order and uniformity.
ksqoo 4 months ago
@JungleJargon (4)
"The variations in species are the result of the genome, not mutations."
you admit that there are variations within a species and these variations come from slightly different genes. so there must be a process that causes small changes in the genes: mutation. you may not like this word but the actual process does exist.
now you have natural selection which is the process of favoring certain mutations if they benefit the survival of this species thus changing this species.
ksqoo 4 months ago
@JungleJargon If you send me your address I will send you the middle school science book that you clearly need. Please read something other than the bible. You're not dumb, just incredibly ignorant, which isnt your fault. Its just not ok for you to make things up and state them as fact.
MrKGatl 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Oh I have a small error there: the rate of growth would be 1 µm per year. So before you jump on that: I have seen this myself, alright? :)
ksqoo 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Everytime you creationists see something in nature that is too difficult for your little minds to understand you say "God did it!". I always imagine how you guys sit there drooling, scratching your small monkey-head and saying: "i dont get this, this must have been GOD'S doing." Hilarious! :D
And if you think you can improve on the theory of evolution then write down your new theory and send it to a peer-reviewed journal. But remember! "God did it!" is not a theory.
ksqoo 5 months ago
THIS PLANET IS TOO PERFECT TO JUST BE A SERIES OF CHANCES , FROM IT'S AMOUNT OF SUBSTANCES , TO IT'S PERFECT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN , TO IT'S ROTATIONS , SEASONS , AND THE PERFECT RELATION WITH IT'S MOON .
TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLE ACCUMULATION OF CHANCES , WHICH HASN'T CHANGED, IS NATURAL , WELL YOU WOULD WIN ALL THE LOTTERIES THERE ARE . THIS PLANET AND CORRESPONDENT SOLAR SYSTEM IS TOO STABLE RIGHT AT THIS POINT , MAKING IT MANAGEABLE .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. MAY / 15 / 2011
9493760 8 months ago
@9493760
The amount of organisms on the Earth is not automatically proof that there's a God. The Earth can move quite a distance towards or away from the Sun and we'll be fine. Earth's rotation and seasons are due to it's orbit, no God, and out relationship with the moon is only perfect for now.
Natural selection is not chance. The mutations that come about are in some ways, but natural selection is the exact opposite.
Please, research these things before you act like an authority on them.
feenythewise 8 months ago in playlist Get Educated
@feenythewise I DIDN'T MENTION GOD OR NATURAL SELECTION , DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING TO.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI . P.S. GETTING CLOSER OR FARTHER FROM THE SUN MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE .AND THE MOONS RELATION FOR NOW ?
9493760 8 months ago
@9493760
Each star has what is called a habitable zone. Our Sun's habitable zone ranges from roughly just past Venus to just before Mars, meaning that we could go quite a ways towards the sun or away from it and probably be fine.
The moon's orbit around Earth is getting larger and larger as time goes on. Eventually, the moon's orbit will take it outside the pull of Earth's gravity, and it will go off into space. Look this stuff up.
And you implied that life on Earth is a product of god.
feenythewise 8 months ago
@9493760 Yeah..It seems great and well planned..Does it MEAN that a god made it?
Of course not..That's a no brainer.Find proof in favour of your "God" and then speak about him.The fact that the universe is "fine tuned" proves nothing.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos IS THE FACT THAT A KANGAROO HAS A POUCH INSTALLED , BECAUSE IT DECIDED IT NEEDED IT ? YOU COULD PLAY AND NEVER WIN THAT GENETIC ARGUMENT .
GIANGRANCO FRONZI . JUNE /18/2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 The Kangaroo never said : "I need a pouch" and then voila a pouch appeared.
I'll ask you one simple question : Why do chickens have teeth genes?Note: Chickens don't have teeth.
Please stop talking in caps.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos THEY DO HAVE TEETH , IT'S INCORPORATED INTO A BEEK.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 I'm sorry if this is a news flash for you but chickens don't have teeth.Ok..since you are probably incapable of understanding it let me rephrase my question : Why do whales have genes for making legs?And yes WHALES DON'T HAVE LEGS.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos THEIR FINS ARE THEIR LEGS. G. FRONZI.
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 I guess "G.Fronzi" is your name.
So Mr.Fronzi let me make something clear.Those "leg genes" in whales is not responsible for the development of their fins.Other genes are responsible for that.So whales have genes that are responsible for LEG development and by leg I mean those that animals use to walk on land.Yes whales have genes for that.
So tell me..Why do they?
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos HOW CAN YOU DISCERN LEG GENES FROM FIN GENES ? YOUR TRYING TO SAY A MAMMAL WITH THE MAKE UP OF A WHALE WALKED ON LAND ? I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUND ANY FOSSILS TO PROVE THIS THEORY ? YES CHICKENS , IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THEIR BEAKS , THERE IS INDENTATIONS LIKE A ROW OF TEETH , CULMINATING INTO A BEAK. . GENES DON'T CHANGE BECAUSE OF NEEDS , THEY ARE EITHER MISTAKES , OR ARE FOLLOWING A GUIDED PATTERN .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI.JUNE/21/2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 Chickens DON'T have teeth.And you know why?Because the genes responsible for teeth are deactivated.They have the genes-The genes don't work.This is completely inexplicable by creationism but perfectly normal when you look at it from an evolutionary perspective.
Now if you can't distinguish the difference between a fin and a leg I can't help you with that.
You said : "A MAMMAL WITH THE MAKE UP OF A WHALE WALKED ON LAND"Bearing in mind that whales are mammals I will reply that (cont)
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@9493760 (cont) that whales had an ancestor who was a mammal who walked on land.This is the ONLY way that you can explain why : whales are mammals but live on water and also have leg genes.I'll repeat again : They have leg AND fin genes.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos WHALES HAVE BOTH LEG AND FIN GENES ? IF THAT IS SO THEN WE'VE REALLY GOT A MIXED BAG OF USELESS GENES LAYING AROUND . DOES THE HUMAN HAVE ANY ?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. JUNE/21/2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 Of course we do.About 75% of our genome contains no information.So only 25% of our genome is actually genes that contain any sort of information.The rest is just "junk".Again this is not explainable by creationism.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos EMPTY GENES MADE FOR FUTURE SOFTWARE , IF THAT IS SO , THEN WE ARE ASSEMBLED , WITH EMPTY GENES TO RECEIVE THE NEW DOWNLOADS.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. JUNE22/2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 What the fuck are you talking about?Stop being so myopic and see the world for what it really is.We come from years of evolution and that is why we have genes that don't work and 75% of non coding DNA.
These are facts and no matter what you do they will NEVER fit your "special creation" theory.It's not good to think that the universe was created especially for us.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos YOUR PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH , I DIDN'T SAY THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED JUST FOR US . BUT I DO BELIEVE AND HAVE SEEN UNKNOWN ANOMALIES THAT LET ME BELIEVE THERE IS AN UNSEEN STRUCTURE TO THIS REALITY .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI . JUNE 22 / 2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 What are these anomalies that you are referring to?
And of course you believe that the universe is created just for us.If you believe in a creator(and especially in the Christian one) then you do believe that he created the universe especially for mankind.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos Empty genes are most likely genes that have turned themselves off because their material was unneeded. Since they didn't get in the way in their turned-off state
A beak is NOT a remnant of chickens teeth. A beak is a protrubence of a chickens skull.
And when it comes back to the fin/leg argument, then let's rephrase it like that: whales do not have hind legs, but they do have genes corresponding to these legs. These genes are inactive. I believe even snakes have leg genes.
Mirhaus 6 months ago
@Mirhaus Who said anything about the beak?Genetically chickens have teeth genes which are de-activated.The beak has nothing to do with it.As you said the beak is a part of the skull.
I'm just pointing out this fact which clearly contradicts creationism.
Stevoukos 6 months ago
@Mirhaus The problem is that people like 9493760 fail to grasp even basic biology and end up trolling.I wasted my time trying to discuss anything with such a stupid man.
Stevoukos 6 months ago
@Stevoukos ALRIGHT STEVOUKOS , YOU ARE RIGHT , I AM STUPID. AND BIOLOGY EVEN THE BASIC IS PROOF OF MY STUPIDITY . I WILL NOT ARGUE ANY FURTHER ON THIS UNARGUABLE TOPIC . WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT . FOR IF THE ARGUMENT EXISTS , IT IS STILL UNFINISHED , BY YOU OR ME .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. JULY / 20/2011
9493760 6 months ago
@9493760 You are one of the best trolls I have encountered in YouTube.Congratulations!
Stevoukos 6 months ago
@Stevoukos THANK YOU, BUT DOES A TROLL HAVE ANY HUMAN GENES ? I HOPE NOT.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. JULY / 20 /2011
9493760 6 months ago
@9493760 Although your actions in this argument are rather trollish I'd like to chime in and request you go read the article aboult "Evolution of cetaceans" on wikipedia. Then perhaps compare it to other websites or books. Whale evolution is relatively well documented. One can see how the skull structure and anatomy of these proto-cetaceans becomes more and more whale like. Not only do they have leg-genes but their ancestry is supported by the fossil records as well.
Mirhaus 6 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. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
They'll be having a hard time teaching anything else if they wanne teach all the creationist stories. They're about 1500 I heard.
10 a week would still mean 150 weeks or almost 3 years.
Londron 10 months ago
Sure and all history teachers have to teach that the holocaust just PROBABLY happened, and they have to teach all the conspiracy theories. Gravity should be taught along with the "what goes up ,comes down" theory (which IS gravity just diferent). And of course, Math is simply a theory, and should not be taugh AT ALL; LOL:
gulbirk 11 months ago
What bothers me most about the Creationist argument is the conceit that anything anti-evolution is ;pro creationism. What absence in the case of Evolution lets ID or Creationism pull ahead of Ancient Astronauts or other alternatives?
BlixsemFleerSneuw 11 months ago
Yes!! Eugenie Scott, You run the NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION!! sounds like that should be a skyscraper. Ive seen the building. Its literally the size of a snowball shack. Evolution is stupid. Trying to lower us to all to monkeys. Who you calling a monkey? Go start your own private school for that nonsense. Teach actual science instead of indoctrinating kids with your evolution garbage. Teach the kids theyre soulless animals. They may just act like a soulless animal. Remember 1963??????
Daedocuras 1 year ago
@Daedocuras Start our own schools? No everyone deserves an education! Homeschool your kids if you want idiots (stone them if they disobey as your master commands)
alienlifeform11 11 months ago
I get bored with comments as the following
Desertphile - evolution vs. creationism is like hearing both sides on spherical Earth vs. flat Earth
Please don't make comments like this in ignorance. Reasearch the other side at answersingenesis dot organisation
then I'll listen to you
Evolutionists generally resort to mocking, making unsupported statements e.g. "the undeniable truth of evolution" meaningless AND the nazistyle media blackout of creationism as argued in this video
1998vidmaster 1 year ago
@1998vidmaster
"Please don't make comments like this in ignorance."
- it's not ignorance that leads one to compare creationism to belief in a flat earth, it's acceptance in the scientific community and it's evidentiary support are equal.
types10000 1 year ago
@1998vidmaster The only ones who make unsupported statements and claim to have the "absolute" or "undeniable truth" are the religious. Nothing in science is ever claimed to be the truth. That's because every working scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable and as a result can never be proven "true". The Germ theory of medicine can't be proven true, but to deny its validity as a working theory is to invite the alternative use of faith healers, witch doctors, exorcists, and homeopathy.
ApemanD 1 year ago
@1998vidmaster Exactly! I only ever hear evolutionists make rude comments, make vague statements about how evolution is fact, or ridicule creationism. I haven't heard one explanation of why evolution is fact. Someone tell me why!
DonataII 1 year ago
@DonataII Go and read "The greatest show on earth" for example. Why should we educate you, do it yourself.
MrY89 11 months ago
@DonataII please read the greatest show on earth by richard dawkins... I agree, we learned this from scratch and you're asking for our hard-earned knowledge? do your own learning!
rbxCriss 11 months ago
@DonataII It has more proof and evidence than ANY other scientific theory! WAY MORE! Please read a book (a different one).
alienlifeform11 11 months ago
@DonataII I will tell you why the theory of evolution is accepted as correct. 1) It is verifiable and falsifiable 2) It has not been falsified. No contradictory evidence has been found. 3) It has been verified, its predictions have all been confirmed. 4) It works when applied to technological developement, the hallmark of a correct theory 5) Microevolution is observable, and you cannot have microevolution without macroevolution, as they are really the same thing.
labrat1807 10 months ago
@labrat1807 This exactly the kind of comment that we're talking about. It is vague and fact-less. You say "microevolution" has been observed, but I have never heard of an actual evolution from species to species, which is what needs to be observed in order to make the theory *plausable.* Then you would still have to find a way to prove that evolution was definitely the way the universe got here.
DonataII 9 months ago
@DonataII Every one of my numbered points is a fact, every one. You cannot have microevolution without accepting at least the possibility of macroevolution. Its like saying you believe in hurricanes but not in wind.
Evolution is not the way the universe got here. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is a set of theories regarding the origin of life. Cosmology is a set of theories regarding how the universe got here.
labrat1807 9 months ago
@labrat1807
Is it really so irrational to believe in a creator? Let me ask you this: if I showed you my fine precision 23-jewel railroad watch and told you it was not made in a factory at all--not designed, planned or put together by any watchmaker--that it just happened--that the iron ores just brought themselves up out of the ground, refined themselves, formed and shaped themselves into the delicate little cogs and wheels and other pieces; the silicon just came of its own accord out of the
RockyBalboa7777 9 months ago
@DonataII
Helacyton gartleri is proof of current speciation. It developed from human cancer cells on its own, and can no longer reproduce with human cells; it is a new species.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@DonataII "Then you would still have to find a way to prove that evolution was definitely the way the universe got here. "
Evolution is nothing to do with how the universe "got there". What are you talking about?
ozowen 9 months ago
@labrat1807 Evolution hasn't been proved as even possible, and it has most certainly not been proved as the definite method way we all got here. This leaves your theory a faith. There's nothing wrong with that and you are most welcome to believe it. At least I admit that I believe creationism on faith.
DonataII 9 months ago
@DonataII I'm glad that you admit your faith is just that, a faith. Science however is not faith based. Claim it all you want but you're wrong. Science is evidence based. If you read about the history of science (start with Aristotle) you will see that literally thousands of theories have been proposed, accepted and then rejected in light of new evidence. You admit that there is no evidence that could change your theism. I maintain that there is no theory theory that is immune to evidence.
labrat1807 9 months ago
@1998vidmaster pls, pls, pls, do research, read books, do some learning! and please put out all religious bias out of the way when reading these books. Why? because they tend to cloud your judgement wherever the evidence might lead you... Scientists are not blocking you... You just want to skip due process, and that's not good science!
rbxCriss 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
1998vidmaster 1 year ago
"Evolution vs. Creationism: Is Hearing Both Sides Fair?"
But there's only the one side; "both" implies there is an alternative to accepting reality.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile
Exactly. Hearing "both sides" on evolution vs. creationism is like hearing both sides on spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.
LaFolledeChaillot 1 year ago
modern day physics will prove God exits
Law19157 1 year ago
@Law19157 Really? Just how will they be able to do that? Why would you say a scientist will do that when religion already says god exists. Maybe, they will find out that fairies do too.
spareaxe 1 year ago
@spareaxe Because everything that exists is the product of Grand Architect (that's our claim) anybody that is in pursuit of Knowledge will find God if they don't ignore things that currently don't make sense, because Knowledge will ultimately lead to God (because he made everything [thats the claim]) why do I say Scientist will do it (a non biased Scientist) to confirm & or prove our claims to be true...and my faith has nothing to do with religion that's just theological ignorance
Law19157 1 year ago
@Law19157 It's called faith because it's not knowledge and that is just bad evidence to go by. Have a great Holiday Season.
spareaxe 1 year ago
@Law19157 "Because everything that exists is the product of Grand Architect (that's our claim)"
And my claim is that everything that exists was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that doesn't make it real.
LaFolledeChaillot 1 year ago
@LaFolledeChaillot yes that's nice, except that we do have evidence to support our claims & whats with you people comparing our beliefs with fairies & Unicorns? that has nothing to do with the existence of God, it has little to no importance whether those 2 things exist or not appart from making a few kids happy
Law19157 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Law19157 "we do have evidence to support our claims"
I'm really excited that you have evidence for the existence of God. Please provide it.
LaFolledeChaillot 1 year ago
@Law19157 "except that we do have evidence to support our claims"
The only evidence you have for the validity of your holy book is the holy book itself (Circular reasoning). Other than that all you have is faith, and faith is belief without evidence.
"whats with you people comparing our beliefs with fairies & Unicorns?"
To show you they have as much evidentiary support as your beliefs. You know.... none. :)
ApemanD 1 year ago
@ApemanD ignorant
Law19157 1 year ago
@Law19157
"ignorant"
Could you elaborate on that, or can I just go ahead and chalk that up to yet another shining example of Holy Roller psychological projection? :D
ApemanD 1 year ago
Comment removed
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApemanD
you sir, are one badass transitional form -)
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Law19157 ; "modern day physics will prove god exits."
If the gods exist, why hasn't there been any evidence they do? Just how much longer are we supposed to wait?
Desertphile 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Law19157 "modern day physics will prove God exits"
Modern physics just proved the opposite. According to Stephen Hawking's new book, the laws of physics are sufficient to explain how the universe can and will create itself from nothing, possibly for multiple times (the Big Bang doesn't need a cause).
LaFolledeChaillot 1 year ago
Comment removed
LaFolledeChaillot 1 year ago
Listen if we're going to talk about Creationism let's do it in the right place Talk about it in a religious studies class, or in a social studies class Creationism is a religious belief It's NOT a scientific theory so it can't be taught in a Science Class This is America. We have freedom of religion. By teaching YOUR religion on MY science class you are violating my rights. If you wanna talk about your religion lets do it in social studies when we can talk about everybody else's too.
NicoleAgent 1 year ago
@NicoleAgent I agree, but the problem is some science teachers have no problem with telling their students that God doesn't exist. Science teachers can't prove that evolution was not the means in which God used to create everything on earth, but it doesn't stop them from teaching that evolution is incompatible with a God, and not specifically the one in Genesis, just a God.
rlsdenker28 1 year ago
@rlsdenker28 ; "...some science teachers have no problem with telling their students that god doesn't exist."
Name one. What teachers tell their students gods don't exist?