Maybe there is only a .0000000000000000001 percent chance of God existing. Let's say that it is .000000000000000000000000000000001%
Even if it is the smallest percentile possible. We are talking about eternity. This is something huge, something on an infinite scale. That small percentile then turns to infinite significance and if you were to ignore it... You ignored an infinite matter. Is that a smart choice? The only logical solution is to pursue that infinite significance.
Lord Willin' y'all go it w/GOD, GodIS REAL,not a'delusion',not a'virus', not a'program' Lord Willin' but for real,Lord Forgive be i or any wrong or offbase&prayers for all in need, for mr d,h,h,s etc.&Most Importantly God'sWillBeDone PLGB
cf. GodsJigsawPuzzle blogspot, Bible.cc, usccb naB, alpha course, everystudentsite, Way Of The Master/180movie (though even hitler i mayn't judge) &revere The LORD and serve God and neighbor, PLGB y'all go it w/ God choose God choose life (jn.3:16,deut.30...)
As in school, Bill Nye showed me video with him in it playing scientist and he said "poot on the helmet BEFORE you ride bike". I did this, but then i crash and still I head hurt! I think Bill Nye the Science Guy should teach all children in America that men are just as monkeys, pooping and throwing their poop about and not inventing helmets. eVolition is not a theory, people! It's a modern fact.
@beautifulbabyandrew Actually, it is a theory, but science has a different meaning for the word "theory" than most creationists do. In science, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon or process that attempts to describe that thing using observations we have made and experiments we have run to test the theory. It's not "an idea that we came up with Friday afternoon."
The Theory of Evolution is supported by literally thousands of valid experiments. Waiting for ONE from the creationists.
@elixwhitetail HAHA you must be on e of the ignorant buffoons! haha yOU Can still THNK this? when there is a MAN on the video NAND he SAYS that there are still some people (you and bumble thumpers) DUMP enough to BELIEVE this shit (that evolition isn't modern fact)? And then you CUM on here and PROVE HIM RIGHT? what a naive yokel u are for believing that men are not as apes! Here's a question, have youever watching "fam guy" or "simpins" they r CARTOONS 4 CHILDREN even and THEY do evolution.
@beautifulbabyandrew Uhh... first of all, Youtube requires that you be 13 or older to have an account.
However, can you please read my comment over again? I *BELIEVE* in evolution. Science believes what it believes because it's been proven. If something turns out to actually not be true, science changes what it believes to the next best idea.
@elixwhitetail Are you fuckin losin it? Are YOU fukkin losing it? ARE you FUCKING losin it, bro? Fuck, meaintain some level of normalcy even IF your getting angry, you sound like a bedroom fan spinning in CIRCLES whirring like NO OTHER! Fuck. If i had RED your comments and THOUGHT what you want me to think, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT! You're fuckt and you type like, fuck, this ain't too good, better practice.
@HipHopBeatSource yep, lol so true. and its only in this century that people have been forcibly dumbed down. the deliberate dumbing down of america. marijuana is meant for organisms. we have cannabinoid receptors in our brain, smoking weed is natural.
@glasspig You're talking about technological advancements and using them as a basis for proof of biological evolution. Do you realize that your thought process makes no sense? They two things are not related to each other.
And by the way, your facts are wrong about both. Do some research.
@glasspig Do you honestly think that people went from arrowheads to pyramids, and completely ignore any other technological advancement? You think that people just lived outside until pyramids came along? You do know pyramids are actually tombs and religious centers, not homes, and that there were many advancements in the field of architecture well before pyramids or even ziggurats (you know, what came BEFORE pyramids) I mean you're completely ignoring well established facts.
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
Have any of you creationists ever heard of selective breeding? It is something we have done since the dawn of agriculture. It is selecting the best crops or livestock and making offspring from them. It has allowed dairy cows to more than triple their milk production from a century ago. So if man can manipulate and select the best plants and animals, then is it so far fetched that the plants and animals most suited for survival will pass on their genes to subsequent generations?
@GreenSlugg If by "scientists"you mean the intelligent design crackpots or the incredibly small minority that believes and seperates their work and their private beliefs, sure. But they should be fired as they are clearly bad at their job.
@GreenSlugg It is one thing to question the status quo, but it is a completely different thing to disprove it. Evolution is called a theory (as is every explanation is science) but it has a overwhelming amount of disprovable evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design has really only one "legit" argument in that some natural structures are too complex to have resulted from evolution. However, these structures have all been shown to have a path of natural progression without exception.
@GreenSlugg And I agree that just because something cannot be disproved, does not make it a fact. However, science is not about facts, contrary to popular belief. It is observation and explanation for the phenomena in our world. It can be disproved, and has been revised countless times. Anything that is not based off measurable and observable results is not science. Intelligent design is not observable or measurable, therefore it is not science.
if they really wanna teach evolution and that it was all a "natural" process, then they can start by explaining why the so called "explanation" goes like this:
@glasspig Yeah unfortunatly you seem to think its linked to evolution, the development of technology is nothing to do with evolution other than needing a brain capable of developing it.
what? technology and evolution basically go hand in hand.
How did the modern homo sapien brain grow so unnaturally fast in such a small amount of time ?
if it truly were a natural process, which it wasn't, it would've taken millions and millions of more years to achieve the intelligence level we are at today.
based on proof, it took millions of years just to naturally evolve our capacity to figure out how to make an arrowhead and skin animals. There is a HUGE gap in the process.
@glasspig In the family of primates, one descendant formed the ability to think critically and form abstractions. It's not like all other primates didn't get any ability, many still show evidence of using tools, following societal norms, ritualistic behavior, basically things we had back in a younger age. The difference that sets homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man") apart from others is our ability to reason, that's it. All our knowledge comes from a simple advancement of our brain.
what i mean is that there is zero evidence besides arrowheads that show a NATURAL legitimate progression of developing (extremely advanced) technology.
yeah the brain grew but who cares since all of their capabilities stayed basically the exact same for 5 million years straight
the only evidence we have is ancient stone plates all over the globe saying that people came from the stars and interbred with humans.
And they clearly all say that they were given the knowledge by them.
@glasspig That's because the advancement of technology is not connected to biological evolution. We don't learn how to make computer processors faster through genetic mutation, we learn through critical thinking. Technology advances on an exponential curve, so it appears it just exploded overnight but that's because over the centuries we've made important foundations of technology. And you have no idea what you're talking about regarding those stones, do you?
there's evidence that "critical thinking" didn't account for much in a timeline of 5 million years since all there is to find it arrowheads and primitive tools.
according to real science and natural evolution, we should all be in the same state of evolution we were 5 million years ago.
@GlassFish Except that assumes we would not advance technology at all, that we wouldn't learn anything. Even if we advanced in a linear fashion we would still be advanced by now, just not nearly as much. But we advanced exponentially, so while it took long periods to develop different means of architecture, we gained speed to where it took less than a generation to go from the first cell phone to portable computers with quad core processors. That's what happens when you build on what you learn.
anybody can explain how a cell phone evolved to a quad core processor, but nobody can describe what or how or where an integrated circuit evolved from.
and according to historical evidence/proof, we didn't evolve technologically linear.
Because if we did, we would've figured out by now how 10,000 year old pyramids were built and how 1,000 ton statues were lifted and moved so seamlessly,
Today the strongest land crane can only lift 200 tons, barely, without dynamic direction.
@glasspig WAIT WAIT WAIT, hold the phone. You honestly don't know how an IC came about? You don't know that integrated circuits were created to replace vacuum tubes? Maybe before you say anything else you should follow the chain of technological advancement through the ages, we didn't just go from stone tools to immediately using computers and hybrid automobiles.
@glasspig I don't understand what you mean by "doesn't explain the evolution of it", do you mean how it was invented? It was created through experimentation with the budding semi-conductor discoveries. As for the statues, how do you think Egyptians erected massive obelisks? They're rolled in on logs, placed the base in a pit filled with sand, then removed the sand and raised it up with pulleys and thousands of men, gravity drops it into place. Stonehenge is more unknown than that.
@glasspig Did you take everything you know about Egypt from movies? First off it doesn't take "millions" of trees to roll an obelisk, second off there were trees in Egypt because there was this thing called the Nile River, maybe you've heard of it, that provided fertile lands with actual forests of trees (not Pine trees or Redwoods, in case that's what you think of when you think of trees). Vine ropes? Do you really think people just took vines off trees and used that as a rope?
@glasspig Man, do you research anything you say? You can re-use logs, use some to move a stone block, set it, then use the same logs to roll another stone block, it does not take millions of logs. The ropes are braided fibers, they were not naturally growing vines, which when you have thousands of ropes pulled by thousands of people you have distributed weight. This is high school physics here. Bronze, not copper, and they also used lots of iron. Again do you research anything before you say it?
yeah go ahead and believe that geometry was so called invented in like 200 B.C. while there are monuments requiring geometric knowledge that still stand today from over 10,000 years ago.
There are no ROPES even to this day lifting things that weigh TONS.
If that were true back then, we'd still be using ropes instead of steel to lift things
and guess what:
1. Out of ALL of the ancient egyptian text, there is no egyptian text that says that they used logs, or had anything to do with building the pyramids at all
2.There is also no physical proof of them ever chopping down so many trees
they admit they didn't create them, and every theory is physically impossible
@glasspig To put it into simple, almost childish terms. It might take make a real long time to learn Concept A, but once he learns Concept A that leads him to easily develop Concept B, then Concept A and B leads even faster to Concept C. More and more Concepts are added to the collective knowledge, much like you learn simple things in preschool and advanced things in college, you build upon your knowledge, and Homo Sapiens can use critical thinking to arrive at new conclusions
@glasspig You sir, are what I commonly refer to as a retard. Your lack of any actual research has led you to conclusions that have no recordable basis. Apes did not advance into man overnight. Hell, it wasn't even millennia. We are talking millions of years. That is not what I really call overnight.
@glasspig Really? You think our only knowledge of ancient technology is limited to 5 million year old arrowheads? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. You're on a computer right now, use google and learn something before you start spouting nonsense.
@glasspig Your evidence is flawed, the oldest recorded arrowheads come from Sibudu Cave, South Africa, which are about 64,000 years old, a farcry from 5 million.
@jpmortician That would make sense if the primordial earth was in fact a hermetically sealed jar of peanut butter, but it wasn't (at least, you should know it wasn't, in case you thought it was), so it's a false equivalency.
Don't threaten to scratch my eyes out after trimming your nails. I dig the garbage-man's plight. I swear that he's no different than my current wife. He has no friends outside the raunchy coterie of garbage-men. He has no gripes but cheesy gripes. Cripes! Truisms are factual insofar as they might as well be. The world is brimming with the dirt & sand & rock & salt to build a better cemetery; one in which we may be buried in a better world; a world of boast, pride, sea monsters & lip gloss.
THE INDIVISIBLE MANUFACTURE—A day before her death, from the hotel room adjacent to the shit-house where she crapped out, a hopped-up Whitney Houston rehearsed “I Will Always Love You.” She held closely to her danglers a purse that contained vital tools & contaminants. On the nightstand was an autographed portrait of Grover Cleveland. Whitney's texturalism wasn't all that it was purported and reported to be (texturalism n -s : rigid adherence to a text of the Scriptures).
@tarheelbub Well what is one thing the Bible says that you can prove is 100% wrong (and you better not go directly to evolution)? What I meant by it checking out, is that the world makes sense through the Bible. And you have to understand every corner of the Bible to know who the world looks through it. So most evolutionists and atheists make their own assumptions about what the Bible is. You should hear what the Bible really is, from the Bible. Go figure.
If you don't believe in God, then no one is going to change that but you. There is always a spot in Heaven, and God is begging you to join. Just like Noah and the flood, people had their own way of viewing the world, and they died because they wouldn't believe Noah. Well, I guess I'm Noah here, and you guys are the rest of the world. I've tried many times, but I don't know if I can prove to you guys God is real, so I ask you to pray to God, and ask him to show you he's real... he will.
@TheSeventhCamera you can't prove god is real because there is no evidence for his existence other than the bible. he was thought up by people who didn't understand how things worked. stop being stupid.
@eatinginfants By having no evidence that God is real, that also means you have no evidence that he is not. Many Christians (except Catholics and weirdo Churches) support science, and even micro evolution. So please don't call me stupid, just because you making up my beliefs for me. I support science 100%, and evolution is mathematically impossible, and still just a theory. That's why I don't believe. It's all about how you see the world my friend.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism is a religion too, even the highest awarded evolutionists know that it is statistically impossible, so why are we calling it fact when it's just one of many theories. I respect science, and support it, but evolution is just a theory and there are still too many holes in it to call it fact. Not that we should start teaching Christianity, or anything else, its just that we need to teach every theory of our creation, instead of teaching a religion (evolution) in school.
@TheSeventhCamera Atheism and evolution are not the same thing and neither is a religion. You need to research what a "scientific theory" is...because there is not a single creation myth that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Gravity is also "just a theory" by your standards...should we be teaching children all the other alternatives?
@VesusSheist Honestly, when has evolution ever been observed? Name one time, just once, anything, will do... well unfortunately it never has. Evolution doesn't even have a logical answer for how the universe even started, and so far everything the Bible says checks out. So this theory gets much more credit than it deserves, since it has never been observed. You can see gravity, you can't see evolution. And there is one real theory for creation, and many scientists look at the world from it.
@Sorflakne How is gravity a theory? I suppose you could make another claim about it, but the fact remains that we get closer to things that are bigger than we are. As I've said before, evolution is only partially true. Our genes evolve, we know that. But we don't gain genes (the main premise for evolution), we actually lose them. And where does the Bible refer to bats as birds? I would like to know.
@TheSeventhCamera Gravity is a theory because that is the label science applies to phenomenon that have been tested rigorously and found to be reliable and valid as predictors of future phenomena. Which is why evolution has reached the level of scientific theory. Even some creationists recognize this distinction.
@VesusSheist I see, well then the mysterious "science labelers" can say what they think is right. And creation scientists can say what they think is right, because its only a matter of time before we figure out who.
@TheSeventhCamera Translation- genetics and evolutionary biology are too complicated for me to understand, so I'll take an easy to comprehend answer over one that I would have to work a little to get. The Bible checks out? huh? earth is flat, sun circles the earth, Noah got millions of species of insects on a boat along with every other animal, this is a laughable notion. You really should start reading more than one book... this is rather sad, really.
@rtsallaway1 Can you please just slow down for a second. Noah didn't take very many animals on the arc at all. All he had to take was two animals of the dog family, one of the cat family, one of insect and so on. However, he took the most advanced versions of each family, that way, since they had all of the genes, could still reproduce and make many other versions of animals. There was actually plenty of room on the arc, because God was gracious, and he gave all humans a chance.
@rtsallaway1 Also, I believe everything in science, that isn't a theory. So please don't tell me my beliefs for me, and I won't do that for you. The fact that people thought world was flat was because of the many ignorant and super religious priests that still reside in the Catholic Church to this day. People thought the world was flat because someone decided to put idiots in charge of science, and also the fact that science was the developed. And the same goes for the sun revolving around Earth
@VesusSheist I dont usually use "National Geographic" as a source, but they did this beautiful show a few years ago describing and breaking down all of the plagues in the Book of Moses and how they were possible and could have happened. Just because somethings unknown now doesnt mean it wont get an answer later. If you want to criticize the bible you go right on ahead... The mechanics of how gravity works is a theory not gravity itself. What's the alternatives to gravity??
@Melexonitrate "describing and breaking down all of the plagues in the Book of Moses and how they were possible and could have happened"
I never said these things weren't possible. Lots of things are possible.
"What's the alternatives to gravity??"
There are/were many alternatives to Einstein's general relativity. And I could create some ad hoc nonsense right now, which would have equal validity to creationism.
@VesusSheist Good im glad you didn't say that. And hopefully your also understanding that i was using that as one example from the bible that used to seem "impossible, or superstitious".
I dont understand how "general relativity" is an alternative to gravity?? Am i missing something. Can you create some ad hoc nonsense for me, with equal validity as creationism. Id love to see it. Or point me in the right direction... Think about how ridiculous eating another food is evolution.
@Melexonitrate Here is some ad hoc nonsense: invisible, non-material angels hold us to the ground and make sure we don't float away when we jump. Other theories about gravity are simply coming from scientists who hate my god...any information that may disprove my theory was simply put there by the devil, who also hates my god.
Now I demand you teach my "theory" to children in science class and give it equal weight to Einstein's theory of general relativity.
@VesusSheist I used to want to be a microbiologist. I've taken classes but decided criminal justice was more my thing, So i decided on that. There's a little bit of my background and why i gave you the answer I did. (BTW growing bacteria smells horrific).
I've never heard of the angel thing before. It's interesting. It's almost the same as an invisible non-material force holds us to the ground to make sure we don't float away, right? Lol.
@VesusSheist Not trying to barge into your conversation swear. But eating another food, evolution. It was an unkown substance by your account, made made. The bacteria all of a sudden evolved right away to eat a different substance. Could it not be possible they could always eat the substance, the only reason they didn't was because they never had the chance before, or liked other food available instead and had a choice. Sorta like a child wanting to eat ice cream over other foods.
@Melexonitrate Did you actually do any research on the topic before making this response? Sounds to me like you just read my comment, formulated an opinion, and responded. If that's true, you would make a lousy scientist. You can't disregard the work of scientists who study this stuff just because you think you have a better answer.
@trashbash2001 When has evolution ever been observed? Never. You can say all you want about how the world 'could've' formed by evolution, but so far there is no hard proof of it. Also, some of the most highly esteemed evolutionists, nobel prize winners, have said that evolution is mathematically impossible. So evolution is impossible and has never been observed, and yet you put your faith in it when you have no proof it even exists. Sorry friend, but sounds like religion to me.
@TheSeventhCamera um, it cant be observed... its obvious you dont have a true understanding of what evolution (something that takes MILLIONS of years to happen) is.
And no, no true scientist nobel prize winners who have really studied evolution have said its impossible. Sorry "FRIEND".
And DNA, fossils, and MODERN types of upgraded carbon dating showing the age of the earth, is pretty good evidence for evolution.
@trashbash2001 Carbon dating is perfectly fine, as long as there hasn't been any major global event that would completely change the chemical make up of things... like a flood. You know how if rain falls on one spot for a while, then it makes a big hole? Well imagine that but over the whole Earth. That would cause things to fossilize almost instantly, and completely change the chemical make up of things. So if evolution can't be observed, and de-evolution is being observed, what does that mean?
@trashbash2001 ... I'm not sure if I told you this, but for evolution to actually occur, genes need to be added somehow, that way the species can get more parts like legs and eyes. But that doesn't make much sense because species are actually LOSING genes over time. Micro evolution, where genes evolve, is observed. Macro evolution, where genes are added has never been observed. So its not that it takes a really long time to see, its that it hasn't even started.
@TheSeventhCamera TYfor the info :) U said "as long as a global event didnt happen". U said evolution has never been observed. Well, neither has a global event such a great flood. If there was evidence for it, i've not heard a single scientist talk about it. (to my knowledge). Im not sure what ur explanation is for the devolpment of the earth, but we certainly havent observed a god creating an earth. And u still have left prehistoric man and animal fossils out of the equation.
@trashbash2001 Finally we have reached the stage in this predicament when things are much less defined. You're right, we have never observed a flood, but we never observed anything before we were born right? And thousands of years ago there were no cameras, just books. And it just so happened that one of these books was the most respected and factual book in history. But then monarch priests and super religious communist preachers were put in power, and the Bible's name was put to shame...
@trashbash2001 ... People started looking at the people rather than the book, and then looked at the words and not the author. What I'm saying is, is that the Bible is filled with science and logic, and beautiful and true things, but our sin has forever lasting effect on the world, and to most people, God is just a myth. I pray every night for you, everyone on this page, and everyone in the world. Because I know that the day will come when no one will believe...
@TheSeventhCamera the fact that you've just admitted your religious bias beliefs, i feel no more need to argue with you anymore. You've shown me a very fundamentalist characteristic. And any evidence i show you is not gonna weigh your decision. You've got god in your heart, therefor you're gonna do your own research and not listen to any respectable practioner of science.
@trashbash2001 ... and I pray that you, and everyone else will be the ones that believe, and you can live in a perfect place, and have every question you have answered (I have a lot). So back to the flood, if you know anything about Mt.St. Helens, you know that in a matter of hours it completely changed the landscape around it, mostly through water. Canyons were formed, new rocks were made, animals and trees were fossilized, and the whole country was affected. This was ONE SMALL occurance...
@trashbash2001 ... and I pray that you, and everyone else will be the ones that believe, and you can live in a perfect place, and have every question you have answered (I have a lot). So back to the flood, if you know anything about Mt.St. Helens, you know that in a matter of hours it completely changed the landscape around it, mostly through water. Canyons were formed, new rocks were made, animals and trees were fossilized, and the whole country was affected. This was ONE SMALL occurance...
@trashbash2001 ... so imagine the effect this would have on a global scale: Mountains, Oceans, Rivers, Canyons, Fossils, Chemicals, and even whole Civilizations would change massively, over a period of 40 days. It does not take a long a time and a little water to change the world's shape, it takes a little time and a lot of water. The evidence that there was a flood can be taken many different ways. How do you get fish on mountains? What about Dinosaurs' extinction? The evidence is everywhere.
@TheSeventhCamera funny how you say the evidence is EVERYWHERE, yet i've never heard of a respectable scientist talk about this flood which sounds like you're just trying to support the bible. Dinosairs extinction? you're saying we dont have an idea on how that happened??? and fish on moutains (which grow over time from faults) is the proof of a great flood?
The more i'm listening to your explanation, the more illogical i, and the rest of the ppl on this page, find you.
@charliepossenriede Name one time that evolution has ever been observed. One time. You said it is an observable fact, so how about you show me any shred of evidence that evolution has ever existed(actually we know micro evolution exists, but that doesn't support the overall object of evolution, it actually supports creation). So if you can't observe it and it's mathematically impossible, then how is it a fact? Just because it's so popular, doesn't mean its correct. But neither does the Bible.
@TheSeventhCamera I can't give you a specific journal article because biology isn't my field (physicist). But I have friends in the field of biology and I've been informed of journal articles where they have observed evolution in small species such as bacterium. To really make these kind of claims and arguments you need to start reading every refereed journal on biology.
@Arctandem I'm not saying all evolution has never been seen. I'm just saying that the kind of evolution that supports the whole theory of evolution has never been seen. For example, we know that our genes evolve to get better, but the key thing here is that genes are not being added. In fact living things are losing genes not gaining them. So the fishy may get stronger and faster, but the saying the fishy grows legs, well that has never been seen before. By the way, I'm not a scientist at all.
@TheSeventhCamera I've heard this "losing genes" argument before and its pretty scientifically unfounded. The whole creative kinds argument is pretty weak.
@Arctandem Argument? It happens everyday. A dog has a puppy, puppy loses genes through a process that every person of science knows exists. To say the puppy magically gets new genes, makes no sense, and not only has it never been seen, there's no explanation for it even happening. My weak argument is what third graders learn in science class.
@TheSeventhCamera Lulwut? What exactly is this process because I never learned about it in 3rd grade.
Also, have you ever heard of mutation, an observed biological phenomenon, by which genetic code is incorrectly transcribed during cellular mitosis (and more importantly meiosis, as that is how genetic mutations are passed on to new generations)? This alters genetic code, and after enough mutation take place, this can alter gene expression. Like I said, read some literature before making claims.
@Arctandem The process? Its babies dude! When two people have kids the kids keep all of both of their parents' genes! They lose some, and won't ever get them back. It's just how it happens, why do we all have different colored hair and eyes? Its all about the genes buddy. And mutations don't add any new information, they either make copies or deletions. And micro evolution doesn't add more genes either. If I grow another arm, that doesn't mean I can grow wings. That's what's important.
@TheSeventhCamera "Name one time that evolution has ever been observed. One time."
Nylonase. A bacteria that evolved to digest nylon, a synthetic substance which didn't exist until recently. If you actually wanted to know the answer to your question, you would have done some research and discovered many more instances of observed evolution.
@VesusSheist Okay, I knew I would regret not being specific. Name one time MACRO evolution has been observed. I believe that we evolve, we know that. Our genes evolve, that is micro evolution, this we know. Saying that we grow new genes is macro evolution, and that has never been observed, and in fact we are losing genes, not gaining them. So sorry for not being specific, but you have to look at the facts that we are losing genes, not gaining them...
@TheSeventhCamera I answered your question, so now you move the goalposts. Typical creationist response. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a longer period of time....only creationists add some arbitrary divider between the two. We have also observed what you call "macroevolution" in insects that have very short lifespans. Or how about the speciation of dogs from wolves? All of this is documented proof of the "macroevolution" you find so impossible.
@VesusSheist Well I don't know what insects with short lifespans have to do with anything, but dogs didn't change into wolves, wolves lost their genes through breeding and dogs were made. It is a very simple idea: Alpha wolf has a puppy, the puppy loses genes (it happens everyday), that puppy keeps some genes but loses some, then when that puppy has a baby, it loses genes too. And eventually you get an ugly little wiener dog.
@TheSeventhCamera That short lifespan is why insects are good to study, as you can have multiple generations quickly and trace mutations. I'm not sure why you think wolves became dogs because they 'lost' genes. Knocking out genes is pretty damn lethal as a rule of thumb. There are a variety of mutations that can happen, point mutations where a single nucleotide changes, deletions, duplications, etc. If you study homeobox genes you'll see how duplication of genes that regulate tissue
@Waywardpaladin I know mutations can happen. But you know as well as I do that saying something just "accidentally" grew eyes, or ears or different parts in perfect areas continually for millions of years is a little far fetched. How is a bacteria going to want see, when it doesn't know how? And then it magically gets eyes and wants to keep seeing? And all mutations so far are negative, they don't help. And the mutations aren't new ones, just copies or deletions.
@TheSeventhCamera Do you know the 'down to Earth' science? Do you know the proposed set up from amino acids, to a more stable chain in DNA, etc? You don't 'lose genes'. You have the exact number of genes as your parents. Now, you have half from one parent and half from the other. You can look at the evolution of eyes in species. You have species that have a few cells that are simply photosensitive. It allowed them to know up from down in the ocean. Then you move up the chain.
@TheSeventhCamera To more and more advanced eyes, for the most part. There are some exceptions, as cephalopods have a more advanced eye than ours (wonder why God's crowning creation would be deficient compared to them) but we don't live in an aqueous environment, so we don't have a strong selective pressure for the field of vision that they do have. As for all mutations being negative, in my lab I select for mutated chromatin remodelers that increase DNA repair rates.
@TheSeventhCamera "Well I don't know what insects with short lifespans have to do with anything"
Because you don't understand evolution. Evolution works on succeeding generations, which means that we can observe "macroevolution" in insects because they have very short lifespans compared to our own.
And your characterization of wolves to dogs is just absurd. I would love to know who feeds you this terrible information..they are doing you a disservice.
@VesusSheist First of all, my "terrible information" is what most kids learn in school. And how does wolves to dogs not make sense? Every scientist agrees that genes are deleted! And those insects with short lifespans only mutate, they don't have new genes added. By new genes I mean new body parts, not just repeats. And so far the insects' mutations haven't been positive, or had something new added.
@TheSeventhCamera Also, if macroevolution has never been observed, what is your explanation for the phenomenon called "ring species"? I eagerly await your explanation.
@TheSeventhCamera I can't explain ring species in 500 characters. You have access to the internet, look it up. And don't bother with a creationist website because they have no explanation for the phenomenon. Or go to potholer54's excellent video "Ring Species - the abridged version"
@VesusSheist ... a good example of this is a fish. The fishy will get stronger and faster over time, because its genes are evolving. However, through having offspring, the fish's kids often lose genes, but keep some. So when they have kids, they will have even less genes. We've never seen a fishy grow legs, because it never started out with those genes. And there is no way a fish could randomly gain genes. So again, try to name an instance of something gaining genes.
I was there for this!
Frosttty 18 hours ago
yo lincoln had a beard, with that suit he looks more like david byrne from the talking heads..... unless he looks like lincoln too
ZootownTomm 19 hours ago
they need to give this guy his show back
Kira2354 1 day ago
such an entertainer, and he never had kids.
brucegene 1 day ago
Bill Nye is a boss
Parkourpurist89 2 days ago
Bill Bill Bill
Bill Nye the Science Guy
Loved it when they put his videos at my school. Some of it was ridiculously childish, but he did a lot of cool experiments as well.
villalba874 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe there is only a .0000000000000000001 percent chance of God existing. Let's say that it is .000000000000000000000000000000001%
Even if it is the smallest percentile possible. We are talking about eternity. This is something huge, something on an infinite scale. That small percentile then turns to infinite significance and if you were to ignore it... You ignored an infinite matter. Is that a smart choice? The only logical solution is to pursue that infinite significance.
Grocca121 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lord Willin' y'all go it w/GOD, GodIS REAL,not a'delusion',not a'virus', not a'program' Lord Willin' but for real,Lord Forgive be i or any wrong or offbase&prayers for all in need, for mr d,h,h,s etc.&Most Importantly God'sWillBeDone PLGB
cf. GodsJigsawPuzzle blogspot, Bible.cc, usccb naB, alpha course, everystudentsite, Way Of The Master/180movie (though even hitler i mayn't judge) &revere The LORD and serve God and neighbor, PLGB y'all go it w/ God choose God choose life (jn.3:16,deut.30...)
lockinglugnut 3 days ago
now this is a man i can except my scientific facts from
ronjonsurf39 3 days ago
As in school, Bill Nye showed me video with him in it playing scientist and he said "poot on the helmet BEFORE you ride bike". I did this, but then i crash and still I head hurt! I think Bill Nye the Science Guy should teach all children in America that men are just as monkeys, pooping and throwing their poop about and not inventing helmets. eVolition is not a theory, people! It's a modern fact.
beautifulbabyandrew 4 days ago
@beautifulbabyandrew Actually, it is a theory, but science has a different meaning for the word "theory" than most creationists do. In science, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon or process that attempts to describe that thing using observations we have made and experiments we have run to test the theory. It's not "an idea that we came up with Friday afternoon."
The Theory of Evolution is supported by literally thousands of valid experiments. Waiting for ONE from the creationists.
elixwhitetail 2 days ago
@elixwhitetail HAHA you must be on e of the ignorant buffoons! haha yOU Can still THNK this? when there is a MAN on the video NAND he SAYS that there are still some people (you and bumble thumpers) DUMP enough to BELIEVE this shit (that evolition isn't modern fact)? And then you CUM on here and PROVE HIM RIGHT? what a naive yokel u are for believing that men are not as apes! Here's a question, have youever watching "fam guy" or "simpins" they r CARTOONS 4 CHILDREN even and THEY do evolution.
beautifulbabyandrew 2 days ago
@beautifulbabyandrew Uhh... first of all, Youtube requires that you be 13 or older to have an account.
However, can you please read my comment over again? I *BELIEVE* in evolution. Science believes what it believes because it's been proven. If something turns out to actually not be true, science changes what it believes to the next best idea.
Please read and understand before commenting.
elixwhitetail 2 days ago
@elixwhitetail Are you fuckin losin it? Are YOU fukkin losing it? ARE you FUCKING losin it, bro? Fuck, meaintain some level of normalcy even IF your getting angry, you sound like a bedroom fan spinning in CIRCLES whirring like NO OTHER! Fuck. If i had RED your comments and THOUGHT what you want me to think, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT! You're fuckt and you type like, fuck, this ain't too good, better practice.
beautifulbabyandrew 2 days ago
He's so fucking goofy, I love it.
khunderwood50 4 days ago
It seems a little like he has Aspergers...
melissasue28 5 days ago
Bill the reptilian. Well since he is into evolution then I will call him a monkey boy. But really, this guy does not look human.
nonsulen 5 days ago
@nonsulen You mean ape? At least get the damn animal right.
HybridD91 5 days ago
@HybridD91 yes correct. I am not on any side about this topic.
nonsulen 5 days ago
Don't people realize BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY IS TALKING? Sit down, and shut up!
sfp73109 6 days ago 3
He definitely smokes weed.
RichH231 1 week ago 49
@RichH231 Most great thinkers do.
HipHopBeatSource 6 days ago
@HipHopBeatSource yep, lol so true. and its only in this century that people have been forcibly dumbed down. the deliberate dumbing down of america. marijuana is meant for organisms. we have cannabinoid receptors in our brain, smoking weed is natural.
Fyreguy16 5 days ago
Nice yawn at 0:45!
PhotoGib 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glasspig You're talking about technological advancements and using them as a basis for proof of biological evolution. Do you realize that your thought process makes no sense? They two things are not related to each other.
And by the way, your facts are wrong about both. Do some research.
solitaryman098 1 week ago
Comment removed
solitaryman098 1 week ago
@glasspig Do you honestly think that people went from arrowheads to pyramids, and completely ignore any other technological advancement? You think that people just lived outside until pyramids came along? You do know pyramids are actually tombs and religious centers, not homes, and that there were many advancements in the field of architecture well before pyramids or even ziggurats (you know, what came BEFORE pyramids) I mean you're completely ignoring well established facts.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
1mcashinrs 1 week ago
Have any of you creationists ever heard of selective breeding? It is something we have done since the dawn of agriculture. It is selecting the best crops or livestock and making offspring from them. It has allowed dairy cows to more than triple their milk production from a century ago. So if man can manipulate and select the best plants and animals, then is it so far fetched that the plants and animals most suited for survival will pass on their genes to subsequent generations?
sschoon86 1 week ago
We also have scientists in the laboratory who do not believe in Evolution. Maybe we should fire them for not believing in that status-quo.
GreenSlugg 1 week ago
@GreenSlugg If by "scientists"you mean the intelligent design crackpots or the incredibly small minority that believes and seperates their work and their private beliefs, sure. But they should be fired as they are clearly bad at their job.
dabomb1357 1 week ago
@GreenSlugg It is one thing to question the status quo, but it is a completely different thing to disprove it. Evolution is called a theory (as is every explanation is science) but it has a overwhelming amount of disprovable evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design has really only one "legit" argument in that some natural structures are too complex to have resulted from evolution. However, these structures have all been shown to have a path of natural progression without exception.
sschoon86 1 week ago
@GreenSlugg And I agree that just because something cannot be disproved, does not make it a fact. However, science is not about facts, contrary to popular belief. It is observation and explanation for the phenomena in our world. It can be disproved, and has been revised countless times. Anything that is not based off measurable and observable results is not science. Intelligent design is not observable or measurable, therefore it is not science.
sschoon86 1 week ago
is it just me or is he ridiculously tall, like Abe Lincoln tall? Also his answer is fantastic.
CommitToFocus 1 week ago 54
@CommitToFocus according to IMDB he is 6 foot 1. he looks thin, which makes him appear taller
Elohite 1 week ago
@CommitToFocus
He's a little under 6'1". Tall, but not as tall as Abe Lincoln who was 6'4".
newdimensionfilms 6 days ago
@CommitToFocus And doesn't he kinda look like a clean-shaven Abe Lincoln generally?
DanThePropMan 5 days ago
@CommitToFocus He's just really skinny. he's only like 6'1".
xXConnorMacDonaldXx 5 days ago
@CommitToFocus Before reading your comment, the first thing I thought was that he looks A LOT like Lincoln!
Ninjab3ar 2 days ago
@CommitToFocus WOW! Now that you mention it he does look like Abe Lincoln! If he grew a beard he would have the look down.
DivineMoleculeDMT 1 day ago
@DivineMoleculeDMT I saw the image adn thought, ABE lincoln?! read the title and thought BILL NYE!
facelessred 1 day ago
@CommitToFocus lmao looks like he could be related
WhoFartedIFarted 12 hours ago
That is about 35% of our representatives.....the bias filters are opaque. Almost impossible to get anything thru- they are ignorant by design.
MrAluminous 1 week ago
the dude looks like abe lincoln
constipatedlecher 1 week ago
Comment removed
glasspig 1 week ago
Bill Nye.... please grow a beard and get a top hat.
DJGTechHL 1 week ago
They should have Bill Nye play Abe Lincoln in a movie. Aw, dangit. Too late. =/
Mikelovision 1 week ago
if they really wanna teach evolution and that it was all a "natural" process, then they can start by explaining why the so called "explanation" goes like this:
primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, primitive ape, BAM, advanced knowledge literally overnight involving language, mathematics, astrology, agriculture, etc etc etc.
W...T....F ? !?! !
people believe that to be "natural" process ???
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig The 'so called explanation'? Yeah you might want to go and read the actual explanation.
rhubis 1 week ago
@rhubis
yeah i did and guess what,
there is no evidence of any build up to the advanced knowledge we have such as mathematics, language and agriculture,
according to the scale of evolution, it literally all just appeared overnight.
there is no evidence of trial-and-error that led up to the knowledge we have.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig Yeah unfortunatly you seem to think its linked to evolution, the development of technology is nothing to do with evolution other than needing a brain capable of developing it.
rhubis 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhubis
what? technology and evolution basically go hand in hand.
How did the modern homo sapien brain grow so unnaturally fast in such a small amount of time ?
if it truly were a natural process, which it wasn't, it would've taken millions and millions of more years to achieve the intelligence level we are at today.
based on proof, it took millions of years just to naturally evolve our capacity to figure out how to make an arrowhead and skin animals. There is a HUGE gap in the process.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig In the family of primates, one descendant formed the ability to think critically and form abstractions. It's not like all other primates didn't get any ability, many still show evidence of using tools, following societal norms, ritualistic behavior, basically things we had back in a younger age. The difference that sets homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man") apart from others is our ability to reason, that's it. All our knowledge comes from a simple advancement of our brain.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
what i mean is that there is zero evidence besides arrowheads that show a NATURAL legitimate progression of developing (extremely advanced) technology.
yeah the brain grew but who cares since all of their capabilities stayed basically the exact same for 5 million years straight
the only evidence we have is ancient stone plates all over the globe saying that people came from the stars and interbred with humans.
And they clearly all say that they were given the knowledge by them.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig That's because the advancement of technology is not connected to biological evolution. We don't learn how to make computer processors faster through genetic mutation, we learn through critical thinking. Technology advances on an exponential curve, so it appears it just exploded overnight but that's because over the centuries we've made important foundations of technology. And you have no idea what you're talking about regarding those stones, do you?
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
there's evidence that "critical thinking" didn't account for much in a timeline of 5 million years since all there is to find it arrowheads and primitive tools.
according to real science and natural evolution, we should all be in the same state of evolution we were 5 million years ago.
glasspig 1 week ago
@GlassFish Except that assumes we would not advance technology at all, that we wouldn't learn anything. Even if we advanced in a linear fashion we would still be advanced by now, just not nearly as much. But we advanced exponentially, so while it took long periods to develop different means of architecture, we gained speed to where it took less than a generation to go from the first cell phone to portable computers with quad core processors. That's what happens when you build on what you learn.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
anybody can explain how a cell phone evolved to a quad core processor, but nobody can describe what or how or where an integrated circuit evolved from.
and according to historical evidence/proof, we didn't evolve technologically linear.
Because if we did, we would've figured out by now how 10,000 year old pyramids were built and how 1,000 ton statues were lifted and moved so seamlessly,
Today the strongest land crane can only lift 200 tons, barely, without dynamic direction.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig WAIT WAIT WAIT, hold the phone. You honestly don't know how an IC came about? You don't know that integrated circuits were created to replace vacuum tubes? Maybe before you say anything else you should follow the chain of technological advancement through the ages, we didn't just go from stone tools to immediately using computers and hybrid automobiles.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
yes i know it was replaced from a vacuum tube.
just saying what replaced it doesn't explain the evolution of it.
And hello?
1000 TON statues?
Cut and made of solid granite and perfectly polished?
Originally from a granite sight 100 miles away separated by a mountain range?
Dating back to 10,000 years ago?
In the Osirion Temple.
The strongest crane today can only barely lift things that weigh 200 tons, and only move them a few yards two-dimensionally.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig I don't understand what you mean by "doesn't explain the evolution of it", do you mean how it was invented? It was created through experimentation with the budding semi-conductor discoveries. As for the statues, how do you think Egyptians erected massive obelisks? They're rolled in on logs, placed the base in a pit filled with sand, then removed the sand and raised it up with pulleys and thousands of men, gravity drops it into place. Stonehenge is more unknown than that.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
it doesn't explain.
Rolled on LOGS??
I didn't know you could find millions of trees in the middle of the DESERT.
Pulleys?
Pulling with what ??
Vine ropes would snap like a thread pulling anything up hill weighing literally tons.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig Did you take everything you know about Egypt from movies? First off it doesn't take "millions" of trees to roll an obelisk, second off there were trees in Egypt because there was this thing called the Nile River, maybe you've heard of it, that provided fertile lands with actual forests of trees (not Pine trees or Redwoods, in case that's what you think of when you think of trees). Vine ropes? Do you really think people just took vines off trees and used that as a rope?
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
1st of all, there is no "movie" that is saying what i'm saying.
and yes it does take millions of trees, since there is millions of stone blocks of the pyramids, and statues.
haven't you noticed that these pyramids and statues are in the middle of a desert?
also, you never explained what the rope was made out of.
let me tell you what it was: vine.
copper tools and vine ropes, what else did they have ??
that was it.
oh and "logs" like that is supposed to make a difference.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig Man, do you research anything you say? You can re-use logs, use some to move a stone block, set it, then use the same logs to roll another stone block, it does not take millions of logs. The ropes are braided fibers, they were not naturally growing vines, which when you have thousands of ropes pulled by thousands of people you have distributed weight. This is high school physics here. Bronze, not copper, and they also used lots of iron. Again do you research anything before you say it?
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
You're wasting your time.
Clearly, your "opponent" is mentally handicapped.
QuadriplegicSurgeon 1 week ago
@QuadriplegicSurgeon
yeah go ahead and believe that geometry was so called invented in like 200 B.C. while there are monuments requiring geometric knowledge that still stand today from over 10,000 years ago.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig
Did you even finish high school? Did you seriously just say that geometry wasn't present in 200 BC?
So you're saying it was aliens? It wasn't aliens, but it was aliens.
QuadriplegicSurgeon 1 week ago
@QuadriplegicSurgeon
Answer me when geometry was invented.
Then answer me when the pyramids were invented.
and then see if that make sense.
what is the point of childish statements like "oh did you finish high school hahahaha oh i'm such a comedian hahaha"
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig
Geometry was a well-known concept long before the era of the ancient Egyptians.
But of course, everyone knows that it was aliens.
Aliens did everything man. The fall of the Roman empire? Aliens. The French Revolution? Aliens. 9/11? You guessed it; it was aliens.
QuadriplegicSurgeon 6 days ago
@QuadriplegicSurgeon idk about all that, but im definitely not ruling out "alien help" lets say in the egyptian culture with the pyramids.
Fyreguy16 5 days ago
@WittyDroog
There are no ROPES even to this day lifting things that weigh TONS.
If that were true back then, we'd still be using ropes instead of steel to lift things
and guess what:
1. Out of ALL of the ancient egyptian text, there is no egyptian text that says that they used logs, or had anything to do with building the pyramids at all
2.There is also no physical proof of them ever chopping down so many trees
they admit they didn't create them, and every theory is physically impossible
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig To put it into simple, almost childish terms. It might take make a real long time to learn Concept A, but once he learns Concept A that leads him to easily develop Concept B, then Concept A and B leads even faster to Concept C. More and more Concepts are added to the collective knowledge, much like you learn simple things in preschool and advanced things in college, you build upon your knowledge, and Homo Sapiens can use critical thinking to arrive at new conclusions
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@glasspig You sir, are what I commonly refer to as a retard. Your lack of any actual research has led you to conclusions that have no recordable basis. Apes did not advance into man overnight. Hell, it wasn't even millennia. We are talking millions of years. That is not what I really call overnight.
sschoon86 1 week ago
@sschoon86
uh there is no evidence besides arrowheads in 5 million years and all the sudden with just a few thousand years, geometry existed.
no evidence fills in the (giant) gap of technological evolution that should exist between an arrowhead and a pyramid.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig Really? You think our only knowledge of ancient technology is limited to 5 million year old arrowheads? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. You're on a computer right now, use google and learn something before you start spouting nonsense.
solitaryman098 1 week ago
@solitaryman098
okay then what evidence is there?
oh yea i forgot there is none.
there's just circumstantial evidence going by what ancient texts/illustrations say that where the knowledge came from.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig But the evidence you yourself provided was flat out false, it isn't even circumstantial.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@glasspig Your evidence is flawed, the oldest recorded arrowheads come from Sibudu Cave, South Africa, which are about 64,000 years old, a farcry from 5 million.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
@WittyDroog
that had nothing to do with what i said.
glasspig 1 week ago
@glasspig yes it does, because you're using that evidence as if it was fact, your argument is based upon it. Unless you know retract your statement.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
I believe in peanut butter, which disproves evolution.
jpmortician 1 week ago
@jpmortician That would make sense if the primordial earth was in fact a hermetically sealed jar of peanut butter, but it wasn't (at least, you should know it wasn't, in case you thought it was), so it's a false equivalency.
WittyDroog 1 week ago
Bow ties are cool...
agentm31 1 week ago
@agentm31 CORRECTION bow-ties on bill nye are cool.
legomastr1 1 week ago
Valérie Allain & Virginie Contesse were meagerly paid to act sisterly toward one another.
ThingsTerrestrial 2 weeks ago
Don't threaten to scratch my eyes out after trimming your nails. I dig the garbage-man's plight. I swear that he's no different than my current wife. He has no friends outside the raunchy coterie of garbage-men. He has no gripes but cheesy gripes. Cripes! Truisms are factual insofar as they might as well be. The world is brimming with the dirt & sand & rock & salt to build a better cemetery; one in which we may be buried in a better world; a world of boast, pride, sea monsters & lip gloss.
ThingsTerrestrial 2 weeks ago
botox
chickensaurusrex711 2 weeks ago
Malcom X, Bill Nye, PeeWee Herman........Badass motherfuckers wear bowties.
Tucker Carlson does NOT count.....Its a clip on.
smithcas86 2 weeks ago
THE INDIVISIBLE MANUFACTURE—A day before her death, from the hotel room adjacent to the shit-house where she crapped out, a hopped-up Whitney Houston rehearsed “I Will Always Love You.” She held closely to her danglers a purse that contained vital tools & contaminants. On the nightstand was an autographed portrait of Grover Cleveland. Whitney's texturalism wasn't all that it was purported and reported to be (texturalism n -s : rigid adherence to a text of the Scriptures).
ThingsTerrestrial 2 weeks ago
silly moralfags
lilanarchist086 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera "and so far everything the Bible says checks out."
That's sort of a ridiculous claim.
tarheelbub 2 weeks ago
@tarheelbub Well what is one thing the Bible says that you can prove is 100% wrong (and you better not go directly to evolution)? What I meant by it checking out, is that the world makes sense through the Bible. And you have to understand every corner of the Bible to know who the world looks through it. So most evolutionists and atheists make their own assumptions about what the Bible is. You should hear what the Bible really is, from the Bible. Go figure.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
If you don't believe in God, then no one is going to change that but you. There is always a spot in Heaven, and God is begging you to join. Just like Noah and the flood, people had their own way of viewing the world, and they died because they wouldn't believe Noah. Well, I guess I'm Noah here, and you guys are the rest of the world. I've tried many times, but I don't know if I can prove to you guys God is real, so I ask you to pray to God, and ask him to show you he's real... he will.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera you can't prove god is real because there is no evidence for his existence other than the bible. he was thought up by people who didn't understand how things worked. stop being stupid.
eatinginfants 2 weeks ago
@eatinginfants By having no evidence that God is real, that also means you have no evidence that he is not. Many Christians (except Catholics and weirdo Churches) support science, and even micro evolution. So please don't call me stupid, just because you making up my beliefs for me. I support science 100%, and evolution is mathematically impossible, and still just a theory. That's why I don't believe. It's all about how you see the world my friend.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
This guy looks just like Abraham Lincoln
1godlessmonkey 2 weeks ago
0:03 invisible video game controller!
drumrnva 2 weeks ago
Every big player in the scientific community has their own trademark:
Albert Einstein had his hairs
Carl Sagan had his eyebrows
Bill Nye has his bow tie.
AlphaKiloFive 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no "God". Silly Sheep, Deities are for Kidz.
shiftyways1987 2 weeks ago
He looks like Abe Lincoln... just noticed this...
Oblic008 2 weeks ago 39
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism is a religion too, even the highest awarded evolutionists know that it is statistically impossible, so why are we calling it fact when it's just one of many theories. I respect science, and support it, but evolution is just a theory and there are still too many holes in it to call it fact. Not that we should start teaching Christianity, or anything else, its just that we need to teach every theory of our creation, instead of teaching a religion (evolution) in school.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera Atheism and evolution are not the same thing and neither is a religion. You need to research what a "scientific theory" is...because there is not a single creation myth that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Gravity is also "just a theory" by your standards...should we be teaching children all the other alternatives?
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist What's an alternative theory to gravity? Not being a dick, I just really wanted to know if there were any.
babblestock93 2 weeks ago
@babblestock93 Millions of invisible hands hold us to the ground?
I'm no expert but Aristotle had a gravitational theory and there is also Brans-Dicke theory among others.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist LOL invisible hands, that's great. Thanks for replying.
babblestock93 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist Honestly, when has evolution ever been observed? Name one time, just once, anything, will do... well unfortunately it never has. Evolution doesn't even have a logical answer for how the universe even started, and so far everything the Bible says checks out. So this theory gets much more credit than it deserves, since it has never been observed. You can see gravity, you can't see evolution. And there is one real theory for creation, and many scientists look at the world from it.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera Here's the thing about gravity: It's a theory. Just like evolution.
And the bible refers to bats as birds. So GTFO.
Sorflakne 2 weeks ago
@Sorflakne How is gravity a theory? I suppose you could make another claim about it, but the fact remains that we get closer to things that are bigger than we are. As I've said before, evolution is only partially true. Our genes evolve, we know that. But we don't gain genes (the main premise for evolution), we actually lose them. And where does the Bible refer to bats as birds? I would like to know.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera Gravity is a theory because that is the label science applies to phenomenon that have been tested rigorously and found to be reliable and valid as predictors of future phenomena. Which is why evolution has reached the level of scientific theory. Even some creationists recognize this distinction.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist I see, well then the mysterious "science labelers" can say what they think is right. And creation scientists can say what they think is right, because its only a matter of time before we figure out who.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera LOL, Creation "Science"
MrJDylka 1 week ago
@MrJDylka LOL, evolution "Science"
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera Translation- genetics and evolutionary biology are too complicated for me to understand, so I'll take an easy to comprehend answer over one that I would have to work a little to get. The Bible checks out? huh? earth is flat, sun circles the earth, Noah got millions of species of insects on a boat along with every other animal, this is a laughable notion. You really should start reading more than one book... this is rather sad, really.
rtsallaway1 2 weeks ago
@rtsallaway1 Can you please just slow down for a second. Noah didn't take very many animals on the arc at all. All he had to take was two animals of the dog family, one of the cat family, one of insect and so on. However, he took the most advanced versions of each family, that way, since they had all of the genes, could still reproduce and make many other versions of animals. There was actually plenty of room on the arc, because God was gracious, and he gave all humans a chance.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@rtsallaway1 Also, I believe everything in science, that isn't a theory. So please don't tell me my beliefs for me, and I won't do that for you. The fact that people thought world was flat was because of the many ignorant and super religious priests that still reside in the Catholic Church to this day. People thought the world was flat because someone decided to put idiots in charge of science, and also the fact that science was the developed. And the same goes for the sun revolving around Earth
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist I dont usually use "National Geographic" as a source, but they did this beautiful show a few years ago describing and breaking down all of the plagues in the Book of Moses and how they were possible and could have happened. Just because somethings unknown now doesnt mean it wont get an answer later. If you want to criticize the bible you go right on ahead... The mechanics of how gravity works is a theory not gravity itself. What's the alternatives to gravity??
Melexonitrate 2 weeks ago
@Melexonitrate "describing and breaking down all of the plagues in the Book of Moses and how they were possible and could have happened"
I never said these things weren't possible. Lots of things are possible.
"What's the alternatives to gravity??"
There are/were many alternatives to Einstein's general relativity. And I could create some ad hoc nonsense right now, which would have equal validity to creationism.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist Good im glad you didn't say that. And hopefully your also understanding that i was using that as one example from the bible that used to seem "impossible, or superstitious".
I dont understand how "general relativity" is an alternative to gravity?? Am i missing something. Can you create some ad hoc nonsense for me, with equal validity as creationism. Id love to see it. Or point me in the right direction... Think about how ridiculous eating another food is evolution.
Melexonitrate 2 weeks ago
@Melexonitrate Here is some ad hoc nonsense: invisible, non-material angels hold us to the ground and make sure we don't float away when we jump. Other theories about gravity are simply coming from scientists who hate my god...any information that may disprove my theory was simply put there by the devil, who also hates my god.
Now I demand you teach my "theory" to children in science class and give it equal weight to Einstein's theory of general relativity.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist I used to want to be a microbiologist. I've taken classes but decided criminal justice was more my thing, So i decided on that. There's a little bit of my background and why i gave you the answer I did. (BTW growing bacteria smells horrific).
I've never heard of the angel thing before. It's interesting. It's almost the same as an invisible non-material force holds us to the ground to make sure we don't float away, right? Lol.
Melexonitrate 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist Not trying to barge into your conversation swear. But eating another food, evolution. It was an unkown substance by your account, made made. The bacteria all of a sudden evolved right away to eat a different substance. Could it not be possible they could always eat the substance, the only reason they didn't was because they never had the chance before, or liked other food available instead and had a choice. Sorta like a child wanting to eat ice cream over other foods.
Melexonitrate 2 weeks ago
@Melexonitrate Did you actually do any research on the topic before making this response? Sounds to me like you just read my comment, formulated an opinion, and responded. If that's true, you would make a lousy scientist. You can't disregard the work of scientists who study this stuff just because you think you have a better answer.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera atheism is a religion????? wow
trashbash2001 2 weeks ago
@trashbash2001 When has evolution ever been observed? Never. You can say all you want about how the world 'could've' formed by evolution, but so far there is no hard proof of it. Also, some of the most highly esteemed evolutionists, nobel prize winners, have said that evolution is mathematically impossible. So evolution is impossible and has never been observed, and yet you put your faith in it when you have no proof it even exists. Sorry friend, but sounds like religion to me.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera um, it cant be observed... its obvious you dont have a true understanding of what evolution (something that takes MILLIONS of years to happen) is.
And no, no true scientist nobel prize winners who have really studied evolution have said its impossible. Sorry "FRIEND".
And DNA, fossils, and MODERN types of upgraded carbon dating showing the age of the earth, is pretty good evidence for evolution.
Whats your explanation? let me guess. a diety?
trashbash2001 2 weeks ago
@trashbash2001 Carbon dating is perfectly fine, as long as there hasn't been any major global event that would completely change the chemical make up of things... like a flood. You know how if rain falls on one spot for a while, then it makes a big hole? Well imagine that but over the whole Earth. That would cause things to fossilize almost instantly, and completely change the chemical make up of things. So if evolution can't be observed, and de-evolution is being observed, what does that mean?
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@trashbash2001 ... I'm not sure if I told you this, but for evolution to actually occur, genes need to be added somehow, that way the species can get more parts like legs and eyes. But that doesn't make much sense because species are actually LOSING genes over time. Micro evolution, where genes evolve, is observed. Macro evolution, where genes are added has never been observed. So its not that it takes a really long time to see, its that it hasn't even started.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera TYfor the info :) U said "as long as a global event didnt happen". U said evolution has never been observed. Well, neither has a global event such a great flood. If there was evidence for it, i've not heard a single scientist talk about it. (to my knowledge). Im not sure what ur explanation is for the devolpment of the earth, but we certainly havent observed a god creating an earth. And u still have left prehistoric man and animal fossils out of the equation.
trashbash2001 1 week ago
@trashbash2001 Finally we have reached the stage in this predicament when things are much less defined. You're right, we have never observed a flood, but we never observed anything before we were born right? And thousands of years ago there were no cameras, just books. And it just so happened that one of these books was the most respected and factual book in history. But then monarch priests and super religious communist preachers were put in power, and the Bible's name was put to shame...
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@trashbash2001 ... People started looking at the people rather than the book, and then looked at the words and not the author. What I'm saying is, is that the Bible is filled with science and logic, and beautiful and true things, but our sin has forever lasting effect on the world, and to most people, God is just a myth. I pray every night for you, everyone on this page, and everyone in the world. Because I know that the day will come when no one will believe...
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera the fact that you've just admitted your religious bias beliefs, i feel no more need to argue with you anymore. You've shown me a very fundamentalist characteristic. And any evidence i show you is not gonna weigh your decision. You've got god in your heart, therefor you're gonna do your own research and not listen to any respectable practioner of science.
trashbash2001 1 week ago
@trashbash2001 ... and I pray that you, and everyone else will be the ones that believe, and you can live in a perfect place, and have every question you have answered (I have a lot). So back to the flood, if you know anything about Mt.St. Helens, you know that in a matter of hours it completely changed the landscape around it, mostly through water. Canyons were formed, new rocks were made, animals and trees were fossilized, and the whole country was affected. This was ONE SMALL occurance...
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@trashbash2001 ... and I pray that you, and everyone else will be the ones that believe, and you can live in a perfect place, and have every question you have answered (I have a lot). So back to the flood, if you know anything about Mt.St. Helens, you know that in a matter of hours it completely changed the landscape around it, mostly through water. Canyons were formed, new rocks were made, animals and trees were fossilized, and the whole country was affected. This was ONE SMALL occurance...
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@trashbash2001 ... so imagine the effect this would have on a global scale: Mountains, Oceans, Rivers, Canyons, Fossils, Chemicals, and even whole Civilizations would change massively, over a period of 40 days. It does not take a long a time and a little water to change the world's shape, it takes a little time and a lot of water. The evidence that there was a flood can be taken many different ways. How do you get fish on mountains? What about Dinosaurs' extinction? The evidence is everywhere.
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera funny how you say the evidence is EVERYWHERE, yet i've never heard of a respectable scientist talk about this flood which sounds like you're just trying to support the bible. Dinosairs extinction? you're saying we dont have an idea on how that happened??? and fish on moutains (which grow over time from faults) is the proof of a great flood?
The more i'm listening to your explanation, the more illogical i, and the rest of the ppl on this page, find you.
trashbash2001 1 week ago
Comment removed
DoomShallot 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera its not a religion, and it is observable fact.
charliepossenriede 2 weeks ago
@charliepossenriede Name one time that evolution has ever been observed. One time. You said it is an observable fact, so how about you show me any shred of evidence that evolution has ever existed(actually we know micro evolution exists, but that doesn't support the overall object of evolution, it actually supports creation). So if you can't observe it and it's mathematically impossible, then how is it a fact? Just because it's so popular, doesn't mean its correct. But neither does the Bible.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera I can't give you a specific journal article because biology isn't my field (physicist). But I have friends in the field of biology and I've been informed of journal articles where they have observed evolution in small species such as bacterium. To really make these kind of claims and arguments you need to start reading every refereed journal on biology.
Arctandem 2 weeks ago
@Arctandem I'm not saying all evolution has never been seen. I'm just saying that the kind of evolution that supports the whole theory of evolution has never been seen. For example, we know that our genes evolve to get better, but the key thing here is that genes are not being added. In fact living things are losing genes not gaining them. So the fishy may get stronger and faster, but the saying the fishy grows legs, well that has never been seen before. By the way, I'm not a scientist at all.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera I've heard this "losing genes" argument before and its pretty scientifically unfounded. The whole creative kinds argument is pretty weak.
Arctandem 2 weeks ago
@Arctandem Argument? It happens everyday. A dog has a puppy, puppy loses genes through a process that every person of science knows exists. To say the puppy magically gets new genes, makes no sense, and not only has it never been seen, there's no explanation for it even happening. My weak argument is what third graders learn in science class.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera Lulwut? What exactly is this process because I never learned about it in 3rd grade.
Also, have you ever heard of mutation, an observed biological phenomenon, by which genetic code is incorrectly transcribed during cellular mitosis (and more importantly meiosis, as that is how genetic mutations are passed on to new generations)? This alters genetic code, and after enough mutation take place, this can alter gene expression. Like I said, read some literature before making claims.
Arctandem 1 week ago
@Arctandem The process? Its babies dude! When two people have kids the kids keep all of both of their parents' genes! They lose some, and won't ever get them back. It's just how it happens, why do we all have different colored hair and eyes? Its all about the genes buddy. And mutations don't add any new information, they either make copies or deletions. And micro evolution doesn't add more genes either. If I grow another arm, that doesn't mean I can grow wings. That's what's important.
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera "Name one time that evolution has ever been observed. One time."
Nylonase. A bacteria that evolved to digest nylon, a synthetic substance which didn't exist until recently. If you actually wanted to know the answer to your question, you would have done some research and discovered many more instances of observed evolution.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist Okay, I knew I would regret not being specific. Name one time MACRO evolution has been observed. I believe that we evolve, we know that. Our genes evolve, that is micro evolution, this we know. Saying that we grow new genes is macro evolution, and that has never been observed, and in fact we are losing genes, not gaining them. So sorry for not being specific, but you have to look at the facts that we are losing genes, not gaining them...
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera I answered your question, so now you move the goalposts. Typical creationist response. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a longer period of time....only creationists add some arbitrary divider between the two. We have also observed what you call "macroevolution" in insects that have very short lifespans. Or how about the speciation of dogs from wolves? All of this is documented proof of the "macroevolution" you find so impossible.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist Well I don't know what insects with short lifespans have to do with anything, but dogs didn't change into wolves, wolves lost their genes through breeding and dogs were made. It is a very simple idea: Alpha wolf has a puppy, the puppy loses genes (it happens everyday), that puppy keeps some genes but loses some, then when that puppy has a baby, it loses genes too. And eventually you get an ugly little wiener dog.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera That short lifespan is why insects are good to study, as you can have multiple generations quickly and trace mutations. I'm not sure why you think wolves became dogs because they 'lost' genes. Knocking out genes is pretty damn lethal as a rule of thumb. There are a variety of mutations that can happen, point mutations where a single nucleotide changes, deletions, duplications, etc. If you study homeobox genes you'll see how duplication of genes that regulate tissue
Waywardpaladin 1 week ago
@Waywardpaladin I know mutations can happen. But you know as well as I do that saying something just "accidentally" grew eyes, or ears or different parts in perfect areas continually for millions of years is a little far fetched. How is a bacteria going to want see, when it doesn't know how? And then it magically gets eyes and wants to keep seeing? And all mutations so far are negative, they don't help. And the mutations aren't new ones, just copies or deletions.
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera differentiation is seen as you move up the genome from simple organisms to more complex ones.
Waywardpaladin 1 week ago
@Waywardpaladin But the down to Earth science of that doesn't add up. Start from the very beginning; genes. It doesn't add up.
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera Do you know the 'down to Earth' science? Do you know the proposed set up from amino acids, to a more stable chain in DNA, etc? You don't 'lose genes'. You have the exact number of genes as your parents. Now, you have half from one parent and half from the other. You can look at the evolution of eyes in species. You have species that have a few cells that are simply photosensitive. It allowed them to know up from down in the ocean. Then you move up the chain.
Waywardpaladin 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera To more and more advanced eyes, for the most part. There are some exceptions, as cephalopods have a more advanced eye than ours (wonder why God's crowning creation would be deficient compared to them) but we don't live in an aqueous environment, so we don't have a strong selective pressure for the field of vision that they do have. As for all mutations being negative, in my lab I select for mutated chromatin remodelers that increase DNA repair rates.
Waywardpaladin 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera "Well I don't know what insects with short lifespans have to do with anything"
Because you don't understand evolution. Evolution works on succeeding generations, which means that we can observe "macroevolution" in insects because they have very short lifespans compared to our own.
And your characterization of wolves to dogs is just absurd. I would love to know who feeds you this terrible information..they are doing you a disservice.
VesusSheist 1 week ago
@VesusSheist First of all, my "terrible information" is what most kids learn in school. And how does wolves to dogs not make sense? Every scientist agrees that genes are deleted! And those insects with short lifespans only mutate, they don't have new genes added. By new genes I mean new body parts, not just repeats. And so far the insects' mutations haven't been positive, or had something new added.
TheSeventhCamera 1 week ago
@TheSeventhCamera Also, if macroevolution has never been observed, what is your explanation for the phenomenon called "ring species"? I eagerly await your explanation.
VesusSheist 2 weeks ago
@VesusSheist I have no idea what ring species is. Please explain.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
@TheSeventhCamera I can't explain ring species in 500 characters. You have access to the internet, look it up. And don't bother with a creationist website because they have no explanation for the phenomenon. Or go to potholer54's excellent video "Ring Species - the abridged version"
VesusSheist 1 week ago
@VesusSheist ... a good example of this is a fish. The fishy will get stronger and faster over time, because its genes are evolving. However, through having offspring, the fish's kids often lose genes, but keep some. So when they have kids, they will have even less genes. We've never seen a fishy grow legs, because it never started out with those genes. And there is no way a fish could randomly gain genes. So again, try to name an instance of something gaining genes.
TheSeventhCamera 2 weeks ago
"vote, write letters, demand change"
Hahahaha, good one, Bill, but seriously, can you maybe show us how to make nitroglycerin from house hold products or something?
DeimosSaturn 2 weeks ago