Ummm, a bit of flawed logic, here. You say that science can't recreate evolution, yet at the same time Creationists can't recreate creation. The whole reason that they are creationists is that they believe in creation by means of a higher unsurpassed intelligence.
@KingHeathen okay. have you ever....and i mean ever seen a useful or positive mutation in the genetic code? You said that mutations are random. When in nature has time, random mutations, and natural selections EVER created anything that was positive? That isnt the way it works. Random mutations in the genetic code do not help humans....or animals or anything. lt is scientifically and genetically impossible to do so. Holding your faith in the chance that death will create is more than i can.
@dskinnerify "lt is scientifically and genetically impossible to do so" That's not actually true. Most mutations are actually neutral (as in neither positive or negative); in fact, the average human has 50-100 mutations, though only about 3 actually change a protein. Here are some known positive mutations: antibiotic resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, resistance to atherosclerosis, resistance to malaria, and HIV immunity.
@ArcanaKnight okay very good. you came up with some good mutations. there are. now all of these mutations relate to infinitesimal beings. bacteria or viruses. this does not help the argument for human mutation. You said it yourself though....a human has a lot of mutations that end up being neutral and not changing anything. "millions of years" isnt changing anything then. There are also too many features on the human body such as the eye that could not have "evolved" or selected for by mutation
@dskinnerify " now all of these mutations relate to infinitesimal beings" No, those last 3 I listed were mutations some humans have to be resistent/immune to some diseases. And yes, a lot of mutations are neutral, though whether a mutation is favorable depends largely on the environment; developing a resistance to some disease wouldn't be considered favorable if you never encounter that disease.
CONT Also, your claim about the eye is entirely false. There are here on youtube alone that explain how the eye could have evolved. Your own ignorance about how something could have evolved is not a valid argument against it having evolved.
@ArcanaKnight it depends solely on the environment. imagine for a sec halfway mutated thumb, knee, or hip. It would not work. Not only that it would it work it wouldnt be selected for. The complexity of these parts of the body make them incapable to be "produced" by evolution. Each of these joints is unique. It would not have any "genetic script" to copy in order to make it a usable joint. Sure, animals sometimes have two head, or 9 legs. These dont help them. They make them prey.
@dskinnerify "halfway mutated thumb, knee, or hip" And that comment shows that you have absolutely no clue what evolutionary theory actually says, that all your information on it is just creationist strawmen. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that fingers or wings developed by making useless half-formed things, with the eventual goal of having a whole wing. You still don't seem to understand the fact that evolution has no ultimate goals, no ideal design its working toward.
I even gave you several examples of beneficial mutations as you asked and pointed out the fact that every single human has dozens of mutations, yet you still just ignored all of that in favor of your strawman claims that all mutations result in an extra head, legs, etc.
@ArcanaKnight no you gave me examples of what you "think" are mutations. I know that people have mutations. I do. I am aware. They just don't "produce" new things. I mean new. Not replicated. That isnt the way it works. sorrry, i should have clarified that.
@ArcanaKnight Yes as a matter of fact it does. You hear them called 'vestiges" "vestigal organs", In fact some people call our tail bone that. I know perfectly what I am talking about. The fact that evolution has not ultimate goals also just increases the enormity of how improbable it is. Then what does evolutionary theory have to say about how they came to be....?
@dskinnerify No, you've got it backwards; vestigial organs are evolutionary left-overs, not precursors.
"I know perfectly what I am talking about" Clearly you don't or you wouldn't be claiming that beneficial mutations have never occurred and other creationist strawmen.
"what you 'think' are mutations" No, those are definitely mutations, and they have "produced" something new (they "produced" disease resistance/immunity).
@ArcanaKnight I shouldnt have said "never" i knew that bacteria mutated and then were resistant to antibiotics. You were 100% correct, my fault. The way I see it is that it didnt "produce anything due to one fact. There had to be something there in the first place to mutate from. The genes that were mutated are already present. They didnt produce a disease resistance. The genes necessary to do this are already present. This is natural selection. not evolution.
@dskinnerify "they didn't produce a disease resistance" Are you really trying to claim that disease resistance is something that has just always been in their genetic makeup? You must be since that is pretty much the only other way it could be there.
@dskinnerify Yes. Your thumbs are the result of a "useful [AND] positive mutation"...watch my video "Beneficial Mutations" The problem here is that you don't understand what a "mutation" is and instead try to define it as "when something bad happens." A mutation is ONLY a change in the DNA replicated. Most mutations are harmless and do nothing. Some are harmful. And others are beneficial to the species. Walking upright is the result of mutations in our knees, hips, and ankles.
For arguments sake, let's say that through science we can explain everything away in nature. What about miracles? I would like to know how this one happened. I know that it did happen because I saw with my own eyes. A friend of mine had a serious tooth problem. Her dentist said it had to be removed. While at a prayer conference, miraculously the tooth was not only crowned with a solid gold crown but the crown has a tattoo of a lion on it. Please tell me scientifically how this happened.
"Each day is meant to be similar to a thousand years" ?? So how long was Noah in the ark? or how long were the jews in the desert? Thousands of years? Or does it not apply to that? Your argument is flawed. There is NO evidence for a god, or ANY god.
lol Genesis is a metaphor, to a God time is merely endless. Each day is meant to be similar to a thousand years. Religions is flawed, but idea of a God is very well proven. Come on bro, you should know this already. You're a few steps behind.
What did everything evolve from? Where did it start? Outer space aliens? What did they evolve from? Gases going boom? Who made the gases? Whether we evolved or were created, it had to start somewhere and it's harder to believe that everything came from nothing. This debate will go on as long as humanity exsists. If Christians are right eternity will be time spent getting to know Him. If not, nothing lost. Can't say the same for those who don't believe.
@leadee2007 "If not, nothing lost" Except a lifetime wasted in fruitless effort praying to something that wasn't there, fighting the advancement of human knowledge, spreading ignorance and bigotry, etc.
As for what would happen if Christians were right, I think this video sums up my feelings quite well: watch?v=iClejS8vWjo
@ArcanaKnigh - Of course there is proof that things evolve but not from one species to another. No solid proof to date. There's no way to prove or disprove creationism or evolution and arguing over it is a waste of time. In either case, you are forced to use faith.
@leadee2007 "there is proof that things evolve but not from one species to another" Actually there is evidence of that. Not only has speciation actually been observed, but we also have multiple independent lines of genetic evidence confirming common ancestry, and those results also match up with the ancestry derived from the fossil record. Accepting evolutionary theory (or any other scientific principle for that matter) doesn't require faith.
@ArcanaKnight Ok. If you want to believe that there is solid evidence for it but not all scientists agree. Whether you believe it or not, you are exercising faith by believing in the scientists and their research and theories.
@leadee2007 Actually no, relying on verifiable evidence is pretty much the opposite of faith. And as for those scientists you claim who who disagree, roughly 99% of the scientists in the relevant fields accept evolutionary theory because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it; there will always be people on the fringe who will dissent for one reason or another, though its usually because of ideological reasons (eg. there are some who still believe the earth is flat).
@ArcanaKnight Even scientists need faith to trust in something. The heart of the issue is not so much how things evolved but how it all got here in the first place. There are only two options of which neither one can be proved. One, there is an eternal being who started it all for a reason or two, it materialized out of nothing(chemicals had to come from somewhere). It takes faith to believe either way.
@leadee2007 "but how it all got here in the first place" Except that evolution, what creationists like yourself rail against the most, doesn't deal with that. It only deals with how life developed on earth.
"chemicals had to come from somewhere" Have you even tried looking up what the Big Bang theory actually says? Apparently not since it actually does address how the different elements were created.
@ArcanaKnight I have read what it says. I am not a scientist but it's still just a theory. At some point there had to be a beginning of even the elements and that beginning came from nothingness. Why is that so hard to agree on? Either things appeared out of nothingness or they were created. Is there another theory that I haven't heard of? I am not arguing with you. You could be right. My point is merely the fact that there is no proof either way. There are some things we don't know.
I can't recommend too highly this upload "History Channel - The Universe | Beyond the Big Bang Full Documentary (Greek)". It's long, an hour & a half, but worth every minute.
There's still room for a creator at the very start of the universe & the start of life, science has yet to answer those questions, but the answers today's science has are elegant and, for me, truly beautiful.
@GuillemotWatcher I'll check it out. Thanks. I agree that science is elegant and beautiful, and also very important. I also believe that it's really important to consider that there may be more to life then what we see. I hate to see it ruled out just because we can't completely understand it. Truth is truth whether ones belieives it or not. I don't argue to prove I am right, I just want to challenge you to consider that there is a reason that you are here, because I care.
and yeshu will save your life if you belive in him.. there will come many .. and no peace.. first the decieving.. and then if u stay with yehshu and DO NOT BELIVE IN THE DECIEVERS than u will see what's happening =)
belive me.. they wanna decieve me too men.. i am your proof.. let me be the one who tell you in the name of ישוע that they tried to decieve me haaard and badly.. but now .. i'm still praying to Ḡòḍ and belive in ישוע
actually evolution has been recreated many times in the lab. examples are selective breeding. the very fact we have dogs means that evolution is irrefutably correct
Atheism is as much faith as religion, neither can be proven thus both have the possibility of being true...or both being false, with something beyond our comprehension taking place. Obviously there are things going on that we don't understand, and I believe we will never understand. Obviously we evolve, but Darwinism isn't proof of origins of life, it's proof of the evolutionary process.
Live your life doing what makes you happy and doesn't harm or endanger another.
@mjrtoo "Atheism is as much faith as religion" Atheism is more like the null hypothesis of religious beliefs. Theism makes positive claims about the existence of something, but it doesn't have any proof, so that's why it is entirely faith-based; saying that god doesn't exist requires no more faith than does saying fairies don't exist.
"Darwinism isn't proof of origins of life" The theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, just how it developed once it already had begun.
@ArcanaKnight "The theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, just how it developed once it already had begun." Oh absolutely it does, that's the point of the entire book Darwin wrote, that we formed from non-life undirected. And that's why I say Atheists have faith, they believe in as unfounded an origin of life and species as religions do. Belief in light of fact is faith. If I may ask, what is your point of view on the point of origin of mankind and the universe?
@mjrtoo No, the theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, that is covered by abiogenesis. If you're going to debate something, you should at least try to find out what that something actually says instead of just blindly believing the strawmen its opponents spout.
My POV on the origin of man and the universe is that I accept the science which shows man evolved from apes and our universe began with the big bang.
@mjrtoo A religion is defined as a system of belief that has one or more deities (often, but not always), a system of heirarchy (god -> church leader -> follower in faith), religious doctrine, followers, sacred text and a holy sacrament, amongst other things
Atheism is a DIS-belief
Atheism has no deity
Atheism has no system of heirarchy
Atheism has no doctrine
I guess we do have followers, oops
Atheism has no sacred text
Atheism most certainly does NOT have a holy sacrament
@AtheismoTheGreat I understand your point, maybe an anti-religion religion is more accurate, but it stil has the same traits. The way they defend their position vehemently without scientific facts, they both have faith.
@mjrtoo Atheism is more like the null hypothesis of religious beliefs. It also doesn't really require faith either, its just a rather simple inference that can be drawn based on the complete lack of evidence for the existence of god(s). Perhaps if the gods (assuming they exist) weren't such tricksters by being so meticulous about removing any trace of their existence and influence on reality, such evidence might be able to be found.
@ArcanaKnight Abscense of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence. There are a lot of things that we don't have evidence for but think exist, jump in the evolutionary chain for example. The god I speak of may have created the universe and the laws of it, but the god of the bible is a far different character. Faith is simply belief in spite of evidence, and Atheists believe there is no god of any kind, without any kind of evidence...it's faith, one way or another.
@mjrtoo Correction: Atheists believe there is no god of any kind (well not "personal" gods, but mainly the organized religion types ie: intervention/communication in our planet), (due to lack of) any kind of evidence
@mjrtoo "Abscense of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence" That sentiment is flawed. We don't believe something exists because of lack of evidence (think unicorns). We usually believe something exists because we find evidence for it, so if there is no evidence for something, then its correct not to believe in it. While its true that such a being might exist somewhere in the universe, CONT
the evidence which should be there if such a being existed is absent, so its fair to conclude that such a being doesn't exist. If some future evidence is uncovered that changes this, that conclusion might change, but given the incredibly minuscule chance of that happening, it is reasonable to conclude that such evidence will probably never be found.
@ArcanaKnight It's not flawed, there are things in everyday life that there is no evidence for that still exist, maybe a doctor doing a diagnosis, there's no evidence on the Xray, but the symptoms are very real and in fact the disease does exist. I also disagree with the evidence being absent, the DNA structure is so complex you have to question its origin. Again, I'm open to an higher designer or purely natural evolution, but without absolute proof either way, all options must remain open.
@mjrtoo Your analogy doesn't really work either; just because a doctor doesn't base their diagnosis on the x-ray evidence doesn't mean that they aren't basing it on some other evidence. Your argument about the complexity of DNA isn't actually evidence of anything either, its nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
@ArcanaKnight I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that the complexity of the DNA structure and the creation of proteins is far more complex than at first glance and that it really needs to be looked at at greater detail before we can ever come to a conclusion that it's a natural phenomena or a blueprint by a higher intelligence. We really need to separate creation and intelligent design, those two terms are far different IMHO. One involves the bible and one does not. Anyway, I'm done...
@mjrtoo Science also doesn't really deal in "absolute proof". There is always the possibility that some future discovery could possibly prove us wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can't make any conclusions with a high degree of certainty based on what we do currently know. The remote chance that someday something could be discovered which might possibly support belief in the existence of something isn't a valid reason to believe in the existence of that thing at this time.
@ArcanaKnight That's just it, I withhold belief in any one thing until there is proof. Plus, I really don't think it's a high degree of uncertainty, there's A LOT of uncertainty...in fact, I would say we're just downright guessing on the creation of the universe.
@mjrtoo "I withhold belief in any one thing until there is proof" Do you believe fairies exist? Unicorns? An undetectable teapot orbiting our sun? Here's a great story by Carl Sagan that deals specifically with the flaw in believing in something for which there is no testable evidence: watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E
BTW, Creationism and ID ARE the same thing; ID is essentially just creationism thats been run through a word-replace program.
@ArcanaKnight actually not they are different. Intelligent design can refer to aliens as well as god and that our planet was placed here by a far more advanced civilisation. where as creationism is just god did everything. basically ID is more broad and general
@buffaloface1 "Intelligent design can refer to aliens as well as god" That was nothing more than an attempt to make this version of creationism to make it seem less religious and more scientific by being less specific in the language about who the designer was. This obvious attempt at subterfuge was made perfectly clear in the Kitzmiller trial where it was shown that the proposed ID textbook was literally just a creationist book put through a find/replace program.
@buffaloface1 "but it may have been adapted" Except for that to be true, ID would've had to have changed since then, and there haven't been any real changes to ID since it was first introduced. ID has time and again shown itself to be nothing more than re-branded creationism, and no amount of tip-toeing around the identity of the supposed designer (usually with a wink and a nod) is going to change the fact that it is religious belief and not scientific theory.
@buffaloface1 No, that's a completely untestable idea, so its just a philosophical musing. Its also not ID because it makes different claims than ID; ID doesn't claim that we aren't real as your scenario suggests, its just claiming that life on earth was designed by something else.
@ArcanaKnight yeah but it doesnt exclude the possibility of not being real and being digital doesnt exactly mean we're not real. also it is theoretically testable because we would be made of pixels
@buffaloface1 Well, since there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that we're made of pixels, I guess its failed that "test".
Not excluding the possibility of something doesn't make it the same idea/theory; your simulation idea still isn't part of ID. Evolutionary theory also doesn't "exclude the possibility" of this being a simulation, evolution could just be the method the program used to create life on earth.
@ArcanaKnight Actually due to light and electrons etc acting the similarly it is a theory under investigation as this may suggest pixels. also because id doesnt exclude aliens does sort of mean its not biblical as part of cristianity is the idea of a geocentric universe
@buffaloface1 "because id doesnt exclude aliens does sort of mean its not biblical" As I've already explained though, that vagueness in identifying who the supposed designer is was nothing but an attempt at disguising creationism to make it seem more scientific. Even the main ID proponent, Behe, has stated for ID to be considered science, the definition would have to be loosened so much that even astrology would be considered science.
Also, geocentrism isn't necessary for it to be creationism
@ArcanaKnight look id can include made by aliens. creationism says god did it. there for they are not necessarily the same thing. and the bible says clearly the world does not move. which means geocentrism is part of the bible, admittedly not necessarily creationism.
@buffaloface1 "admittedly not necessarily creationism" Then why continue to bring it up?
Intentionally avoiding identifying the designer doesn't make ID scientific; its just a creationist Trojan horse. Upon examination, ID also doesn't even really include the possibility of aliens; the main description of ID explicitly states that the UNIVERSE displays features of having been designed, so how could an alien race be responsible for designing the very universe that spawned them?
@ArcanaKnight to show tat i am being resonable and able to admit im wrong. i never said it is scientific i said it could be. Also id is certain aspects of the universe being designed not necessarily the universe as a whole. and even if im wrong there it may be entirely posible for aliens to make a universe. we have very little idea of the limits of the technology i mean look around you at how impresive technology is. a civilisation may very well end up being powerful enough to creat a universe
I'm not a christian myself, but I do believe in a god, and I do support evolution. However, I also somewhat support creationism, but ONLY on an atomic level. I don't believe we just popped up all of a sudden, that idea is just absurd. There is no data supporting exactly where atoms come from either, just as there is no logical data proving that we just popped up out of nowhere because of god.
@necrogenesis1981 "I don't believe we just popped up all of a sudden, that idea is just absurd."
"I don't believe the world is a sphere, that idea is just absurd."
"I don't believe there are parasites living in the human body, that idea is just absurd."
Even though you admit "there is no..data proving..we..popped..because of god", you still basically write: "I do not have an answer, therefore I will say God Did It."
Claiming an answer when you have none is ignorant beyond belief.
@PaulinaPaulino Fair enough, I'll give you that, maybe it is ignorant. But consider this, we're born completely ignorant of the world until we are taught. Having no answer about how the rest of the world works is just as ignorant as having no answer about how everyone got here. Can you explain how atoms were created? No, you can't. The idea of having a belief system is based upon putting answers to things where we have none.
@PaulinaPaulino So as far as I know, from a logical standpoint, no matter how much scentificf proof of creation you have, it's still a never-ending cycle. Even if we do figure out exactly where atoms come from, we still have to figure out how the source of those atoms were created, and then the source of that source and so on. For now, a belief system just seems logical to me, but my thoughts could change with enough information.
"I don't know the answer, so I can do one of 2 things.
1)Admit I do not know and search for the answer.
2)Make up an answer, and then go on youtube comments and try and convince other people to follow the answer I made up, and not bother looking for the answer, and when others actually DO find the answer, and tell me, I will have to dismiss the made-up answer that I have been defending all this time."
@PaulinaPaulino All good points, except for a few things. 1) Not even physicists know exactly where atoms come from. I know, I looked it up. 2) I don't have the resources to research these thing, because there isn't even an established theory on the creation of atoms. 3) You are correct, plus simply making up an answer is just arrogant. I don't claim to know anything factual, just what I feel is correct at this time. Furthermore, I don't expect anyone to follow my beliefs, they are mine alone.
It is OK to say you make stuff up. It is NOT OK to lie and say:
"there isn't even an established theory on the creation of atoms."
The current view is that atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons. The protons and neutrons are at the central core called the nucleus, and the electrons revolve around it, being held in orbit by the electromagnetic force between the negatively charged electrons and the positively charged protons in the central nucleus.
@necrogenesis1981 part 2 It is very much like the solar system with the sun at the center and the planets revolving around it. They were formed right after the "Big Bang" when our known universe originated from pure energy some billions of years ago. The energy was converted to the elementary particles (quarks, gluons, leptons etc...) from which protons and neutrons were formed. From these, atoms of different elements were produced.
@PaulinaPaulino 4) I don't in any way disregard scientific proof or literature, and regard them as fact. As I said before, my beliefs are just filler until the scientific professionals find something. With all of that said, if the scientific community does find proof for the absence of a god, then yes I will dismiss my beliefs. Until then, I will express my opinion in as respectful a manner as possible.
@necrogenesis1981 You do two things here that are disingenuous, and you know it.
first: filling your mind with crap while you are waiting for the answer is like learning how to bowl without lessons. Before you can bowl correctly, you must first 'unlearn' all the crap you convinced yourself was true.
Second, you show yourself a fool with "if the scientific community does find proof for the absence of a god".
This is not what science does, and you know it, and you ridicule yourself stating it.
@PaulinaPaulino Okay I'll give you that one too, I guess I don't have very good investigative skills. So if it's a staircase, there has to be an end correct? There's always a source for everything, even the beginning and end of the staircase, and what lies beyond it that gives it that beginning and end. So where do quarks, gluons, leptons etc. come from? Where does the building blocks of them come from and so on? See? As far as we know right now it COULD go on forever.
@PaulinaPaulino Not only that, but I don't believe in organized religion either, that's where it gets messy in my opinion. I don't need anyone shaping my thoughts, I believe what I believe based on my own choices and nobody has a say in the matter.
@necrogenesis1981 Believe me: I dont wish to call your argument nonsense, but you have to look at them from a logical point of view.
This is you:
"I don't need anyone shaping my thoughts, I believe what I believe based on my own choices".
"Why bother with messy facts from people that have studied this stuff for decades and done hundreds of experiments and published books that have been peer reviewed?
I'll just say "I don't know where atoms came from and invent my own answer."
first off evolution in the sense of the world is millions of years old IS a religion. you except it on faith so this is a religious debate. second of all it is a basic rule of physics that if an object is spinning and breaks or something comes of, it is spinning in the same direction. however if we all came from a ball of spinning dust, why do we have planets and galaxies that orbit in the wrong directions as well as revolve in the wrong direction. There are not enough characters for me
@ahuntsman1107 Ok first off evolution is NOT a religion. It is a scientific theory because unlike a religion there is scientific proof to back up this theory. Fossil evidence exists that backs up the theory of evolution. Religion is something that you believe in based on faith that it exists. Science is something you believe in based on facts and observations. There is a very distinct difference. If you can't see this difference then you are a moron and I will let you live in your fantasy world.
@moonomatic evolution is a religion because while you think that the fossil record only backs you up it supports creation as well. under the displaced sediment and imense presure from a global flood, it wouldnt take long for many things to fossilize. however evolutionist simply over look it and say its not a religion. if you are going to believe in something like that call it what it is
@Hyeesa yes i do. there are six different forms of evolution. there is cosmic evolution in which space time and mater come into existance. then there is chemical evolution in which the chemicals become how they are. then solar evolution for stars. then planetary evolution for the planets. macro in which a dog could become a dolphin. and finaly, and the only true evolution, micro or a variation. as in a wolf can become a dalmatian. and a religion is a faith you live your life on.
@ahuntsman1107 You were going good up until the part where you said "in which a dog could become a dolphin" right at that second I thought to myself "This guy either has a serious head injury, has been reading way to much science fiction or is completely and utterly mentally retarded." Which one is it? Do some reading on 'Darwins theory of evolution' then you will realise that you have no real idea of how biological evolution works. A dog will never turn into a dolphin that is pure stupidity.
@Hyeesa I think he's a fucking moron. He has obviously been brainwashed from a very young age and secluded from any scientific knowledge that may have contradicted his religious teachings. He is one of many who stand no chance of being enlightened as to the reality that there is no god.
@ahuntsman1107 Are you retarded? How the fuck do fossils back up creationism? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. For one thing creationism claims that the earth is ~6000 years old. The majority of fossils found on earth are dated to be several millions of years old. The immense weight of a global flood could possibly create fossils but it would take millions of years to do so. Do you even know how a fossil is formed? It takes a very long time, way more than 6000 years.
The creationist isn't Human anymore. It is a fine example of devolution by choice. A failed fallen lowbrow version of bipedal hominid. An embarrassing farcical dipshit that, to become a creationist, has handed away the very trait that used to make them human. Logic. Its a fact that you cannot be both Human and religious at the same moment. You must choose one side or the other. We must cleanse Earth of this filth, this vermin until only the Humans are left and we can live in peace.
Love the world.... not just one way... Gods image is love remember..... The bible is only one part of the truth..... God is spirit..... and His spirit exists in all good moral principles across the world..... God gave us Jesus... but He also gave us Buddha.... Krishna..... MLK...... we are all children of God... we are God .... together...... appreciate peoples differences.... they are necessary God made it this way.... and He does no mistakes....
Your "friend" 's premise is false. Ask a geneticist if evolution can be reproduced in a lab - it is done all the time. It's the root a good deal of our understanding of genetic theory and used heavily in the research & discovery of anti-biotics & other drugs. He was probably making the common creationist error of confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and he was thinking about the quasi-successful experiments in the early & mid 20th century trying to create life from non-living material.
I have proof of creation. If anyone is interested in seeing this proof, the easiest way to get to the videos is to click on the link below to my YouTube channel davnxs. Once you are at my channel click on the play list button then on Creation Proof play list. Start with the video at the top and work your way down the list.
@davnxs So after we've wasted over 13 hours watching those BS videos on your playlist, which I'm not sure you have even watched all of, what then? After this discussion with you and having already seen some of the videos, I have a general idea of the claims being made, I can say with a high amount of certainty that most of those claims, if not all of them, have probably already been refuted.
@davnxs "Every video on my play list under Creation Proof I have watched more than once" Including the one by Edward Current? Wow, I guess there is something to say for Poe's Law after all. Did you just not realize that his videos are satire? And I thought you were supposed to have an infallible BS/lie detector.
"not gaining intelligence, but regaining it" Oh? And exactly what "proof" is that?
@davnxs Right, because Conservapedia is a bastion of unbiased facts and truth. &_& Did you think I didn't know what Poe's Law was before I mentioned it? If so, then why did you think I mentioned it in the first place? Your inclusion of satirical videos in your playlist of "proof" is a perfect demonstration of Poe's Law in action; since he didn't come right out and say it in the video, you thought he was being sincere.
Refusing to acknowledge refutations of your "creation proof" doesn't mean that your "evidence" remains valid; throwing a tantrum and refusing to back up your claims doesn't either. This video is about the supposed proof for creation, that means that the evidence that is presented IS the topic of discussion, despite what you may think.
@ArcanaKnight show me the peer reviewed articles refuting Polonium Halos! I'm not talking your bullshit site that never referenced to any peer reviewed articles refuting Polonium Halos. Just tell me where I can find them even. And I'm sorry but you can not deny that Robert Gentry was threatened not to go to that trial. See, your the one that want's to deny real evidence, not me!
@davnxs "you can not deny..." I can express my doubt and disbelief that such a thing actually happened, but I can't really disprove it since the only evidence of it ever supposedly taking place is Gentry's own unverifiable account.
"peer reviewed articles refuting" I have already given these, but here are some of them again: Odom and Rink 1989, Science; Lee 1997, Nature; Taylor and McLennan 1996, Scientific American; Wakefield 1988, Journal of Geological Education.
I think you need to do more research on the polo isue.
see
csun dot edu / ~vcgeo 005 / revised8 h t m
Numerous attempts have been made to counteract Gentry's claim and to show that Po halos are formed by less dramatic processes. None of these has been fully satisfactory.
en dot wiki pedia dot org / wiki / Radiohalo
This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the factGentry's "polonium halos"
@davnxs Wow. Can we say cherry-picking? You picked one sentence out of that wiki article that said that the alternate explanations haven't been proven experimentally, but completely ignored the evidence supporting the explanation, the widely accepted explanation (which isn't Gentry's), Gentry's claims being considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and the arguments of Gentry and other creationists being rebutted in peer-review.
So you use wikipedia as a source? Then why not use it in your reference to Poe's Law? What's the matter, did the wiki article not have enough biased and off-topic commentary for you?
The video on this page, is a video asking for proof of creation. If you want to comment, then comment on the videos that I have posted for proof of creation. The easiest way to find those videos is to go to my channel, click on play list, and then on Creation Proof. Start with the top video and work your way down. Unless you want to comment on those videos, I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore.
@davnxs We HAVE been discussing the so-called "creation proof" that you've been presenting (they're the same videos you've been linking here after all), we just don't find those videos nearly as convincing as you clearly do. You just deny the evidence which refutes the claims made by them, insist that your supposedly infallible ability to detect lies trumps disconfirming physical evidence, or that unprovable conspiracies are behind such evidence.
@davnxs "Don't recall you saying anything about them?" That's because you haven't actually mentioned any of this yet. So far you've only really mentioned Wyatt's fraudulent claims and the supposed conspiracy against creationists. I'm not going to waste my time guessing what it is you're referring to with those vague questions and researching that guess, so why don't you state exactly what you're claiming happens.
@davnxs Repeating that little "watch the 13+ hours of videos in my playlist" comment doesn't actually count as stating your claim (especially when I'm doubtful you've even watched them all yourself). It's also not "proof" of anything since (as I already mentioned) most, if not all, of the claims in those videos have already been refuted.
Also, evidence isn't suppressed if it doesn't fit the current model, regardless of which scientific theory you're talking about.
@davnxs "do some research your self on the supression..." You are the one making the claim that suppression is actually happening, so the onus is on YOU to support your claim, not for others to find the support for you and then agree with or refute it. Why not start by giving specific examples of this supposed suppression?
Yes, the origin of the term "Caucasian" being applied to white people is because it was thought 200 years ago that their ancestral home was the Caucus mountains (for quite racist reasons might I add). This has since been shown not to be true, but the term had already become part of the vernacular, so the definition just got changed to mean the people from and around Europe.
@ArcanaKnight I don't know where you get your information from, but it's not because they are suppose to be from the Caucus Mountains, but because after the Babylonian captivity they went north over the Caucus Mountains. So far as I know they are still called the Caucasian race, and yes they settled all over W. Europe. Yes, many of them are very racist, but I don't see how that has anything to do with where the're from?
@davnxs "have you fogotten Robert Gentry and Expelled" Have you forgotten Expelled Exposed which refuted pretty much every claim made in Expelled, including the ones about suppression? Gentry's claims of suppression are just as wrong as those of the people in Expelled. Don't reference past comments if you're going to delete them (what's the matter, embarrassed by what you said?) because you can't reference what you wrote if they're not there anymore.
@ArcanaKnight I deleted them because any kind of dialog with you is like talking to a brick wall. I really don't give a sit what you or anyone else thinks. I posted the proof of creation that this video was asking for because I thought maybe some people seeing them might realize they were wrong about evolution, and realize that there is more proof for creation, witch there is. You are acting like the flat earthers did, just going along with the majority because it's what the majority believe.
@davnxs Yes, you posted your "proof of creation" (though you removed even that), but you were entirely unable to defend it except to deny the evidence presented or point to some unprovable conspiracy to explain away the disconfirming evidence.
No, I'm not going with the majority simply because its the majority, but because it actually has the evidence on its side, and that's evidence that stands up to scrutiny, unlike yours.
@ArcanaKnight You have scientist that say one thing and I have scientist that say something else. That isn't ever going to get us anywhere, so what's the point? You always think your's are somehow right but mine are bullshit. As for unable to prove, all you got is a bunch of flat earthers, rather you want to admit it or not. The people I believe are right are coming out with what their finding even thou they are loosing their jobs in doing so, and you can deny that but it's the truth.
@davnxs "You have scientists that say one thing..." Except that I don't have to rely solely on the word of scientists, there is also the data that supports their conclusions and which is able to stand up to scrutiny instead of crumbling upon review like the stuff you've been presenting. Heck, the playlist that you presented as your "proof" still includes at least one video satirizing one of the points you've been trying to make; you really should look up Poe's Law sometime.
@PSNRogueZombie The video on this page, is a video asking for proof of creation. If you want to comment, then comment on the videos that I have posted for proof of creation. The easiest way to find those videos is to go to my channel, click on play list, and then on Creation Proof. Start with the top video and work your way down. Unless you want to comment on those videos, I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore.
@PSNRogueZombie I call anyone who doesn't want to look at the facts that. The facts are that evolution has nothing. If you look at what's out there, and that's what I'm doing, the evidence points to an intelligences created life. The majority believe in evolution and wont even look at other information to evaluate it. That's what the flat earther's did. So if the shoe fits, what can I say. Just click on davnxs, then on playlist, then start with the 1st video and work your way down.
@PSNRogueZombie Yes, that's right, I think something that anyone can correct is very reputable. It's better than a site that is controlled buy one person, any day. That is you know, how the future will be I believe. I suppose you are another flat earth er like ArcanaKnight, can't see thru the bull shit evolution theory has taught you. And yes, I believe there are powers that would try to keep the truth from coming out. If you can't see that, then your totally delusional.
"CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE" @davn Seriously. If you really think there's a conspiracy around this, don't you think the least they could have done would have been to monitor the entry on wiki to keep out any indication of a conspiracy? You're essentially taking claims of one person's deathbed conversion and spinning that into some supposed conspiracy; don't you think there's a more reasonable explanation the opinion change?
As for the anchor stones: Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat. The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.
h t t p : / / ww w. csun. edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
@davnxs "and yes, that's a fact unlike evolution" Wrong on both counts. Its not a fact that there was a global flood, its actually a well-debunked creationist claim that is based on a very careful cherry-picking of the evidence.
@davnxs Look at Expelled Exposed to get the true stories from that truly awful propaganda piece. Your clips from Mysteries in Science are just as awful and use the same cherry-picked, shoddy evidence that is behind most creationist claims. You can't argue the facts, so you just make up a conspiracy to wave away all disconfirming evidence, basing it on little more than your unsupportable yet fervent belief that Wyatt isn't a fraud and one man's change of opinion on his deathbed.
OK Mr. King Heathen, you asked for proof of creation, here it is. The young age of the earth part 1 watch?v=jof6OsQtjs4&feature=channel_video_title part 2 watch?v=xmS16MRoXOc&feature=relmfu And Mysteries In Science that proves instant creation of the basement rocks of the Earth, but also shows how the current system has suppressed these kind of finds. watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0&feature=relmfu Evolution or Intelligent Design watch?v=1ajxRs_deBU&feature=channel_video_title I have more too!
very interesting video thanks
jessyjessy4 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
simysimss 1 week ago
Comment removed
osamaisthatyou 1 month ago
BEER science!
piccanninni 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ummm, a bit of flawed logic, here. You say that science can't recreate evolution, yet at the same time Creationists can't recreate creation. The whole reason that they are creationists is that they believe in creation by means of a higher unsurpassed intelligence.
that1nigglet 2 months ago in playlist More videos from KingHeathen
Comment removed
that1nigglet 2 months ago in playlist More videos from KingHeathen
Why do you waste your time with idiots? You legitimitize their view by debating them.
friedie1jeff 2 months ago
This is brilliant
NilSatis1983 3 months ago
this man is troubled
Ghibley 3 months ago
i have proof that god does not exist..if he did he would come down and smack your ass for being such a gimp..straight up lol
AdzeHD 4 months ago
asserting that "evolution can't be recreated in a lab" is bullshit, genetic algorithms in computer ambients prove otherwise.
Gretgor666 4 months ago
@KingHeathen okay. have you ever....and i mean ever seen a useful or positive mutation in the genetic code? You said that mutations are random. When in nature has time, random mutations, and natural selections EVER created anything that was positive? That isnt the way it works. Random mutations in the genetic code do not help humans....or animals or anything. lt is scientifically and genetically impossible to do so. Holding your faith in the chance that death will create is more than i can.
dskinnerify 6 months ago
@dskinnerify "lt is scientifically and genetically impossible to do so" That's not actually true. Most mutations are actually neutral (as in neither positive or negative); in fact, the average human has 50-100 mutations, though only about 3 actually change a protein. Here are some known positive mutations: antibiotic resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, resistance to atherosclerosis, resistance to malaria, and HIV immunity.
tinyurlDOTcom/a2dw3
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight okay very good. you came up with some good mutations. there are. now all of these mutations relate to infinitesimal beings. bacteria or viruses. this does not help the argument for human mutation. You said it yourself though....a human has a lot of mutations that end up being neutral and not changing anything. "millions of years" isnt changing anything then. There are also too many features on the human body such as the eye that could not have "evolved" or selected for by mutation
dskinnerify 6 months ago
@dskinnerify " now all of these mutations relate to infinitesimal beings" No, those last 3 I listed were mutations some humans have to be resistent/immune to some diseases. And yes, a lot of mutations are neutral, though whether a mutation is favorable depends largely on the environment; developing a resistance to some disease wouldn't be considered favorable if you never encounter that disease.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
CONT Also, your claim about the eye is entirely false. There are here on youtube alone that explain how the eye could have evolved. Your own ignorance about how something could have evolved is not a valid argument against it having evolved.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight it depends solely on the environment. imagine for a sec halfway mutated thumb, knee, or hip. It would not work. Not only that it would it work it wouldnt be selected for. The complexity of these parts of the body make them incapable to be "produced" by evolution. Each of these joints is unique. It would not have any "genetic script" to copy in order to make it a usable joint. Sure, animals sometimes have two head, or 9 legs. These dont help them. They make them prey.
dskinnerify 5 months ago
@dskinnerify "halfway mutated thumb, knee, or hip" And that comment shows that you have absolutely no clue what evolutionary theory actually says, that all your information on it is just creationist strawmen. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that fingers or wings developed by making useless half-formed things, with the eventual goal of having a whole wing. You still don't seem to understand the fact that evolution has no ultimate goals, no ideal design its working toward.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
I even gave you several examples of beneficial mutations as you asked and pointed out the fact that every single human has dozens of mutations, yet you still just ignored all of that in favor of your strawman claims that all mutations result in an extra head, legs, etc.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight no you gave me examples of what you "think" are mutations. I know that people have mutations. I do. I am aware. They just don't "produce" new things. I mean new. Not replicated. That isnt the way it works. sorrry, i should have clarified that.
dskinnerify 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Yes as a matter of fact it does. You hear them called 'vestiges" "vestigal organs", In fact some people call our tail bone that. I know perfectly what I am talking about. The fact that evolution has not ultimate goals also just increases the enormity of how improbable it is. Then what does evolutionary theory have to say about how they came to be....?
dskinnerify 5 months ago
@dskinnerify No, you've got it backwards; vestigial organs are evolutionary left-overs, not precursors.
"I know perfectly what I am talking about" Clearly you don't or you wouldn't be claiming that beneficial mutations have never occurred and other creationist strawmen.
"what you 'think' are mutations" No, those are definitely mutations, and they have "produced" something new (they "produced" disease resistance/immunity).
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I shouldnt have said "never" i knew that bacteria mutated and then were resistant to antibiotics. You were 100% correct, my fault. The way I see it is that it didnt "produce anything due to one fact. There had to be something there in the first place to mutate from. The genes that were mutated are already present. They didnt produce a disease resistance. The genes necessary to do this are already present. This is natural selection. not evolution.
dskinnerify 5 months ago
@dskinnerify "they didn't produce a disease resistance" Are you really trying to claim that disease resistance is something that has just always been in their genetic makeup? You must be since that is pretty much the only other way it could be there.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Don't bother educating ignorants. It's an attempt at building a house without foundation
JoshJamesification 5 months ago
@dskinnerify Yes. Your thumbs are the result of a "useful [AND] positive mutation"...watch my video "Beneficial Mutations" The problem here is that you don't understand what a "mutation" is and instead try to define it as "when something bad happens." A mutation is ONLY a change in the DNA replicated. Most mutations are harmless and do nothing. Some are harmful. And others are beneficial to the species. Walking upright is the result of mutations in our knees, hips, and ankles.
KingHeathen 6 months ago
For arguments sake, let's say that through science we can explain everything away in nature. What about miracles? I would like to know how this one happened. I know that it did happen because I saw with my own eyes. A friend of mine had a serious tooth problem. Her dentist said it had to be removed. While at a prayer conference, miraculously the tooth was not only crowned with a solid gold crown but the crown has a tattoo of a lion on it. Please tell me scientifically how this happened.
leadee2007 6 months ago
"Each day is meant to be similar to a thousand years" ?? So how long was Noah in the ark? or how long were the jews in the desert? Thousands of years? Or does it not apply to that? Your argument is flawed. There is NO evidence for a god, or ANY god.
Strathmore1985 6 months ago
lol Genesis is a metaphor, to a God time is merely endless. Each day is meant to be similar to a thousand years. Religions is flawed, but idea of a God is very well proven. Come on bro, you should know this already. You're a few steps behind.
damuroyalty 6 months ago
@damuroyalty "(the) idea of a God is very well proven"? Exactly what do you mean by that?
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
Biblianity - (Bible + Inanity) The inane belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Spread the word.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
What did everything evolve from? Where did it start? Outer space aliens? What did they evolve from? Gases going boom? Who made the gases? Whether we evolved or were created, it had to start somewhere and it's harder to believe that everything came from nothing. This debate will go on as long as humanity exsists. If Christians are right eternity will be time spent getting to know Him. If not, nothing lost. Can't say the same for those who don't believe.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 "If not, nothing lost" Except a lifetime wasted in fruitless effort praying to something that wasn't there, fighting the advancement of human knowledge, spreading ignorance and bigotry, etc.
As for what would happen if Christians were right, I think this video sums up my feelings quite well: watch?v=iClejS8vWjo
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnigh - Of course there is proof that things evolve but not from one species to another. No solid proof to date. There's no way to prove or disprove creationism or evolution and arguing over it is a waste of time. In either case, you are forced to use faith.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 "there is proof that things evolve but not from one species to another" Actually there is evidence of that. Not only has speciation actually been observed, but we also have multiple independent lines of genetic evidence confirming common ancestry, and those results also match up with the ancestry derived from the fossil record. Accepting evolutionary theory (or any other scientific principle for that matter) doesn't require faith.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Ok. If you want to believe that there is solid evidence for it but not all scientists agree. Whether you believe it or not, you are exercising faith by believing in the scientists and their research and theories.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 Actually no, relying on verifiable evidence is pretty much the opposite of faith. And as for those scientists you claim who who disagree, roughly 99% of the scientists in the relevant fields accept evolutionary theory because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it; there will always be people on the fringe who will dissent for one reason or another, though its usually because of ideological reasons (eg. there are some who still believe the earth is flat).
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Even scientists need faith to trust in something. The heart of the issue is not so much how things evolved but how it all got here in the first place. There are only two options of which neither one can be proved. One, there is an eternal being who started it all for a reason or two, it materialized out of nothing(chemicals had to come from somewhere). It takes faith to believe either way.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 "but how it all got here in the first place" Except that evolution, what creationists like yourself rail against the most, doesn't deal with that. It only deals with how life developed on earth.
"chemicals had to come from somewhere" Have you even tried looking up what the Big Bang theory actually says? Apparently not since it actually does address how the different elements were created.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@leadee2007 If you're going to argue against something, you should at least take the time to look it up first to find out what it actually says.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I have read what it says. I am not a scientist but it's still just a theory. At some point there had to be a beginning of even the elements and that beginning came from nothingness. Why is that so hard to agree on? Either things appeared out of nothingness or they were created. Is there another theory that I haven't heard of? I am not arguing with you. You could be right. My point is merely the fact that there is no proof either way. There are some things we don't know.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 You seem reasonable.
I can't recommend too highly this upload "History Channel - The Universe | Beyond the Big Bang Full Documentary (Greek)". It's long, an hour & a half, but worth every minute.
There's still room for a creator at the very start of the universe & the start of life, science has yet to answer those questions, but the answers today's science has are elegant and, for me, truly beautiful.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher I'll check it out. Thanks. I agree that science is elegant and beautiful, and also very important. I also believe that it's really important to consider that there may be more to life then what we see. I hate to see it ruled out just because we can't completely understand it. Truth is truth whether ones belieives it or not. I don't argue to prove I am right, I just want to challenge you to consider that there is a reason that you are here, because I care.
leadee2007 6 months ago
check it out please.. /watch?v=jmyYAPeyfFY
and yeshu will save your life if you belive in him.. there will come many .. and no peace.. first the decieving.. and then if u stay with yehshu and DO NOT BELIVE IN THE DECIEVERS than u will see what's happening =)
belive me.. they wanna decieve me too men.. i am your proof.. let me be the one who tell you in the name of ישוע that they tried to decieve me haaard and badly.. but now .. i'm still praying to Ḡòḍ and belive in ישוע
ItalyStyler07 6 months ago
watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=related
argument over :P
AnAverageBox 7 months ago
actually evolution has been recreated many times in the lab. examples are selective breeding. the very fact we have dogs means that evolution is irrefutably correct
buffaloface1 7 months ago
Creationist:
A term used for those who lack simple rationality, reasoning, and common logic.
438426x1 7 months ago
Atheism is as much faith as religion, neither can be proven thus both have the possibility of being true...or both being false, with something beyond our comprehension taking place. Obviously there are things going on that we don't understand, and I believe we will never understand. Obviously we evolve, but Darwinism isn't proof of origins of life, it's proof of the evolutionary process.
Live your life doing what makes you happy and doesn't harm or endanger another.
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo "Atheism is as much faith as religion" Atheism is more like the null hypothesis of religious beliefs. Theism makes positive claims about the existence of something, but it doesn't have any proof, so that's why it is entirely faith-based; saying that god doesn't exist requires no more faith than does saying fairies don't exist.
"Darwinism isn't proof of origins of life" The theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, just how it developed once it already had begun.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight "The theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, just how it developed once it already had begun." Oh absolutely it does, that's the point of the entire book Darwin wrote, that we formed from non-life undirected. And that's why I say Atheists have faith, they believe in as unfounded an origin of life and species as religions do. Belief in light of fact is faith. If I may ask, what is your point of view on the point of origin of mankind and the universe?
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo No, the theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, that is covered by abiogenesis. If you're going to debate something, you should at least try to find out what that something actually says instead of just blindly believing the strawmen its opponents spout.
My POV on the origin of man and the universe is that I accept the science which shows man evolved from apes and our universe began with the big bang.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
"belief in light of fact is faith" Actually, faith is belief in spite of fact, not in light of it.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@mjrtoo A religion is defined as a system of belief that has one or more deities (often, but not always), a system of heirarchy (god -> church leader -> follower in faith), religious doctrine, followers, sacred text and a holy sacrament, amongst other things
Atheism is a DIS-belief
Atheism has no deity
Atheism has no system of heirarchy
Atheism has no doctrine
I guess we do have followers, oops
Atheism has no sacred text
Atheism most certainly does NOT have a holy sacrament
atheism a religion?
AtheismoTheGreat 7 months ago
@AtheismoTheGreat I understand your point, maybe an anti-religion religion is more accurate, but it stil has the same traits. The way they defend their position vehemently without scientific facts, they both have faith.
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo Atheism is more like the null hypothesis of religious beliefs. It also doesn't really require faith either, its just a rather simple inference that can be drawn based on the complete lack of evidence for the existence of god(s). Perhaps if the gods (assuming they exist) weren't such tricksters by being so meticulous about removing any trace of their existence and influence on reality, such evidence might be able to be found.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Abscense of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence. There are a lot of things that we don't have evidence for but think exist, jump in the evolutionary chain for example. The god I speak of may have created the universe and the laws of it, but the god of the bible is a far different character. Faith is simply belief in spite of evidence, and Atheists believe there is no god of any kind, without any kind of evidence...it's faith, one way or another.
mjrtoo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjrtoo Correction: Atheists believe there is no god of any kind (well not "personal" gods, but mainly the organized religion types ie: intervention/communication in our planet), (due to lack of) any kind of evidence
skydome29 7 months ago
@mjrtoo "Abscense of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence" That sentiment is flawed. We don't believe something exists because of lack of evidence (think unicorns). We usually believe something exists because we find evidence for it, so if there is no evidence for something, then its correct not to believe in it. While its true that such a being might exist somewhere in the universe, CONT
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
the evidence which should be there if such a being existed is absent, so its fair to conclude that such a being doesn't exist. If some future evidence is uncovered that changes this, that conclusion might change, but given the incredibly minuscule chance of that happening, it is reasonable to conclude that such evidence will probably never be found.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight It's not flawed, there are things in everyday life that there is no evidence for that still exist, maybe a doctor doing a diagnosis, there's no evidence on the Xray, but the symptoms are very real and in fact the disease does exist. I also disagree with the evidence being absent, the DNA structure is so complex you have to question its origin. Again, I'm open to an higher designer or purely natural evolution, but without absolute proof either way, all options must remain open.
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo Your analogy doesn't really work either; just because a doctor doesn't base their diagnosis on the x-ray evidence doesn't mean that they aren't basing it on some other evidence. Your argument about the complexity of DNA isn't actually evidence of anything either, its nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that the complexity of the DNA structure and the creation of proteins is far more complex than at first glance and that it really needs to be looked at at greater detail before we can ever come to a conclusion that it's a natural phenomena or a blueprint by a higher intelligence. We really need to separate creation and intelligent design, those two terms are far different IMHO. One involves the bible and one does not. Anyway, I'm done...
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo Science also doesn't really deal in "absolute proof". There is always the possibility that some future discovery could possibly prove us wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can't make any conclusions with a high degree of certainty based on what we do currently know. The remote chance that someday something could be discovered which might possibly support belief in the existence of something isn't a valid reason to believe in the existence of that thing at this time.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight That's just it, I withhold belief in any one thing until there is proof. Plus, I really don't think it's a high degree of uncertainty, there's A LOT of uncertainty...in fact, I would say we're just downright guessing on the creation of the universe.
mjrtoo 7 months ago
@mjrtoo "I withhold belief in any one thing until there is proof" Do you believe fairies exist? Unicorns? An undetectable teapot orbiting our sun? Here's a great story by Carl Sagan that deals specifically with the flaw in believing in something for which there is no testable evidence: watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E
BTW, Creationism and ID ARE the same thing; ID is essentially just creationism thats been run through a word-replace program.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight actually not they are different. Intelligent design can refer to aliens as well as god and that our planet was placed here by a far more advanced civilisation. where as creationism is just god did everything. basically ID is more broad and general
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 "Intelligent design can refer to aliens as well as god" That was nothing more than an attempt to make this version of creationism to make it seem less religious and more scientific by being less specific in the language about who the designer was. This obvious attempt at subterfuge was made perfectly clear in the Kitzmiller trial where it was shown that the proposed ID textbook was literally just a creationist book put through a find/replace program.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight may be originally creationist but it may have been adapted if not your i guess your right
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 "but it may have been adapted" Except for that to be true, ID would've had to have changed since then, and there haven't been any real changes to ID since it was first introduced. ID has time and again shown itself to be nothing more than re-branded creationism, and no amount of tip-toeing around the identity of the supposed designer (usually with a wink and a nod) is going to change the fact that it is religious belief and not scientific theory.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight although there is this theory that we are just a simulation on a computer with ai. so surely that counts as both id and scientific?
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 No, that's a completely untestable idea, so its just a philosophical musing. Its also not ID because it makes different claims than ID; ID doesn't claim that we aren't real as your scenario suggests, its just claiming that life on earth was designed by something else.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight yeah but it doesnt exclude the possibility of not being real and being digital doesnt exactly mean we're not real. also it is theoretically testable because we would be made of pixels
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 Well, since there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that we're made of pixels, I guess its failed that "test".
Not excluding the possibility of something doesn't make it the same idea/theory; your simulation idea still isn't part of ID. Evolutionary theory also doesn't "exclude the possibility" of this being a simulation, evolution could just be the method the program used to create life on earth.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Actually due to light and electrons etc acting the similarly it is a theory under investigation as this may suggest pixels. also because id doesnt exclude aliens does sort of mean its not biblical as part of cristianity is the idea of a geocentric universe
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 "because id doesnt exclude aliens does sort of mean its not biblical" As I've already explained though, that vagueness in identifying who the supposed designer is was nothing but an attempt at disguising creationism to make it seem more scientific. Even the main ID proponent, Behe, has stated for ID to be considered science, the definition would have to be loosened so much that even astrology would be considered science.
Also, geocentrism isn't necessary for it to be creationism
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight look id can include made by aliens. creationism says god did it. there for they are not necessarily the same thing. and the bible says clearly the world does not move. which means geocentrism is part of the bible, admittedly not necessarily creationism.
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@buffaloface1 "admittedly not necessarily creationism" Then why continue to bring it up?
Intentionally avoiding identifying the designer doesn't make ID scientific; its just a creationist Trojan horse. Upon examination, ID also doesn't even really include the possibility of aliens; the main description of ID explicitly states that the UNIVERSE displays features of having been designed, so how could an alien race be responsible for designing the very universe that spawned them?
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight to show tat i am being resonable and able to admit im wrong. i never said it is scientific i said it could be. Also id is certain aspects of the universe being designed not necessarily the universe as a whole. and even if im wrong there it may be entirely posible for aliens to make a universe. we have very little idea of the limits of the technology i mean look around you at how impresive technology is. a civilisation may very well end up being powerful enough to creat a universe
buffaloface1 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight though technically speaking that would have mean they made a multiverse not a universe
buffaloface1 7 months ago
ur a fucking liar
tybalt718 7 months ago
are you drunk
jermobodean 8 months ago
i hope your cup is pewter that might explain your retardation
jermobodean 8 months ago
@TraceurAlec If you are just too lazy to read the rest of the comment I wrote here, then do me a favor:
Don't respond to me, as I do not speak with people that don't want to do research.
I might as well argue with a stupid theist.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@TraceurAlec I have about 20 comments on this link. You looked at one and felt you had enough information to insult me.
A poster wrote this:
"The idea of having a belief system is based upon putting answers to things where we have none."
My response:
So basically:"I don't know the answer, so I will make it up cause I will feel better".
How does this help?I will go further.
Making up an answer when there is none hinders science from finding out the ACTUAL answers.
It DAMAGES the world.
See?
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@TraceurAlec Do me a favor: If you are going to comment on something I wrote here, please read it all. Otherwise, you just come off looking foolish.
I will assume you are going to come back and read my other comments, and I will accept your apology in advance.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
So I will end on this note:
You started out very well, presenting your case.
Then you slipped into typical theist nonsense.
First, you plainly lied, then you purposely misstated what science does.
Typically, this is where theists start quote mining and then say that atheism must be a religion, as we have a belief god is not real.
I am glad you admit that the basis for your belief is: when you can't explain something you just make something up.
Now if you would only see how stupid that is.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
why dont you let people advertise? we're all just tryin to make it man.
ultimategoobah 8 months ago
if i had a dollar for every pixel this video had, id have a dollar
british123able 8 months ago
I'm not a christian myself, but I do believe in a god, and I do support evolution. However, I also somewhat support creationism, but ONLY on an atomic level. I don't believe we just popped up all of a sudden, that idea is just absurd. There is no data supporting exactly where atoms come from either, just as there is no logical data proving that we just popped up out of nowhere because of god.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 "I don't believe we just popped up all of a sudden, that idea is just absurd."
"I don't believe the world is a sphere, that idea is just absurd."
"I don't believe there are parasites living in the human body, that idea is just absurd."
Even though you admit "there is no..data proving..we..popped..because of god", you still basically write: "I do not have an answer, therefore I will say God Did It."
Claiming an answer when you have none is ignorant beyond belief.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino Fair enough, I'll give you that, maybe it is ignorant. But consider this, we're born completely ignorant of the world until we are taught. Having no answer about how the rest of the world works is just as ignorant as having no answer about how everyone got here. Can you explain how atoms were created? No, you can't. The idea of having a belief system is based upon putting answers to things where we have none.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 "we're born completely ignorant of the world until we are taught."
Agreed
"Can you explain how atoms were created?"
Me? No.Physicists? Yes.
"The idea of having a belief system is based upon putting answers to things where we have none."
So basically:"I don't know the answer, so I will make it up cause I will feel better".
How does this help?
I will go further.
Making up an answer when there is none hinders science from finding out the ACTUAL answers.
It DAMAGES the world.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino So as far as I know, from a logical standpoint, no matter how much scentificf proof of creation you have, it's still a never-ending cycle. Even if we do figure out exactly where atoms come from, we still have to figure out how the source of those atoms were created, and then the source of that source and so on. For now, a belief system just seems logical to me, but my thoughts could change with enough information.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 What you say makes sense...if you are a child.
"I don't know the answer, so I can do one of 2 things.
1)Admit I do not know and search for the answer.
2)Make up an answer, and then go on youtube comments and try and convince other people to follow the answer I made up, and not bother looking for the answer, and when others actually DO find the answer, and tell me, I will have to dismiss the made-up answer that I have been defending all this time."
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino All good points, except for a few things. 1) Not even physicists know exactly where atoms come from. I know, I looked it up. 2) I don't have the resources to research these thing, because there isn't even an established theory on the creation of atoms. 3) You are correct, plus simply making up an answer is just arrogant. I don't claim to know anything factual, just what I feel is correct at this time. Furthermore, I don't expect anyone to follow my beliefs, they are mine alone.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@necrogenesis1981 You speak of logic, then you write this:
"I don't claim to know anything factual, just what I feel is correct at this time."
Is that what you want taught to your children?
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
It is OK to say you make stuff up. It is NOT OK to lie and say:
"there isn't even an established theory on the creation of atoms."
The current view is that atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons. The protons and neutrons are at the central core called the nucleus, and the electrons revolve around it, being held in orbit by the electromagnetic force between the negatively charged electrons and the positively charged protons in the central nucleus.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 part 2 It is very much like the solar system with the sun at the center and the planets revolving around it. They were formed right after the "Big Bang" when our known universe originated from pure energy some billions of years ago. The energy was converted to the elementary particles (quarks, gluons, leptons etc...) from which protons and neutrons were formed. From these, atoms of different elements were produced.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 for you to say "Not even physicists know exactly where atoms come from. I know, I looked it up" tells me one thing:
Your investigative skills are very poor.
The Google search of "how were atoms formed" yielded me 13,200,000 results in 0.10 seconds.
There are some excellent theories there, as well as people like you, who just like to make stuff up.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino 4) I don't in any way disregard scientific proof or literature, and regard them as fact. As I said before, my beliefs are just filler until the scientific professionals find something. With all of that said, if the scientific community does find proof for the absence of a god, then yes I will dismiss my beliefs. Until then, I will express my opinion in as respectful a manner as possible.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 You do two things here that are disingenuous, and you know it.
first: filling your mind with crap while you are waiting for the answer is like learning how to bowl without lessons. Before you can bowl correctly, you must first 'unlearn' all the crap you convinced yourself was true.
Second, you show yourself a fool with "if the scientific community does find proof for the absence of a god".
This is not what science does, and you know it, and you ridicule yourself stating it.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 Final point on this: It is not a "never-ending cycle".
It is a staircase, with each step building on the work of the people on the lower steps.
What theists do is put a landing there and say "It is all figured out, we dont have to climb any higher!"
Luckily, there have been some brave people, EVEN UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH, that have pushed thru the landing and allowed the advance of science.
Unless you think blood-letting is a valid medical technique?
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino Okay I'll give you that one too, I guess I don't have very good investigative skills. So if it's a staircase, there has to be an end correct? There's always a source for everything, even the beginning and end of the staircase, and what lies beyond it that gives it that beginning and end. So where do quarks, gluons, leptons etc. come from? Where does the building blocks of them come from and so on? See? As far as we know right now it COULD go on forever.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 "So if it's a staircase, there has to be an end correct?"
Says who?
After ALL these back and forth that you agree with, you STILL say:
"I dont know where quarks, gluons, leptons, so I am going to make up an answer".
Lets examine your theory:
"There's always a source for everything, even the beginning and end of the staircase"
you, unspoken: "Except for my god "
OOPS!
Are you going to "give me this one" too?
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino Not only that, but I don't believe in organized religion either, that's where it gets messy in my opinion. I don't need anyone shaping my thoughts, I believe what I believe based on my own choices and nobody has a say in the matter.
necrogenesis1981 8 months ago
@necrogenesis1981 Believe me: I dont wish to call your argument nonsense, but you have to look at them from a logical point of view.
This is you:
"I don't need anyone shaping my thoughts, I believe what I believe based on my own choices".
"Why bother with messy facts from people that have studied this stuff for decades and done hundreds of experiments and published books that have been peer reviewed?
I'll just say "I don't know where atoms came from and invent my own answer."
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
first off evolution in the sense of the world is millions of years old IS a religion. you except it on faith so this is a religious debate. second of all it is a basic rule of physics that if an object is spinning and breaks or something comes of, it is spinning in the same direction. however if we all came from a ball of spinning dust, why do we have planets and galaxies that orbit in the wrong directions as well as revolve in the wrong direction. There are not enough characters for me
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 Ok first off evolution is NOT a religion. It is a scientific theory because unlike a religion there is scientific proof to back up this theory. Fossil evidence exists that backs up the theory of evolution. Religion is something that you believe in based on faith that it exists. Science is something you believe in based on facts and observations. There is a very distinct difference. If you can't see this difference then you are a moron and I will let you live in your fantasy world.
moonomatic 8 months ago
@moonomatic evolution is a religion because while you think that the fossil record only backs you up it supports creation as well. under the displaced sediment and imense presure from a global flood, it wouldnt take long for many things to fossilize. however evolutionist simply over look it and say its not a religion. if you are going to believe in something like that call it what it is
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 You really have no idea what evolution is, or what could be defined as a religion do you?
Hyeesa 8 months ago
@Hyeesa yes i do. there are six different forms of evolution. there is cosmic evolution in which space time and mater come into existance. then there is chemical evolution in which the chemicals become how they are. then solar evolution for stars. then planetary evolution for the planets. macro in which a dog could become a dolphin. and finaly, and the only true evolution, micro or a variation. as in a wolf can become a dalmatian. and a religion is a faith you live your life on.
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 You were going good up until the part where you said "in which a dog could become a dolphin" right at that second I thought to myself "This guy either has a serious head injury, has been reading way to much science fiction or is completely and utterly mentally retarded." Which one is it? Do some reading on 'Darwins theory of evolution' then you will realise that you have no real idea of how biological evolution works. A dog will never turn into a dolphin that is pure stupidity.
moonomatic 8 months ago
@Hyeesa I think he's a fucking moron. He has obviously been brainwashed from a very young age and secluded from any scientific knowledge that may have contradicted his religious teachings. He is one of many who stand no chance of being enlightened as to the reality that there is no god.
moonomatic 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 Are you retarded? How the fuck do fossils back up creationism? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. For one thing creationism claims that the earth is ~6000 years old. The majority of fossils found on earth are dated to be several millions of years old. The immense weight of a global flood could possibly create fossils but it would take millions of years to do so. Do you even know how a fossil is formed? It takes a very long time, way more than 6000 years.
moonomatic 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 No up or down no left or right no wrong direction!!! I get so tired of hearing silly stuff like that!!
berrywoke 8 months ago
@berrywoke what once again you dont counter you just say your tiered of stuff like .this
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
religion Has Never Proved Anything!
flightkiller09 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The creationist isn't Human anymore. It is a fine example of devolution by choice. A failed fallen lowbrow version of bipedal hominid. An embarrassing farcical dipshit that, to become a creationist, has handed away the very trait that used to make them human. Logic. Its a fact that you cannot be both Human and religious at the same moment. You must choose one side or the other. We must cleanse Earth of this filth, this vermin until only the Humans are left and we can live in peace.
699backstab 8 months ago
please show ME the evidence, the proof the REAL physical evidence for the existence of god. And if god exists then why not unicorns
TheMattvd1 8 months ago
You're damn right they won't be able to prove anything!
heero505 8 months ago 2
Love the world.... not just one way... Gods image is love remember..... The bible is only one part of the truth..... God is spirit..... and His spirit exists in all good moral principles across the world..... God gave us Jesus... but He also gave us Buddha.... Krishna..... MLK...... we are all children of God... we are God .... together...... appreciate peoples differences.... they are necessary God made it this way.... and He does no mistakes....
codehendrix 8 months ago
Your "friend" 's premise is false. Ask a geneticist if evolution can be reproduced in a lab - it is done all the time. It's the root a good deal of our understanding of genetic theory and used heavily in the research & discovery of anti-biotics & other drugs. He was probably making the common creationist error of confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and he was thinking about the quasi-successful experiments in the early & mid 20th century trying to create life from non-living material.
StevenBee2 8 months ago
You seem a little tiipsy...
aguirrmar 8 months ago
seems he doesn't belive there is enough room in the universe for his ego and god
velenvskaelhas 9 months ago 2
I have proof of creation. If anyone is interested in seeing this proof, the easiest way to get to the videos is to click on the link below to my YouTube channel davnxs. Once you are at my channel click on the play list button then on Creation Proof play list. Start with the video at the top and work your way down the list.
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs So after we've wasted over 13 hours watching those BS videos on your playlist, which I'm not sure you have even watched all of, what then? After this discussion with you and having already seen some of the videos, I have a general idea of the claims being made, I can say with a high amount of certainty that most of those claims, if not all of them, have probably already been refuted.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "Every video on my play list under Creation Proof I have watched more than once" Including the one by Edward Current? Wow, I guess there is something to say for Poe's Law after all. Did you just not realize that his videos are satire? And I thought you were supposed to have an infallible BS/lie detector.
"not gaining intelligence, but regaining it" Oh? And exactly what "proof" is that?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight You are such an ass, you just through things out there that you don't even know about. The def. for Poe's law is at
conserv apedia dot com / Poe's_law
(Wow, I guess there is something to say for Poe's Law after all.) what a fool!
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs Right, because Conservapedia is a bastion of unbiased facts and truth. &_& Did you think I didn't know what Poe's Law was before I mentioned it? If so, then why did you think I mentioned it in the first place? Your inclusion of satirical videos in your playlist of "proof" is a perfect demonstration of Poe's Law in action; since he didn't come right out and say it in the video, you thought he was being sincere.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Refusing to acknowledge refutations of your "creation proof" doesn't mean that your "evidence" remains valid; throwing a tantrum and refusing to back up your claims doesn't either. This video is about the supposed proof for creation, that means that the evidence that is presented IS the topic of discussion, despite what you may think.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight show me the peer reviewed articles refuting Polonium Halos! I'm not talking your bullshit site that never referenced to any peer reviewed articles refuting Polonium Halos. Just tell me where I can find them even. And I'm sorry but you can not deny that Robert Gentry was threatened not to go to that trial. See, your the one that want's to deny real evidence, not me!
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "you can not deny..." I can express my doubt and disbelief that such a thing actually happened, but I can't really disprove it since the only evidence of it ever supposedly taking place is Gentry's own unverifiable account.
"peer reviewed articles refuting" I have already given these, but here are some of them again: Odom and Rink 1989, Science; Lee 1997, Nature; Taylor and McLennan 1996, Scientific American; Wakefield 1988, Journal of Geological Education.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
I think you need to do more research on the polo isue.
see
csun dot edu / ~vcgeo 005 / revised8 h t m
Numerous attempts have been made to counteract Gentry's claim and to show that Po halos are formed by less dramatic processes. None of these has been fully satisfactory.
en dot wiki pedia dot org / wiki / Radiohalo
This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the factGentry's "polonium halos"
They haven't proven anything aganst Gentry.
davnxs 8 months ago
@davnxs Wow. Can we say cherry-picking? You picked one sentence out of that wiki article that said that the alternate explanations haven't been proven experimentally, but completely ignored the evidence supporting the explanation, the widely accepted explanation (which isn't Gentry's), Gentry's claims being considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and the arguments of Gentry and other creationists being rebutted in peer-review.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
So you use wikipedia as a source? Then why not use it in your reference to Poe's Law? What's the matter, did the wiki article not have enough biased and off-topic commentary for you?
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
The video on this page, is a video asking for proof of creation. If you want to comment, then comment on the videos that I have posted for proof of creation. The easiest way to find those videos is to go to my channel, click on play list, and then on Creation Proof. Start with the top video and work your way down. Unless you want to comment on those videos, I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore.
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs We HAVE been discussing the so-called "creation proof" that you've been presenting (they're the same videos you've been linking here after all), we just don't find those videos nearly as convincing as you clearly do. You just deny the evidence which refutes the claims made by them, insist that your supposedly infallible ability to detect lies trumps disconfirming physical evidence, or that unprovable conspiracies are behind such evidence.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "Don't recall you saying anything about them?" That's because you haven't actually mentioned any of this yet. So far you've only really mentioned Wyatt's fraudulent claims and the supposed conspiracy against creationists. I'm not going to waste my time guessing what it is you're referring to with those vague questions and researching that guess, so why don't you state exactly what you're claiming happens.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs Repeating that little "watch the 13+ hours of videos in my playlist" comment doesn't actually count as stating your claim (especially when I'm doubtful you've even watched them all yourself). It's also not "proof" of anything since (as I already mentioned) most, if not all, of the claims in those videos have already been refuted.
Also, evidence isn't suppressed if it doesn't fit the current model, regardless of which scientific theory you're talking about.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "do some research your self on the supression..." You are the one making the claim that suppression is actually happening, so the onus is on YOU to support your claim, not for others to find the support for you and then agree with or refute it. Why not start by giving specific examples of this supposed suppression?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Yes, the origin of the term "Caucasian" being applied to white people is because it was thought 200 years ago that their ancestral home was the Caucus mountains (for quite racist reasons might I add). This has since been shown not to be true, but the term had already become part of the vernacular, so the definition just got changed to mean the people from and around Europe.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I don't know where you get your information from, but it's not because they are suppose to be from the Caucus Mountains, but because after the Babylonian captivity they went north over the Caucus Mountains. So far as I know they are still called the Caucasian race, and yes they settled all over W. Europe. Yes, many of them are very racist, but I don't see how that has anything to do with where the're from?
davnxs 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "have you fogotten Robert Gentry and Expelled" Have you forgotten Expelled Exposed which refuted pretty much every claim made in Expelled, including the ones about suppression? Gentry's claims of suppression are just as wrong as those of the people in Expelled. Don't reference past comments if you're going to delete them (what's the matter, embarrassed by what you said?) because you can't reference what you wrote if they're not there anymore.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I deleted them because any kind of dialog with you is like talking to a brick wall. I really don't give a sit what you or anyone else thinks. I posted the proof of creation that this video was asking for because I thought maybe some people seeing them might realize they were wrong about evolution, and realize that there is more proof for creation, witch there is. You are acting like the flat earthers did, just going along with the majority because it's what the majority believe.
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs Yes, you posted your "proof of creation" (though you removed even that), but you were entirely unable to defend it except to deny the evidence presented or point to some unprovable conspiracy to explain away the disconfirming evidence.
No, I'm not going with the majority simply because its the majority, but because it actually has the evidence on its side, and that's evidence that stands up to scrutiny, unlike yours.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight You have scientist that say one thing and I have scientist that say something else. That isn't ever going to get us anywhere, so what's the point? You always think your's are somehow right but mine are bullshit. As for unable to prove, all you got is a bunch of flat earthers, rather you want to admit it or not. The people I believe are right are coming out with what their finding even thou they are loosing their jobs in doing so, and you can deny that but it's the truth.
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "You have scientists that say one thing..." Except that I don't have to rely solely on the word of scientists, there is also the data that supports their conclusions and which is able to stand up to scrutiny instead of crumbling upon review like the stuff you've been presenting. Heck, the playlist that you presented as your "proof" still includes at least one video satirizing one of the points you've been trying to make; you really should look up Poe's Law sometime.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@PSNRogueZombie The video on this page, is a video asking for proof of creation. If you want to comment, then comment on the videos that I have posted for proof of creation. The easiest way to find those videos is to go to my channel, click on play list, and then on Creation Proof. Start with the top video and work your way down. Unless you want to comment on those videos, I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore.
davnxs 9 months ago
@PSNRogueZombie I call anyone who doesn't want to look at the facts that. The facts are that evolution has nothing. If you look at what's out there, and that's what I'm doing, the evidence points to an intelligences created life. The majority believe in evolution and wont even look at other information to evaluate it. That's what the flat earther's did. So if the shoe fits, what can I say. Just click on davnxs, then on playlist, then start with the 1st video and work your way down.
davnxs 9 months ago
@PSNRogueZombie
P.S. LYAO all you want.
We'll see who's LTAO in the end.
It'll be me, at you flat earther's
davnxs 9 months ago
@PSNRogueZombie Yes, that's right, I think something that anyone can correct is very reputable. It's better than a site that is controlled buy one person, any day. That is you know, how the future will be I believe. I suppose you are another flat earth er like ArcanaKnight, can't see thru the bull shit evolution theory has taught you. And yes, I believe there are powers that would try to keep the truth from coming out. If you can't see that, then your totally delusional.
davnxs 9 months ago
"CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE" @davn Seriously. If you really think there's a conspiracy around this, don't you think the least they could have done would have been to monitor the entry on wiki to keep out any indication of a conspiracy? You're essentially taking claims of one person's deathbed conversion and spinning that into some supposed conspiracy; don't you think there's a more reasonable explanation the opinion change?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
As for the anchor stones: Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat. The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.
h t t p : / / ww w. csun. edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs "and yes, that's a fact unlike evolution" Wrong on both counts. Its not a fact that there was a global flood, its actually a well-debunked creationist claim that is based on a very careful cherry-picking of the evidence.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs Look at Expelled Exposed to get the true stories from that truly awful propaganda piece. Your clips from Mysteries in Science are just as awful and use the same cherry-picked, shoddy evidence that is behind most creationist claims. You can't argue the facts, so you just make up a conspiracy to wave away all disconfirming evidence, basing it on little more than your unsupportable yet fervent belief that Wyatt isn't a fraud and one man's change of opinion on his deathbed.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
davnxs 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago
Comment removed
davnxs 9 months ago