@disquisition73 : I'm afraid you haven't understood how evolution works. Most mutations are neutral to survival, some are antithetical and a very few are favorable. A mutation which is favorable to survival allows more life forms which have it to survive and breed and eventually the less favored ones disappear. Down Syndrome is not a favorable mutation and someone with it is not going to survive and breed better. so it's not a factor in evolution.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
This is a classic example of the saying, " A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still!" IE, Even when people are presented with overwhelming evidence, that intelligent design is real...they would still want to hold on to idea, that man crawled out of some ooze, oh I don't know, a billion years ago, a million, 200,000 years ago...who cares! Then puff, here we are, supposedly smart and able to conquer the universe! 2012 & looking back, have you taken a good look at man, a
@JungleJargon I suggest you do some research and learn what science is and isn't. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is based entirely on evidence. No element of belief or faith is involved. As more evidence is found, the theory is continually modified. If any evidence is ever found to be inconsistent with the theory, the theory will be dropped. Contrast that with religion. No matter how inconsistent the evidence is with particular religious beliefs, they are never modified or dropped.
Evolution sidesteps science and is a disgrace to science.
Objects never ordered anything, mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome so there is no mechanism for evolution to ever take place because the genome has a limited amount of information that can only be altered according to possible variations that the limited genome makes possible.
@JungleJargon Where on earth did you learn that load of nonsense? Did you just make it up? There isn't a single word in that paragraph that remotely resembles the theory of evolution. I suggest you read a straightforward book (Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution Is True" would be a good one), find out what evolution is and how it works and then start thinking about real science, not that jumble of misused terms. Sometimes it's hard not to despair of such lack of understanding..
@JungleJargon; Sorry, but the phrase 'objects ordered everything you are' is meaningless. It has nothing to do with evolution or any other scientific theory of which I am aware. I believe evidence and conclusions drawn from evidence. If you believe something else, then your belief is faith and is not science. That's fine- just don't try and pretend, as creationists continue to pretend, that faith is science.
@JungleJargon: I don't believe that objects made me and the theory of evolution doesn't make any such claim. You seem to be confusing the origin of life with the theory of evolution. They aren't the same thing. Evolution has no element of belief; it is a theory founded purely on evidence. If any evidence was ever found that was inconsistent with evolution, the theory would be dropped. That's the difference between science and faith.
@landl47 Yes you do believe that objects made you what you are because it goes from objects to a life form without having a Maker.
Once you have "abiogenesis" by mechanisms that don't exist, you need billions more equivalent origins of information that did not ever exist before to get to other life forms and mutations never order anything in the genome and there is no place any order comes from that is not already existing.
You have a very serious problem that you did not even think through.
@JungleJargon: your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that you aren't even using the same arguments as other creationists. Every element in the human body is found in non-living form in nature. There are approximately 60 such elements and 6 of them (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus) make up 99% of the body's mass. So you, me and everyone else are made up of 'objects', but objects didn't make us. Please read some real science, not that mumbo-jumbo.
@landl47 There are so many arguments for creation by a Maker, there is no need to use the same arguments.
Evolution is not even based on any observable science. Evolution depends on order coming from random insertions and alterations and there is no order coming from any random changes.
Where did the order come from? You need to answer that question.
Mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome.
@JungleJargon: I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. Evolution is based on observable, testable and predictable science. You seem obsessed by 'order'- when you were born did your parents 'order' you? Were you the same as them? Of course not. All evolution says is that when a natural variation occurs which is positive, that lifeform does better. If it isn't positive, the lifeform does worse. If it's neutral, there's no change. It's easy to understand once you think logically.
"Natural variations" consist of existing information from both genomes of both parents. The variations do not consist of information that is not there.
There is no mechanism for evolution to ever occur.
This is the reason why teaching such nonsense as evolution irritates so many people.
Science does not back up any of the assumptions of evolution.
@JungleJargon: If you combine blue paint and yellow paint, you get green paint. Green is not blue or yellow, it is a new color. It's a variation, even though it is made up of the same components as blue and yellow. Is that easy enough for you? The theory of evolution is entirely based on science. If you knew anything about science, which unfortunately you don't, you would know that.
@landl47 Blue and yellow are like parents who have a green child. It is shared information.
The geome is what makes possible variations, not mutations, insertions or natural selection.
There is no mechanism for evolution to ever happen.
Good bad or ugly, it is the genome that is responsible because it was there to make the change possible.
Information that is not there does not affect anything in the genome and there is no way for good ordered information, that is not there, to get there.
@JungleJargon: you haven't any idea what you're talking about. Mutations ARE variations, I don't know what you think 'insertions' are and natural selection is the result of variations, not the cause of them. The genome is a carrier of information. When it combines with another carrier (in sexual reproduction), the information changes (mutates). A tiny change causes major differences- 98.77% of the human genome is the same as the chimp genome. Positive changes are called evolution. OK?
@landl47 Mutations cannot possibly account for all of the uniform variations.
It is the genome that orders all of the variations and it is mutations that end up killing us, proof that mutations do not order anything in the genome. Of course, you should have known that already.
In reproduction, the variation is ordered from existing information from both parents. That is the reason there is no evolution.
Our controlling information is very different from chimps which makes us very different.
@JungleJargon: Variations (mutations) aren't uniform. Most mutations are neutral, some kill (genetic diseases) and some are favorable. When the mutation helps survival, it spreads. The combination of information from both parents creates new information (blue + yellow = green, remember?). That's why there is evolution. Our controlling information is only 1.23% different from chimps. That's why they the closest lifeform to us and the one with whom we most recently shared a common ancestor.
@JungleJargon: The comment that everybody's left side should be different from their right is nothing to do with variations, but as it happens it is true. Your heart, liver, appendix, prostate are not centralised but on one side or the other. Are you left-handed or right-handed? A mutation is just a change and they happen all the time. Humans have many differences- height, eye color, skin color. Our difference from chimps is 1.23%. You're out of arguments.
@JungleJargon: Sorry, but everything in your post is complete nonsense. It doesn't bear even a passing resemblance to reality. It sounds as though you have read something about the human genome project but haven't understood it. The human genome project sequenced the human genome. That information is now being used as a basis for research in many areas of genetics. Nothing in the project discovered anything incompatible with evolution. Please try to understand a subject before writing about it.
@landl47 You did not really say anything and your arguments in favor of "evolution" are very superficial and vague. A given genome can only reproduce the same kind of genome. Any additional alterations are not going to order anything in the genome and if they do anything significant, it could be reversed. Either way, it can only make possible alterations as a result of possible infomation already in the genome. Mutations cannot do what is not possible. In real life, mutations are insignificant.
@JungleJargon: You are just repeating the same nonsensical arguments. You didn't understand what you were saying the first time and you don't now. Every time a new life comes into being through sexual reproduction it contains new information created by the combination of the DNA it inherits from its parents. When those changes are beneficial to survival, they are more likely to be passed on. That's all evolution is- natural selection of beneficial variations.
@landl47 At least you are not giving credit to mutations for orderly changes but sexual reproduction is not able to find information that is not there. It can only take things from what I call preexisting information and use information that already existed in the genome.
Cats only have a cat genome. You are assuming that it was something else at one time. That assumption has never been proven and it is highly illogical considering the number of orderly changes that are needed.
@JungleJargon: I haven't talked about 'order' because it is meaningless. When you combine different elements you get something that is new; oxygen and hydrogen are gases, but combined in the right ratio they make water. Cats have a genome that is largely the same as other mammals. The evidence that they descended from an ancestor that was also common to Asiatic linsangs has been proven by DNA analysis and is entirely logical. You just don't want to accept the evidence for religious reasons.
@landl47 If order is meaningless, nothing you say has meaning.
So you admit that Asiatic linsangs and cats have no known ancestors, none at all!
Your "arguments" are breaking down. That makes less work for me.
Religion is a strawman. I don't believe in religion. I believe what there is evidence of and evidence comes in many forms. Our conscience is evidence. It literally means from knowing science.
@JungleJargon: I meant your use of the word order is meaningless. Linsangs are merely the closest living relatives of cats, the ones that share the most recent common ancestor. Before that there were civets, genets, mongooses- the further back you go, the more species shared a common ancestor, until eventually everything did. If you don't believe in religion and you don't accept the scientific evidence (evolution), how do you think life came to be the way it is today?
@landl47 It is not as much the order that is evidence of a Maker, it is the function which is ordered that proves we have a Maker. There is alsono way for objects to order amino acids.
You are gressing, there is no evidence of what you are saying. Science is fine, it is the assumptions that I don't believe. Truth is better than the fantasy that you believe. Your timeline is extremely limiting. The hourglass of the sedimentatoion on earth limits the earth to thousands, not millions of years.
@JungleJargon: In the previous post you said you didn't believe in religion, now you say we had a Maker. That is religion, so one of your statements is untrue. Hypotheses have to be rigorously tested and to pass every test before they are accepted as science. Evolution has passed such tests for over 150 years. Dating the earth by radiometric testing is well-established science and puts the earth at about 4.55 billion years old. 'Hourglass of sedimentation' is religious twaddle.
@landl47 The fact that we have a very great Maker is based on what is observable. Hydrogen cannot be one of many essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us without having a Maker. It is science.
No one ever proved that a reptile turned into a mammal, it was never demonstrated so it is a belief and it happens to be a false belief because there is no mechanism demonstrated that would ever make evolution possible.
The apparent age of the earth is irrelevant to life on earth.
@JungleJargon: Creationism is religion, not science. If there is a Maker it is not part of the natural world and therefore by definition not science, which only deals with methodological naturalism. If you don't even understand the definition of science, how can you talk sensibly about it? The mechanisms for evolution are very well documented; you simply haven't bothered to check. Life began on earth about 3.5 billion years ago and evolved. You have no scientific basis for saying otherwise.
@landl47 So you want to limit knowledge and truth. According to your definition, the cause of the universe is not science because it came from nothing and yet all kinds of scientists are talking about bubbles, strings and things that have no basis in reality and that's ok with you. Those beliefs aren't religion to you while observable evidence of a Maker is religion to you.
If there was a mechanism for evolution, it would have to be ordered!
You have no scientific basis for saying life evolved
@JungleJargon: you have it backwards. You want to limit knowledge and truth by saying there's a Maker and that's it, no need to ask any questions or find any evidence. You don't know what science is and you can't tell science from the supernatural. You deny you're religious while offering religion as your 'science'. Yes, belief in a Maker is religion to me and to everyone else except you. You ignore the evidence for evolution by pretending it doesn't exist. What's your evidence for a Maker?
@landl47 Either you have a poor memory or you did not read what I posted two messages ago.
"The fact that we have a very great Maker is based on what is observable. Hydrogen cannot be one of many essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us without having a Maker. It is science."
The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of life forms requires a very great Maker.
The fact that we have a Maker doesn't limit knowledge and truth, it increases knowledge and truth.
@JungleJargon; Hydrogen, together with oxygen, carbon, nitrogen calcium and phosphorus, make up 99% of the human body. All of them are elements found commonly in non-living structures. If what you're saying is true, God chose non-living materials from which to make life. Why? Why not make life from something not found in other, non-living forms? Of course, if life developed naturally, that's EXACTLY what you'd expect to see. Religion has blunted your search for knowledge. That's sad.
@JungleJargon: You are correct in saying that there is no other set of elements to make life forms. My question was, why not? An all-powerful Maker could have made life out of a different set of elements, so why use the same elements as non-living material is made of? Because the Maker didn't value life any higher than a bunch of chemicals? As for an ordered form that doesn't have a Maker, a snowflake is created by a raindrop freezing. Perfect order and every one different. No Maker involved.
@landl47 A snowflake is not a function. It is not about order, it is about function that requires a Maker. Order is just a clarification of what kind of function it is and a function always requires a maker.
One set of chemicals shows there is One Maker of all matter and life forms.
It shows there are no two Makers and there is no Maker of our Maker according to the evidence that we have which is the only thing that we can go by. We cannot be making things up.
@JungleJargon: You are arguing in circles. All you're saying is 'Life requires a Maker. You can't show me life that doesn't require a Maker, because life requires a Maker'. I showed you a snowflake, which contains hydrogen, has order and is not made. You don't like that example, so you just deny it, and say, after many posts demanding order, that it is not about order. Please believe what you want. Just don't tell me what you believe is science, because it isn't.
@landl47 I thought you would never ask. Hydrogen is an essential working part in life forms and working parts never exist without having a maker. There are an additional eighteen or so essential working parts that also require having a Maker. That is almost twenty working parts that all require a Maker all working together inside of you obeying the orders of a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
@JungleJargon: Hydrogen is the most common element on earth, in non-living as well as living structures. What is your basis for saying that working parts never exist without having a Maker? Water works- it moves, evaporates, becomes ice (and snowflakes). It erodes, hydrates, creates environments for life and takes away life. Water is 2/3rds hydrogen. It's natural. Life is also made up of natural elements. Your only reason for saying life requires a Maker is religion. You have no evidence.
@landl47 Hydrogen only has function in life forms when ordered.
It is not about structure, it is about ordered function.
What does the function of hydrogen have to do with your strawman argument about "religion". I don't even have religion. I have the knowledge of the truth.
@JungleJargon: Sorry, but that isn't an argument. You're simply saying that there's a Maker because you believe there's a Maker, You have no evidence for that statement. Whether you like it or not, that's religion. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution (and your statement is not inconsistent with that: many theists accept the evidence for evolution). Since neither of us is going to convince the other, I think we've covered everything, don't you?
@landl47 The evidence for the Maker is the function because you can't have function without having a Maker.
Evolution is a harmful false belief with no evidence to support it.
The evidence shows there is a Maker so what anyone believes is meaningless and proves nothing.
I am finished when you understand that evolution does not happen and that everything we see is evidence of a Maker because everything we see is derived from hydrogen which has function and has a very great Maker.
@landl47 There is no other set of elements to make life forms. That is the point, that there is one set of elements that make up one set of life forms made by One Maker because the function of the elements requires a Maker.
It is the only evidence of the only Maker that we have.
"if life developed naturally" It didn't. That is a baseless belief of yours because objects do not order anything without being ordered.
You have to show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.
If you truly listen to both sides, totally unbiased, you will quickly learn how scheming, misrepresenting, dishonest, and desperate the ID side really is. ID embassadors like Kent Hovnid have a well polished infomercial saying things like: "How do you know the speed of light has always been constant? You werent there, and therefore both of us only have an idea but mine isnt funded by tax dollars"..If you remove the bias vale then you can call bull shit on it, even if it jeopardizes your faith
- incorrect, embriology remains strong evidence of evolution to this day, Haekel's embryios are only considered fraud because they over emphasised the simularities, however the underlying principle of his work ie. ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (in early developemental stages) is solid stuff
- Also idoubt Darwin would have considered embriology THE BEST evidence of evolution, the intricate morphological changes (used in comparative anatomy) would probs hold that title
Evolutionism's corporator Eugenia Scott is a lady in the same vein that the public facility with toilets for women sports the plastic placard: LADIES.
...that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished...
@MrJaredJammer Well then thank god (pun intended) embryology doesn't rely on Haekel's work, nor is universal homology in embryogenisis a necessary feature for postulating common descent. The 'yolk' is on you ;) (get it? Joke sounds like yolk, which has to do with eggs, and by extention embryos... nevermind, I killed it)
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
She makes inference that creation involves god, religion, or Noah. These are all conclusions drawn in her head. I would be more careful about defining what is religion and what makes one. Avoiding personal attacks and sticking to issues would be some good advice.
Intelligent Design is completely different. ID is a science of nature that presents evidence of design in all areas of nature to the sub atomic to the vast extent of the universe.
Disbelief in Coincidental Chemical Creationism does not imply acceptance of an alternatively irrational belief. There are two optional beliefs for us all, creation by chance (coincidence), or creation by intent (intelligence).
well...you get in your fucking car evreday.....it works..yet people denie that....its pretty strong evidnce.....its pretty funny...i must say the bible state....exodus 31:15....yet nobody answer this...(yet it as been.......200 over time iv state this...please tell....me how the bible..can be so wrong about humanity....how can it be so wrong about people working on a INVENTED ,,,,,please tel me.....
Just as a side note- have you ever heard of the jesuits lady? they're an order of catholocism and are considered to be one of the smartest groups of people in the world. They are may not be smarter than you but they definitely have more class. They don't post videos on youtube bashing atheism do they? I'd like you to see how effectively they have aided those in need and the great acievements they have made. Talk to one. You might learn something. Read the fifth week if ur interested.
@Hardlyjoking67: you apparently miss the point that it is immaterial to science whether Eugenie Scott is smarter than someone else. This isn't even a trivial concern; it's no concern at all. What is at issue, oddly enough, is what we have evidence to support. And what the evidence says cannot be the case. This is the world we dwell in; unlike your underdeveloped mind, the say-so of any given person, or group thereof, carries no weight. Only evidence. Period.
@ashman165 just to let you know that all scientific evidence is developed upon conjecture. There's no such thing as a precise measurement, there's no such thing as true data, the "scientific laws" that are developed around this data is guesswork and we know it. Then you claim we have no evidence? Ok well go guess about god too then if it make you happy. It's kinda like you guys can't touch or see god. So...can I touch your brain? can I see your brain? guess that doesn't exist either.
@Hardlyjoking67: precise measurements. No "laws" in science. This is interesting in that you're telling me this online. Anyway, to the extent we have laws in science, it's because they're mathematical consequents. Data are something we study very closely, to determine their accuracy, and precision. In science, these terms aren't interchangeable. You know, you needn't shout as loudly as you do that you're poorly educated. We can already tell.
@ashman165 i hope you realize that you're getting pissed of at a fifteen year old and i don't need you insulting me. Under developed...Really? what are you like writing a novel or something? i hope that one day you lose the use of your tiny reproductive structures so that you may not contribute your obviously inferior DNA to the human gene pool. does that get through to you? i was just saying that the lady was portraying Christans as hicks. jeez I think that you're less mature than i am.
@Hardlyjoking67: I find it most curious that equate my refutation of your poor reasoning to my being pissed off. Indeed, you give yourself far too much credit. I have no particular reason to be pissed off that someone else in the universe is poorly educated and possessed of poor reasoning skills as it in no way mitigates my ability to lead my life. In short, barring this slim exchange on YT, you have no bearing on my life. But whatever makes you feel good I suppose . . .
@ashman165 Most even tempered people don't call others uneducated. and by the way, i have nothing against atheists, i have something against people who insult others for their beliefs. I don't think you're stupid, I don't think you're dumb, I don't even think you're wrong, I just think that how you are expressing your opinion is wrong. I've seen faith do good and bad things to people. I've seen the lack of it do the same. I just hope you can say that your lack of faith makes you a better person.
@Hardlyjoking67: why you conflate being even tempered with noting how poorly educated you are escapes me. It's a non sequitur by definition. Yes, you do think I'm wrong. Indeed, you think I'm going to be tortured for all eternity for not accepting your bronze age myths as true. It isn't my "opinion" anymore than it's my opinion that I have a house; it's the nature of reality borne out by the facts. The rest of your statement doesn't warrant the time required to point out how stupid it is.
@ashman165 I'm glad you think i'm poorly educated. I score in the 99th percentile in standardized us testing and the the 5th percentile in my school which happens to be one of the top in the nation. You don't have to believe me. I'm not and idiot and I realize that may have offended you just like this video offended me. I just commented on it and you went from commenting to insulting. And by the way even if they are bronze age myths, they form who i am today and give me an identity and purpose.
@Hardlyjoking67 and by the way, i don't think you're going to burn in hell for your beliefs. That is not how MY religion works. YOU also made an assumption, that I am Catholic. You probably only know the rudiments of the religion anyways, so I'll explain for you. Christianity has split several times for several different reasons and disputes. One of these reasons is whether or not non-Christians should go to heaven if they lead a good life. I, and my denomination, believe that they will.
@Hardlyjoking67 Not as a rebuttal, but as an earnestly curious question: if you and your denomination believe that good non-Christians should go to heaven, what, in your point of view, is the point of Christianity and why _might_ you proselytize or do missionary work?
@InsulatedSynapse I think that a person who goes to heaven because of their good deeds unknowingly serves God. He/ she acts with Christ-like intentions and definitely deserves to go to heaven. The point of being Christian is recognizing that He is there alongside us, supporting us and believing in us to be like Christ. Christianity is not just about servitude, but acknowledging who you serve. It's about better understanding the being that created you and hopefully, better knowing yourself.
I'm sorry. You have forgotten so many things science CAN'T explain... In a vaccum, RANDOM PARTICLES START APPEARING. The Big Bang occurred fifteen billion years ago. That is nowhere near enough time to form AMINO ACIDS let alone protiens or simple life. SO HOW THE HECK ARE WE HERE?!? The bible isn't a literal translation, but a compiliation of interpretations of what happened in the world. I'm not saying "lets git up and git christian!" I'm just saying this lady can't bash religion w/o evidence.
@Hardlyjoking67: random particles just appearing you say? Well, it sounds like you're almost aware of an intensely complex area of physics. Keep reading on it. 15,000 million years isn't enough time for even a single amino acid to form? What bars this? How much time is required to make a single amino acid? Of course, the Earth didn't have 15,000 million years; it has had only 4,500 million years of time. And it managed to do the job nicely.
@Hardlyjoking67 I watched this whole video. I can't find where Dr. Scott "bashes religion w/o evidence." She didn't say anything about religion whatsoever. She's just trying to preserve science's integrity and the Constitution's Separation Clause.
Thats nothing....every New year...when the fireworks go of in the local park....new planets just pop up...its crazy, the local scientists group said its a phenom
You lack a basic understanding of the big bang theory. The big bang theory postulates that all of the matter in the universe was compressed down to a single point. From this point, all of the matter moved outward. It continues. All of the matter in the universe continues to move outward. The expansion is a fact.
The big bang theory does not propose that planets and stars are created by explosions. It accounts for the fact that all the matter in the universe is moving outward.
@DEricKesler How do you explain the origion of the point? Consider this, If all matter was compressed to one ginormous point, it would create a black hole so large that nothing ever could escape its gravitational pull as it falls through space. Please try harder.
@mountainman382, actually, intensely massive pulls of gravity, the likes of which one sees in a black hole are so large that not even light can escape it. There is no postulate which supposes that a black hole's gravity is so massive that the energy of an entire universe cannot escape it. Well, not until you typed here. What evidence do you have to suggest that a universe couldn't escape a black hole, even a massive one?
@ashman165 Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could mass or energy escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe's mass in some cosmic egg? It seems the your idea of the universe escaping it's own gravitational pull is a flight of fancy. Concede on this one point and I will give you other reasons why the Big Bang never happend.
@mountainman382: how then indeed? Of course, the solutions to these intricately complex and exquisitely interesting questions won't be found in the rejoinders attendant to YT videos. However, and I must hasten to point this out, gravity is a comparatively weak "force" in the universe. Sure, it can do lots of work and what not, but there are other fundamental forces which easily can overcome its pull. I will not concede a wayward point to the mathematically infirm.
@ashman165 Said "gravity is a comparatively weak "force" in the universe." Compared to what? Nuclear fusion? Even it has gravitational confinement. Don't forget Ashland where talking about all the gas, all the dust, all the planets, every atom in existence concentrated at one point. I don't beleive you are being honest with yourself on this thought. Such is the case with most who believe in cosmic evolution.
@mountainman382: sure. There is indeed an intricate relationship between gravity, and, say, fusion. Sometimes the sheer number of particles present are sufficient to create a gravitational pull so strong as to make the matter fold in on itself. Sometimes, though, when you get even more particles all bouncing around, the fusion is able to break through gravity's constraints. It's almost like different concentrations of matter yield different results. Odd that physics works, huh?
@mountainman382: you may certainly provide to me, and others no doubt, all the reasons you wish as to why the big bang never happened. What you cannot do, as indeed no one reasonably of yet can do, is to provide an actual argument demonstrating even partially successfully that it did indeed not happen. As is unfortunately the case, for you at any rate, all of the available evidence hitherto adduced indicates that this is what actually happened. Reality is really a bitch that way.
@ashman165 Consider this Ashland. A "big bang" would only produce hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation stars to somehow form should consist of only those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.
@mountainman382: really? After searching for stars which should no longer exist, you're saying they've not been found? Speaking of things also not found: your god. But this is all immaterial; there is nothing which restricts a big bang to the formation of only H, He, and Li. You're big on assertions; you're simultaneously absent on evidence to support said assertions.
@ashman165 assertion: Big Bang would produce only H, He and Li and such a star has never been found. Evidence: Bernard Carr, "where is population III?" Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, P. 829. "One might expect Population III starswith only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the sun) still burning their nuclear fuel. [ Q continued on next post]
@ashman165 You still have not given your examples of comparative forces in the universe that make gravity seem weak. “Ashman wrote "Speaking of things also not found: your god.” Ashman on this forum lets just stick to the Big Bang. If you want evidence from science for Gods existence send me an email at sandspider650@frontier.com and we can discus that too.
@mountainman382: must be that secret type of e-mail evidence I guess. My examples of comparative forces? The examples aren't mine (and apparently you can't read too well since I've already discussed vaguely nuclear forces). You seem not to differentiate the difference between the generation of stars today and ones which no longer exist. Many of the heavier elements come at the end of a star's life when it goes supernova. Not all do though. Anyway, that doesn't evidence your claim. Sigh.
@ashman165 I prefer to use email mainly because of the character constraints in this forum additionally it is off topic. Ashman wrote “..differentiate ..between the generation of stars today and ones which no longer exist.” Please re-read Benard Carrs quote. “Population III stars .. still burning their nuclear fuel".
@ashman165 wrote "many of the heaver elements come .. when a [star] goes supernova. This theory is hard to verify because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest form stars and galaxies.
@ashman165 Addtionally, the Big Bang also fails to explain the amount of helium in the universe. Ironically, the lack of helium in certain stars (B type stars) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars contradicts the BB therory. Also If the BB occured there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Only trival amounts of antimatter have ever been found even in other galaxies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwinism is a religion. Ditto evolution. Pick any god you want to create the universe, but it was a god who created it. There is no proof for evolution. It is a theory built on guesses, circular reasoning and outright lies. It's main purpose is not to prove that soup became life and eventually man, but to attempt to prove that God is not necessary for life. A logical fallacy.
"Creation science" is an oxymoron. it's a total contradiction in terms. It's reverse-engineered scientific theory; science with a preconceived conclusion. Total insanity.
I love the way that so many creatards who believe that people who are not saved by Christ, will go to hell and suffer unbearable torture for eternity, also gain joy from this and wish people (who's only crime is not agreeing with them) were dead and generally dance on the undug graves of their opponents and revel in the joy of their infinitely barbaric heinous beliefs. If accountancy for thought crimes are being tallied, the worst thought crimes in history, are providence of Gods. Interesting.
Not that I wish to brag but my aunt, who was a dragon, gave birth (as a virgin) to my nephew who eventually became ancestor of all meat eating dinosaurs because he had a transistor radio which could be used to tune into 'cosmic harmonies' which would transport him back in time and it had been modified by aliens (from planet sgwarg) to go back into the past and channel spirit guides which enabled him to morph into existing animals. as he had to fulfill the destiny of the prehistoric archangels.
"Creation science" is indeed an insult to the intelligence to the huge number of scientists who have made numerous discoveries through the ages for the benefit of mankind. But it allows a bunch of religious losers to gain undeserved publicity and allow them to make face-to-face debates against well-known scientists. Creationists are pests to human intelligence and scientific discovery.
the entire basis of science is to constantly question what you know. by very definition, creationism is not science, because it assumes everything to be just so, and despite full evidence disproving it, they refuse to look fact in the face, realize it is incorrect, and search for an alternate explanation, like any real scientist does.
the large problem is that all creationists assume that if they were to prove evolution wrong (which they haven't), that creationism would be right. The reason we teach evolution currently is because at the moment, it is the absolute best scientific explanation available. is evolution correct? Probably. but if real evidence came to suggest it was wrong, we would begin searching for another explanation. I promise you, that explanation would not be creationism
As to transitional fossils, skeletons are preserved well compared to inverterbrates down to bacteria. Even leaves are preserved better than squishy creatures. Older eras also experienced more earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor strikes, ice ages that also destroy fossils. Just because complex, hard creatures appeared abruptly is a deception. Squishy creatures around today predate the hard creatures according to their genomes. They were not fossilised but jellyfish and bacteria are still around.
Creationism is a smokescreen to the real god issues - god's infinite power, knowledge and love (or lack thereof). Creationists can just about string a few strawman anti-evolution arguements together to bolster their faith, granted. By focusing on orgin stories they avoid the IMPOSSIBLE questions:
If god is love and in control why make us suffer?
Why didn't god share much useful knowledge with us? Saying god/satan used Newton,Darwin,Einstein etc. to impart info. needs DIRECT evidence!
CONT... however they were not able to anwer these questions either, but at least they were a little more respectfull than you, unfortunatly your situation is very common among devout evolutionist, they think that only the scientist have all the anwers and lay people shouldnt get involved, and when they find out its not that simple they resort anger.
Squirrels & possums share many similarities: habitat, diet, digits, etc. They also possess extraordinary differences as the opossum is a marsupial. So? Let us extrapolate & fantasize & focus upon the original "oposquirrel."
Supreme court blind to religious prapaganda?Such a silly silly boy. I would check your surpreme spelling 1st, knuckle head! your funny. The fact that this outdated theory requires litigation to keep it intact should be making alarm bells go off.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. Charles Darwin
If there waaaaaaaaaay different how do you know thier human, are you talking about australopithecus,piltdown man,nebraska man. ETC. The fossil record is part of the weak underbelly of evolutionary theory. Your being fooled by hollywood makeup and pictures in magazines, unfortunatly even sometimes National Geographics. Major gaps and lack of intermediates of major animal groups are well known in the fossil record. You've been brainwashed.
You need to be more specific. There are many new studies of molecular homology that seem to refute the current theory of common decent. The mapping of the human genome project opened up a whole new universe, right now the mysteries out number the knowns.
The fossil record shows great diversity and highly complex creatures at the begining of life without transitional intermediates, its called the cambrian explosion 500mya and it looks nothing like Darwins hypothetical tree of life, even Dawkins has admitted to this problem. You have things backwards, the burden of proof is on believers in the theory.
That's not true. Perhaps if you actually studied the cambrian explosion you wouldn't say stupid bullshit like that. There was multicelluar life long before the cambrian, as long as 1.2 billion years ago, from which the cambrian organisms evolved.
And yes, the burder of proof for proving evolution is on those who support it. They have met the burden of proof.
And don't pretend that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution.
And where are all of these transition fossils that you speak of that show these evolutionary stages from bacterial life to the cambrian era where all the major phyla appear? Complex creatures appear abruptly and vastly in cambrian rock, you can chose not to believe it, but it dosent change the facts. If you have met the burden of proof, it has been so in your own mind.
Why don't you study evolution at a university or something, instead of resorting to asking random people on the internet? It makes you look like an idiot.
And yes, I am aware that the cambrian explosion took place. It was a 70-80 million year period of very fast evolution, and an explainable one.
You are going to have a hard time getting fossils of the early multicellular creatures because they were so squishy, but some living fossils remain, for example stromatolies.
First of all I dont no where you get a 70-80MY cambrian era,its more like 10-20MY it seems that number goes up every year, the chinese believe the number is even much lower than that,even the inflated number you give is just a blink of an eye in the geological time scale. Half of the cambrian fossils that we have found are soft bodied wich destroys your squishy argument.Second you contacted me dumb ass! and third I have corresponded with Ugenie Scott,Fransico Ayala,J Szostac & many others
The Cambrian is a geologic period and system that began about 542± 0.3 Ma (million years ago) at the end of the Proterozoic eon and ended about 488.3± 1.7 Ma
And by the way stromalites had declined by 80 percent in their diversity and abunduncy by the time of the cambrian era. That is called degeneration not evolution, sorry kid but your just winging it.
You implied that stromatolites were ancestral to cambrian phyla other wise why mention it when I was talking about the sudden apprearance of complex phyla.The problem is your replies are devoid of any examples of transitionals, if you cant understand that basic concept then maybe cause and effect science is not your thing. Punctuated equilibrium is science fiction.
You dont have to be a Christian or a Muslem, Jew, Hindi, agnostic, or atheis to comment on the observable evidence, in fact J Gould, Niles Eldredge,& Richard Dawkins all atheist have discussed the major difficulties with this part of the geological record among other parts as well. Ive already demonstrated that half of cambrian fossills are soft bodied and you keep repeating a squishy argument defence. I usually like to debate with people I can learn from but your giving me nothing here.
I think you got it backwards, im challenging the theory of macro evolution, the burden of proof is on evolutionist, so the question I should be asking is, you tell me whats new. I would be interested in knowing exactly what have you seen from these guys. If theres a specific question just ask, I tell you what, what exactly is your strongest argument for evolution. The more specific the more of a straight anwer you'l get. Your being a little vague.
I think alot of people would be surprized to know how many scientist of all different world views are dissenting from darwin. In fact the last three words would be great key words. dissent from darwin
Its interesting how Ugenie Scott uses examples of the most fire and brimstone people to try to make her point and then trys to apply that philosophical umbrella to all who critique the theory she never mentions Denton,Kenyon,Dembski,Berlenski,Behe,Nelson,Thaxton or even other atheist who have questioned Darwinsm.She then goes on to admit to trying to win the concensus by judicial litigation in the courts when this really should be decided by the universities after proper scrutiny and debate.
I've seen a lot of material from some of those scientists and looked up some of the others. They throw out the same insults they claim to recieve, use rehashes of the same decade-old debunked arguments and provide scant data. Can you link to anything that's new material and not just blog garbage to feed the fans? I'd read it for sure.
@disquisition73 Are u really sure?
google: 'beneficial mutations' and read some more m8.
Because i am pretty sure benefitial mutations exist.
Sure they are rare, but they do exist.
SilveradoNL 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 : I'm afraid you haven't understood how evolution works. Most mutations are neutral to survival, some are antithetical and a very few are favorable. A mutation which is favorable to survival allows more life forms which have it to survive and breed and eventually the less favored ones disappear. Down Syndrome is not a favorable mutation and someone with it is not going to survive and breed better. so it's not a factor in evolution.
landl47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 1 month ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
This is a classic example of the saying, " A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still!" IE, Even when people are presented with overwhelming evidence, that intelligent design is real...they would still want to hold on to idea, that man crawled out of some ooze, oh I don't know, a billion years ago, a million, 200,000 years ago...who cares! Then puff, here we are, supposedly smart and able to conquer the universe! 2012 & looking back, have you taken a good look at man, a
cloudrider1210 2 months ago
Eugenie Scott is my Princess Leia
Ironside783 3 months ago
wow, she's a great speaker. I could listen to her all day :)
paolovf 4 months ago
Evolution is not a science.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 5 months ago in playlist Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, and distinguished others
@JungleJargon I suggest you do some research and learn what science is and isn't. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is based entirely on evidence. No element of belief or faith is involved. As more evidence is found, the theory is continually modified. If any evidence is ever found to be inconsistent with the theory, the theory will be dropped. Contrast that with religion. No matter how inconsistent the evidence is with particular religious beliefs, they are never modified or dropped.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Evolution is not even a theory.
Evolution sidesteps science and is a disgrace to science.
Objects never ordered anything, mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome so there is no mechanism for evolution to ever take place because the genome has a limited amount of information that can only be altered according to possible variations that the limited genome makes possible.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Where on earth did you learn that load of nonsense? Did you just make it up? There isn't a single word in that paragraph that remotely resembles the theory of evolution. I suggest you read a straightforward book (Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution Is True" would be a good one), find out what evolution is and how it works and then start thinking about real science, not that jumble of misused terms. Sometimes it's hard not to despair of such lack of understanding..
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 You have to be able to explain what it is that you believe.
You have to be able to prove that objects ordered everything you are.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon; Sorry, but the phrase 'objects ordered everything you are' is meaningless. It has nothing to do with evolution or any other scientific theory of which I am aware. I believe evidence and conclusions drawn from evidence. If you believe something else, then your belief is faith and is not science. That's fine- just don't try and pretend, as creationists continue to pretend, that faith is science.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Yes, exactly, your belief that objects made you what you are is faith and it is not science.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: I don't believe that objects made me and the theory of evolution doesn't make any such claim. You seem to be confusing the origin of life with the theory of evolution. They aren't the same thing. Evolution has no element of belief; it is a theory founded purely on evidence. If any evidence was ever found that was inconsistent with evolution, the theory would be dropped. That's the difference between science and faith.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Yes you do believe that objects made you what you are because it goes from objects to a life form without having a Maker.
Once you have "abiogenesis" by mechanisms that don't exist, you need billions more equivalent origins of information that did not ever exist before to get to other life forms and mutations never order anything in the genome and there is no place any order comes from that is not already existing.
You have a very serious problem that you did not even think through.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that you aren't even using the same arguments as other creationists. Every element in the human body is found in non-living form in nature. There are approximately 60 such elements and 6 of them (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus) make up 99% of the body's mass. So you, me and everyone else are made up of 'objects', but objects didn't make us. Please read some real science, not that mumbo-jumbo.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 There are so many arguments for creation by a Maker, there is no need to use the same arguments.
Evolution is not even based on any observable science. Evolution depends on order coming from random insertions and alterations and there is no order coming from any random changes.
Where did the order come from? You need to answer that question.
Mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome.
Evolution is voodoo.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. Evolution is based on observable, testable and predictable science. You seem obsessed by 'order'- when you were born did your parents 'order' you? Were you the same as them? Of course not. All evolution says is that when a natural variation occurs which is positive, that lifeform does better. If it isn't positive, the lifeform does worse. If it's neutral, there's no change. It's easy to understand once you think logically.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 You are getting far away from science.
"Natural variations" consist of existing information from both genomes of both parents. The variations do not consist of information that is not there.
There is no mechanism for evolution to ever occur.
This is the reason why teaching such nonsense as evolution irritates so many people.
Science does not back up any of the assumptions of evolution.
Evolution is a disgrace to science.
Evolution is voodoo, not science.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: If you combine blue paint and yellow paint, you get green paint. Green is not blue or yellow, it is a new color. It's a variation, even though it is made up of the same components as blue and yellow. Is that easy enough for you? The theory of evolution is entirely based on science. If you knew anything about science, which unfortunately you don't, you would know that.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Blue and yellow are like parents who have a green child. It is shared information.
The geome is what makes possible variations, not mutations, insertions or natural selection.
There is no mechanism for evolution to ever happen.
Good bad or ugly, it is the genome that is responsible because it was there to make the change possible.
Information that is not there does not affect anything in the genome and there is no way for good ordered information, that is not there, to get there.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: you haven't any idea what you're talking about. Mutations ARE variations, I don't know what you think 'insertions' are and natural selection is the result of variations, not the cause of them. The genome is a carrier of information. When it combines with another carrier (in sexual reproduction), the information changes (mutates). A tiny change causes major differences- 98.77% of the human genome is the same as the chimp genome. Positive changes are called evolution. OK?
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Mutations cannot possibly account for all of the uniform variations.
It is the genome that orders all of the variations and it is mutations that end up killing us, proof that mutations do not order anything in the genome. Of course, you should have known that already.
In reproduction, the variation is ordered from existing information from both parents. That is the reason there is no evolution.
Our controlling information is very different from chimps which makes us very different.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: Variations (mutations) aren't uniform. Most mutations are neutral, some kill (genetic diseases) and some are favorable. When the mutation helps survival, it spreads. The combination of information from both parents creates new information (blue + yellow = green, remember?). That's why there is evolution. Our controlling information is only 1.23% different from chimps. That's why they the closest lifeform to us and the one with whom we most recently shared a common ancestor.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 That means everybody's right side should be very different from their left side, if variations are not uniform.
A mutation can only make a possibility happen that the genome makes possible because it's there in working order already. Mutations order nothing.
Every human has the same origin of information.
Our controling infromation is very different than that of the apes. It has to be and it is for us to be who we are.
The difference is coming from our DNA. You should have known.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: The comment that everybody's left side should be different from their right is nothing to do with variations, but as it happens it is true. Your heart, liver, appendix, prostate are not centralised but on one side or the other. Are you left-handed or right-handed? A mutation is just a change and they happen all the time. Humans have many differences- height, eye color, skin color. Our difference from chimps is 1.23%. You're out of arguments.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 The genome does indeed control the formation of both sides and if mutations did control the genome, we would be different on both sides.
Your chimp argument is weak because the result of what the genome does is so different.
It has to do with the growth of the proteins and everything that is so different than that of the apes.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: Sorry, but everything in your post is complete nonsense. It doesn't bear even a passing resemblance to reality. It sounds as though you have read something about the human genome project but haven't understood it. The human genome project sequenced the human genome. That information is now being used as a basis for research in many areas of genetics. Nothing in the project discovered anything incompatible with evolution. Please try to understand a subject before writing about it.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 You did not really say anything and your arguments in favor of "evolution" are very superficial and vague. A given genome can only reproduce the same kind of genome. Any additional alterations are not going to order anything in the genome and if they do anything significant, it could be reversed. Either way, it can only make possible alterations as a result of possible infomation already in the genome. Mutations cannot do what is not possible. In real life, mutations are insignificant.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: You are just repeating the same nonsensical arguments. You didn't understand what you were saying the first time and you don't now. Every time a new life comes into being through sexual reproduction it contains new information created by the combination of the DNA it inherits from its parents. When those changes are beneficial to survival, they are more likely to be passed on. That's all evolution is- natural selection of beneficial variations.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 At least you are not giving credit to mutations for orderly changes but sexual reproduction is not able to find information that is not there. It can only take things from what I call preexisting information and use information that already existed in the genome.
Cats only have a cat genome. You are assuming that it was something else at one time. That assumption has never been proven and it is highly illogical considering the number of orderly changes that are needed.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: I haven't talked about 'order' because it is meaningless. When you combine different elements you get something that is new; oxygen and hydrogen are gases, but combined in the right ratio they make water. Cats have a genome that is largely the same as other mammals. The evidence that they descended from an ancestor that was also common to Asiatic linsangs has been proven by DNA analysis and is entirely logical. You just don't want to accept the evidence for religious reasons.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 If order is meaningless, nothing you say has meaning.
So you admit that Asiatic linsangs and cats have no known ancestors, none at all!
Your "arguments" are breaking down. That makes less work for me.
Religion is a strawman. I don't believe in religion. I believe what there is evidence of and evidence comes in many forms. Our conscience is evidence. It literally means from knowing science.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: I meant your use of the word order is meaningless. Linsangs are merely the closest living relatives of cats, the ones that share the most recent common ancestor. Before that there were civets, genets, mongooses- the further back you go, the more species shared a common ancestor, until eventually everything did. If you don't believe in religion and you don't accept the scientific evidence (evolution), how do you think life came to be the way it is today?
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 It is not as much the order that is evidence of a Maker, it is the function which is ordered that proves we have a Maker. There is alsono way for objects to order amino acids.
You are gressing, there is no evidence of what you are saying. Science is fine, it is the assumptions that I don't believe. Truth is better than the fantasy that you believe. Your timeline is extremely limiting. The hourglass of the sedimentatoion on earth limits the earth to thousands, not millions of years.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: In the previous post you said you didn't believe in religion, now you say we had a Maker. That is religion, so one of your statements is untrue. Hypotheses have to be rigorously tested and to pass every test before they are accepted as science. Evolution has passed such tests for over 150 years. Dating the earth by radiometric testing is well-established science and puts the earth at about 4.55 billion years old. 'Hourglass of sedimentation' is religious twaddle.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 The fact that we have a very great Maker is based on what is observable. Hydrogen cannot be one of many essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us without having a Maker. It is science.
No one ever proved that a reptile turned into a mammal, it was never demonstrated so it is a belief and it happens to be a false belief because there is no mechanism demonstrated that would ever make evolution possible.
The apparent age of the earth is irrelevant to life on earth.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: Creationism is religion, not science. If there is a Maker it is not part of the natural world and therefore by definition not science, which only deals with methodological naturalism. If you don't even understand the definition of science, how can you talk sensibly about it? The mechanisms for evolution are very well documented; you simply haven't bothered to check. Life began on earth about 3.5 billion years ago and evolved. You have no scientific basis for saying otherwise.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 So you want to limit knowledge and truth. According to your definition, the cause of the universe is not science because it came from nothing and yet all kinds of scientists are talking about bubbles, strings and things that have no basis in reality and that's ok with you. Those beliefs aren't religion to you while observable evidence of a Maker is religion to you.
If there was a mechanism for evolution, it would have to be ordered!
You have no scientific basis for saying life evolved
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: you have it backwards. You want to limit knowledge and truth by saying there's a Maker and that's it, no need to ask any questions or find any evidence. You don't know what science is and you can't tell science from the supernatural. You deny you're religious while offering religion as your 'science'. Yes, belief in a Maker is religion to me and to everyone else except you. You ignore the evidence for evolution by pretending it doesn't exist. What's your evidence for a Maker?
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 Either you have a poor memory or you did not read what I posted two messages ago.
"The fact that we have a very great Maker is based on what is observable. Hydrogen cannot be one of many essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us without having a Maker. It is science."
The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of life forms requires a very great Maker.
The fact that we have a Maker doesn't limit knowledge and truth, it increases knowledge and truth.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon; Hydrogen, together with oxygen, carbon, nitrogen calcium and phosphorus, make up 99% of the human body. All of them are elements found commonly in non-living structures. If what you're saying is true, God chose non-living materials from which to make life. Why? Why not make life from something not found in other, non-living forms? Of course, if life developed naturally, that's EXACTLY what you'd expect to see. Religion has blunted your search for knowledge. That's sad.
landl47 4 months ago
Comment removed
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon: You are correct in saying that there is no other set of elements to make life forms. My question was, why not? An all-powerful Maker could have made life out of a different set of elements, so why use the same elements as non-living material is made of? Because the Maker didn't value life any higher than a bunch of chemicals? As for an ordered form that doesn't have a Maker, a snowflake is created by a raindrop freezing. Perfect order and every one different. No Maker involved.
landl47 4 months ago
@landl47 A snowflake is not a function. It is not about order, it is about function that requires a Maker. Order is just a clarification of what kind of function it is and a function always requires a maker.
One set of chemicals shows there is One Maker of all matter and life forms.
It shows there are no two Makers and there is no Maker of our Maker according to the evidence that we have which is the only thing that we can go by. We cannot be making things up.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon: You are arguing in circles. All you're saying is 'Life requires a Maker. You can't show me life that doesn't require a Maker, because life requires a Maker'. I showed you a snowflake, which contains hydrogen, has order and is not made. You don't like that example, so you just deny it, and say, after many posts demanding order, that it is not about order. Please believe what you want. Just don't tell me what you believe is science, because it isn't.
landl47 3 months ago
@landl47 No, I said function requires a Maker. You did not show me a function that does not have a Maker.
A snowflake doesn't have a function.
The ordered function of hydrogen inside of life forms is science.and it requires a Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon: what is hydrogen's 'function'? Why does it require a Maker?
landl47 3 months ago
@landl47 I thought you would never ask. Hydrogen is an essential working part in life forms and working parts never exist without having a maker. There are an additional eighteen or so essential working parts that also require having a Maker. That is almost twenty working parts that all require a Maker all working together inside of you obeying the orders of a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon: Hydrogen is the most common element on earth, in non-living as well as living structures. What is your basis for saying that working parts never exist without having a Maker? Water works- it moves, evaporates, becomes ice (and snowflakes). It erodes, hydrates, creates environments for life and takes away life. Water is 2/3rds hydrogen. It's natural. Life is also made up of natural elements. Your only reason for saying life requires a Maker is religion. You have no evidence.
landl47 3 months ago
@landl47 Hydrogen only has function in life forms when ordered.
It is not about structure, it is about ordered function.
What does the function of hydrogen have to do with your strawman argument about "religion". I don't even have religion. I have the knowledge of the truth.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon: Sorry, but that isn't an argument. You're simply saying that there's a Maker because you believe there's a Maker, You have no evidence for that statement. Whether you like it or not, that's religion. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution (and your statement is not inconsistent with that: many theists accept the evidence for evolution). Since neither of us is going to convince the other, I think we've covered everything, don't you?
landl47 3 months ago
@landl47 The evidence for the Maker is the function because you can't have function without having a Maker.
Evolution is a harmful false belief with no evidence to support it.
The evidence shows there is a Maker so what anyone believes is meaningless and proves nothing.
I am finished when you understand that evolution does not happen and that everything we see is evidence of a Maker because everything we see is derived from hydrogen which has function and has a very great Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago 2
@JungleJargon wtf are you talking about
RealPerson1000 1 month ago
@RealPerson1000 Objects did not make or refine what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@landl47 There is no other set of elements to make life forms. That is the point, that there is one set of elements that make up one set of life forms made by One Maker because the function of the elements requires a Maker.
It is the only evidence of the only Maker that we have.
"if life developed naturally" It didn't. That is a baseless belief of yours because objects do not order anything without being ordered.
You have to show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
If you truly listen to both sides, totally unbiased, you will quickly learn how scheming, misrepresenting, dishonest, and desperate the ID side really is. ID embassadors like Kent Hovnid have a well polished infomercial saying things like: "How do you know the speed of light has always been constant? You werent there, and therefore both of us only have an idea but mine isnt funded by tax dollars"..If you remove the bias vale then you can call bull shit on it, even if it jeopardizes your faith
Johnf85 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJaredJammer
"Comparative morphology and comparative genomics frequently refute one another, calling both into question."
- this is just plain untrue, they independently verify eachother almost universally.
"Similar physical traits that were once said to prove common ancestry between two distinct organisms don't match on the genetic level"
- more baseless assertion with no evidence to back it up
types10000 5 months ago
@MrJaredJammer
- incorrect, embriology remains strong evidence of evolution to this day, Haekel's embryios are only considered fraud because they over emphasised the simularities, however the underlying principle of his work ie. ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (in early developemental stages) is solid stuff
- Also idoubt Darwin would have considered embriology THE BEST evidence of evolution, the intricate morphological changes (used in comparative anatomy) would probs hold that title
types10000 5 months ago
@JaredJammer: you sir, are a complete ass
outlaw87100 6 months ago
Evolutionism's corporator Eugenia Scott is a lady in the same vein that the public facility with toilets for women sports the plastic placard: LADIES.
FinallyTheNight 7 months ago
Comment removed
FinallyTheNight 7 months ago
Thank you for fulfilling another prophecy!
...that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished...
krownzera 9 months ago
creationism is mythology on drugs
tanzanos 10 months ago
@MrJaredJammer Well then thank god (pun intended) embryology doesn't rely on Haekel's work, nor is universal homology in embryogenisis a necessary feature for postulating common descent. The 'yolk' is on you ;) (get it? Joke sounds like yolk, which has to do with eggs, and by extention embryos... nevermind, I killed it)
ianman6 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
achilles197474 1 year ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
She makes inference that creation involves god, religion, or Noah. These are all conclusions drawn in her head. I would be more careful about defining what is religion and what makes one. Avoiding personal attacks and sticking to issues would be some good advice.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
creationism is closer to aboigenisis
Intelligent Design is completely different. ID is a science of nature that presents evidence of design in all areas of nature to the sub atomic to the vast extent of the universe.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
Disbelief in Coincidental Chemical Creationism does not imply acceptance of an alternatively irrational belief. There are two optional beliefs for us all, creation by chance (coincidence), or creation by intent (intelligence).
lughcious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
well...you get in your fucking car evreday.....it works..yet people denie that....its pretty strong evidnce.....its pretty funny...i must say the bible state....exodus 31:15....yet nobody answer this...(yet it as been.......200 over time iv state this...please tell....me how the bible..can be so wrong about humanity....how can it be so wrong about people working on a INVENTED ,,,,,please tel me.....
lapmarty 1 year ago
@DEricKesler So...who caused the big bang?
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
Just as a side note- have you ever heard of the jesuits lady? they're an order of catholocism and are considered to be one of the smartest groups of people in the world. They are may not be smarter than you but they definitely have more class. They don't post videos on youtube bashing atheism do they? I'd like you to see how effectively they have aided those in need and the great acievements they have made. Talk to one. You might learn something. Read the fifth week if ur interested.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67: you apparently miss the point that it is immaterial to science whether Eugenie Scott is smarter than someone else. This isn't even a trivial concern; it's no concern at all. What is at issue, oddly enough, is what we have evidence to support. And what the evidence says cannot be the case. This is the world we dwell in; unlike your underdeveloped mind, the say-so of any given person, or group thereof, carries no weight. Only evidence. Period.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 just to let you know that all scientific evidence is developed upon conjecture. There's no such thing as a precise measurement, there's no such thing as true data, the "scientific laws" that are developed around this data is guesswork and we know it. Then you claim we have no evidence? Ok well go guess about god too then if it make you happy. It's kinda like you guys can't touch or see god. So...can I touch your brain? can I see your brain? guess that doesn't exist either.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67: precise measurements. No "laws" in science. This is interesting in that you're telling me this online. Anyway, to the extent we have laws in science, it's because they're mathematical consequents. Data are something we study very closely, to determine their accuracy, and precision. In science, these terms aren't interchangeable. You know, you needn't shout as loudly as you do that you're poorly educated. We can already tell.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 i hope you realize that you're getting pissed of at a fifteen year old and i don't need you insulting me. Under developed...Really? what are you like writing a novel or something? i hope that one day you lose the use of your tiny reproductive structures so that you may not contribute your obviously inferior DNA to the human gene pool. does that get through to you? i was just saying that the lady was portraying Christans as hicks. jeez I think that you're less mature than i am.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67: I find it most curious that equate my refutation of your poor reasoning to my being pissed off. Indeed, you give yourself far too much credit. I have no particular reason to be pissed off that someone else in the universe is poorly educated and possessed of poor reasoning skills as it in no way mitigates my ability to lead my life. In short, barring this slim exchange on YT, you have no bearing on my life. But whatever makes you feel good I suppose . . .
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 Most even tempered people don't call others uneducated. and by the way, i have nothing against atheists, i have something against people who insult others for their beliefs. I don't think you're stupid, I don't think you're dumb, I don't even think you're wrong, I just think that how you are expressing your opinion is wrong. I've seen faith do good and bad things to people. I've seen the lack of it do the same. I just hope you can say that your lack of faith makes you a better person.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67: why you conflate being even tempered with noting how poorly educated you are escapes me. It's a non sequitur by definition. Yes, you do think I'm wrong. Indeed, you think I'm going to be tortured for all eternity for not accepting your bronze age myths as true. It isn't my "opinion" anymore than it's my opinion that I have a house; it's the nature of reality borne out by the facts. The rest of your statement doesn't warrant the time required to point out how stupid it is.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 I'm glad you think i'm poorly educated. I score in the 99th percentile in standardized us testing and the the 5th percentile in my school which happens to be one of the top in the nation. You don't have to believe me. I'm not and idiot and I realize that may have offended you just like this video offended me. I just commented on it and you went from commenting to insulting. And by the way even if they are bronze age myths, they form who i am today and give me an identity and purpose.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67 and by the way, i don't think you're going to burn in hell for your beliefs. That is not how MY religion works. YOU also made an assumption, that I am Catholic. You probably only know the rudiments of the religion anyways, so I'll explain for you. Christianity has split several times for several different reasons and disputes. One of these reasons is whether or not non-Christians should go to heaven if they lead a good life. I, and my denomination, believe that they will.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67 Not as a rebuttal, but as an earnestly curious question: if you and your denomination believe that good non-Christians should go to heaven, what, in your point of view, is the point of Christianity and why _might_ you proselytize or do missionary work?
InsulatedSynapse 1 year ago
@InsulatedSynapse I think that a person who goes to heaven because of their good deeds unknowingly serves God. He/ she acts with Christ-like intentions and definitely deserves to go to heaven. The point of being Christian is recognizing that He is there alongside us, supporting us and believing in us to be like Christ. Christianity is not just about servitude, but acknowledging who you serve. It's about better understanding the being that created you and hopefully, better knowing yourself.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
I'm sorry. You have forgotten so many things science CAN'T explain... In a vaccum, RANDOM PARTICLES START APPEARING. The Big Bang occurred fifteen billion years ago. That is nowhere near enough time to form AMINO ACIDS let alone protiens or simple life. SO HOW THE HECK ARE WE HERE?!? The bible isn't a literal translation, but a compiliation of interpretations of what happened in the world. I'm not saying "lets git up and git christian!" I'm just saying this lady can't bash religion w/o evidence.
Hardlyjoking67 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67: random particles just appearing you say? Well, it sounds like you're almost aware of an intensely complex area of physics. Keep reading on it. 15,000 million years isn't enough time for even a single amino acid to form? What bars this? How much time is required to make a single amino acid? Of course, the Earth didn't have 15,000 million years; it has had only 4,500 million years of time. And it managed to do the job nicely.
ashman165 1 year ago
@Hardlyjoking67 I watched this whole video. I can't find where Dr. Scott "bashes religion w/o evidence." She didn't say anything about religion whatsoever. She's just trying to preserve science's integrity and the Constitution's Separation Clause.
logsdonj 1 year ago
This lady is hella smart and hella cute. But she doesn’t know squat about science.
dmh497 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnny1893 2 years ago
Thats nothing....every New year...when the fireworks go of in the local park....new planets just pop up...its crazy, the local scientists group said its a phenom
darpachief 2 years ago
@darpachief
You lack a basic understanding of the big bang theory. The big bang theory postulates that all of the matter in the universe was compressed down to a single point. From this point, all of the matter moved outward. It continues. All of the matter in the universe continues to move outward. The expansion is a fact.
The big bang theory does not propose that planets and stars are created by explosions. It accounts for the fact that all the matter in the universe is moving outward.
DEricKesler 2 years ago 3
@DEricKesler How do you explain the origion of the point? Consider this, If all matter was compressed to one ginormous point, it would create a black hole so large that nothing ever could escape its gravitational pull as it falls through space. Please try harder.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382, actually, intensely massive pulls of gravity, the likes of which one sees in a black hole are so large that not even light can escape it. There is no postulate which supposes that a black hole's gravity is so massive that the energy of an entire universe cannot escape it. Well, not until you typed here. What evidence do you have to suggest that a universe couldn't escape a black hole, even a massive one?
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could mass or energy escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe's mass in some cosmic egg? It seems the your idea of the universe escaping it's own gravitational pull is a flight of fancy. Concede on this one point and I will give you other reasons why the Big Bang never happend.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382: how then indeed? Of course, the solutions to these intricately complex and exquisitely interesting questions won't be found in the rejoinders attendant to YT videos. However, and I must hasten to point this out, gravity is a comparatively weak "force" in the universe. Sure, it can do lots of work and what not, but there are other fundamental forces which easily can overcome its pull. I will not concede a wayward point to the mathematically infirm.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 Said "gravity is a comparatively weak "force" in the universe." Compared to what? Nuclear fusion? Even it has gravitational confinement. Don't forget Ashland where talking about all the gas, all the dust, all the planets, every atom in existence concentrated at one point. I don't beleive you are being honest with yourself on this thought. Such is the case with most who believe in cosmic evolution.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382: sure. There is indeed an intricate relationship between gravity, and, say, fusion. Sometimes the sheer number of particles present are sufficient to create a gravitational pull so strong as to make the matter fold in on itself. Sometimes, though, when you get even more particles all bouncing around, the fusion is able to break through gravity's constraints. It's almost like different concentrations of matter yield different results. Odd that physics works, huh?
ashman165 1 year ago
@mountainman382: you may certainly provide to me, and others no doubt, all the reasons you wish as to why the big bang never happened. What you cannot do, as indeed no one reasonably of yet can do, is to provide an actual argument demonstrating even partially successfully that it did indeed not happen. As is unfortunately the case, for you at any rate, all of the available evidence hitherto adduced indicates that this is what actually happened. Reality is really a bitch that way.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 Consider this Ashland. A "big bang" would only produce hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation stars to somehow form should consist of only those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382: really? After searching for stars which should no longer exist, you're saying they've not been found? Speaking of things also not found: your god. But this is all immaterial; there is nothing which restricts a big bang to the formation of only H, He, and Li. You're big on assertions; you're simultaneously absent on evidence to support said assertions.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 assertion: Big Bang would produce only H, He and Li and such a star has never been found. Evidence: Bernard Carr, "where is population III?" Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, P. 829. "One might expect Population III starswith only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the sun) still burning their nuclear fuel. [ Q continued on next post]
mountainman382 1 year ago
@ashman165 The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star."
mountainman382 1 year ago
@ashman165 You still have not given your examples of comparative forces in the universe that make gravity seem weak. “Ashman wrote "Speaking of things also not found: your god.” Ashman on this forum lets just stick to the Big Bang. If you want evidence from science for Gods existence send me an email at sandspider650@frontier.com and we can discus that too.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382: must be that secret type of e-mail evidence I guess. My examples of comparative forces? The examples aren't mine (and apparently you can't read too well since I've already discussed vaguely nuclear forces). You seem not to differentiate the difference between the generation of stars today and ones which no longer exist. Many of the heavier elements come at the end of a star's life when it goes supernova. Not all do though. Anyway, that doesn't evidence your claim. Sigh.
ashman165 1 year ago
@ashman165 I prefer to use email mainly because of the character constraints in this forum additionally it is off topic. Ashman wrote “..differentiate ..between the generation of stars today and ones which no longer exist.” Please re-read Benard Carrs quote. “Population III stars .. still burning their nuclear fuel".
mountainman382 1 year ago
@ashman165 wrote "many of the heaver elements come .. when a [star] goes supernova. This theory is hard to verify because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest form stars and galaxies.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382 False. It's called spectroscopy.
theskepticalheretic 1 year ago
@ashman165 Addtionally, the Big Bang also fails to explain the amount of helium in the universe. Ironically, the lack of helium in certain stars (B type stars) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars contradicts the BB therory. Also If the BB occured there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Only trival amounts of antimatter have ever been found even in other galaxies.
mountainman382 1 year ago
@mountainman382 False. The amount of helium in the observable universe argues strongly for Big Bang cosmology and the standard model.
theskepticalheretic 1 year ago
Eugenie Scott is such a bad ass
Krispy785 2 years ago 4
You Krispy785 , u r son of b i t c h
gestapoization 1 year ago
if one thinks for a while about "theistic evilution", one comes to the conclusion it makes absolutely no sense...
pikechris1 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If evolution is true..i would bang eugine scott all night long
Superapeaholic 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinism is a religion. Ditto evolution. Pick any god you want to create the universe, but it was a god who created it. There is no proof for evolution. It is a theory built on guesses, circular reasoning and outright lies. It's main purpose is not to prove that soup became life and eventually man, but to attempt to prove that God is not necessary for life. A logical fallacy.
crazy650c 3 years ago
You are terribly misinformed.
-There is no "proof" in science, there is just evidence. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence.
-It is based on facts from fields as diverse as genetics, comparative morphology, paleontology and embryology.
-It's main purpose is to provide an explanation for how life changes over time.
malcolmeat 3 years ago 36
"Creation science" is an oxymoron. it's a total contradiction in terms. It's reverse-engineered scientific theory; science with a preconceived conclusion. Total insanity.
dougmanjones 3 years ago 7
i love the way they applaud a man imprisoned because he refused to pay up to an unconstitutional tax system. interesting
darpachief 3 years ago
I love the way that so many creatards who believe that people who are not saved by Christ, will go to hell and suffer unbearable torture for eternity, also gain joy from this and wish people (who's only crime is not agreeing with them) were dead and generally dance on the undug graves of their opponents and revel in the joy of their infinitely barbaric heinous beliefs. If accountancy for thought crimes are being tallied, the worst thought crimes in history, are providence of Gods. Interesting.
skepticoz 2 years ago 4
thats nothing...my dad has a pic of his great aunt with a dinosaur that appeared from nowhere, just popped into existence in her kitchen. awesome
darpachief 3 years ago
Not that I wish to brag but my aunt, who was a dragon, gave birth (as a virgin) to my nephew who eventually became ancestor of all meat eating dinosaurs because he had a transistor radio which could be used to tune into 'cosmic harmonies' which would transport him back in time and it had been modified by aliens (from planet sgwarg) to go back into the past and channel spirit guides which enabled him to morph into existing animals. as he had to fulfill the destiny of the prehistoric archangels.
skepticoz 2 years ago
well i certainly can't disprove your claim, the only solution is to teach it alongside evolution in a science classroom :)
types10001 2 years ago
@types10001 that's fine as long as evolution is taught in suday school....
snarnold1 1 year ago
"Creation science" is indeed an insult to the intelligence to the huge number of scientists who have made numerous discoveries through the ages for the benefit of mankind. But it allows a bunch of religious losers to gain undeserved publicity and allow them to make face-to-face debates against well-known scientists. Creationists are pests to human intelligence and scientific discovery.
sunfireThu 3 years ago 6
the entire basis of science is to constantly question what you know. by very definition, creationism is not science, because it assumes everything to be just so, and despite full evidence disproving it, they refuse to look fact in the face, realize it is incorrect, and search for an alternate explanation, like any real scientist does.
CanPride 3 years ago 23
the large problem is that all creationists assume that if they were to prove evolution wrong (which they haven't), that creationism would be right. The reason we teach evolution currently is because at the moment, it is the absolute best scientific explanation available. is evolution correct? Probably. but if real evidence came to suggest it was wrong, we would begin searching for another explanation. I promise you, that explanation would not be creationism
CanPride 3 years ago
As to transitional fossils, skeletons are preserved well compared to inverterbrates down to bacteria. Even leaves are preserved better than squishy creatures. Older eras also experienced more earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor strikes, ice ages that also destroy fossils. Just because complex, hard creatures appeared abruptly is a deception. Squishy creatures around today predate the hard creatures according to their genomes. They were not fossilised but jellyfish and bacteria are still around.
PrivateSi 3 years ago
Good vid.
Creationism is a smokescreen to the real god issues - god's infinite power, knowledge and love (or lack thereof). Creationists can just about string a few strawman anti-evolution arguements together to bolster their faith, granted. By focusing on orgin stories they avoid the IMPOSSIBLE questions:
If god is love and in control why make us suffer?
Why didn't god share much useful knowledge with us? Saying god/satan used Newton,Darwin,Einstein etc. to impart info. needs DIRECT evidence!
PrivateSi 3 years ago
CONT... however they were not able to anwer these questions either, but at least they were a little more respectfull than you, unfortunatly your situation is very common among devout evolutionist, they think that only the scientist have all the anwers and lay people shouldnt get involved, and when they find out its not that simple they resort anger.
benthemiester 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Squirrels & possums share many similarities: habitat, diet, digits, etc. They also possess extraordinary differences as the opossum is a marsupial. So? Let us extrapolate & fantasize & focus upon the original "oposquirrel."
procommenter 3 years ago
Actually I think in US legally speaking creationist movement have failed but in UK seems to have a support in schools.
lustacapulco 3 years ago
Simple answer: STUPIDITY BOX (TV)
lustacapulco 3 years ago
Terrible public education and aggressive religious culture.
fatmanprime 3 years ago
I dream of Genie with the light gray hair!
vysehrad 3 years ago
You're right, not by chance. Fortunately, natural selection is not chance.
vysehrad 3 years ago
Supreme court blind to religious prapaganda?Such a silly silly boy. I would check your surpreme spelling 1st, knuckle head! your funny. The fact that this outdated theory requires litigation to keep it intact should be making alarm bells go off.
benthemiester 3 years ago
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. Charles Darwin
siyengar9821 3 years ago
If there waaaaaaaaaay different how do you know thier human, are you talking about australopithecus,piltdown man,nebraska man. ETC. The fossil record is part of the weak underbelly of evolutionary theory. Your being fooled by hollywood makeup and pictures in magazines, unfortunatly even sometimes National Geographics. Major gaps and lack of intermediates of major animal groups are well known in the fossil record. You've been brainwashed.
benthemiester 3 years ago
Benthemiester, I humbly disregard your ignorance. Tell me how do you plan to refute the DNA evidence?
siyengar9821 3 years ago
You need to be more specific. There are many new studies of molecular homology that seem to refute the current theory of common decent. The mapping of the human genome project opened up a whole new universe, right now the mysteries out number the knowns.
benthemiester 3 years ago
And whereever there is room for question the only possible answer is: God did it!! Or according to ID: An intelligent agent did it.
The fossil record support evolution. Even if the fossil record was not available, it wouldn't disprove evolution.
BTW, National Geographic is not a peer review paper, it's just a magazine. No scientist was fooled.
You want to believe that evolution is brain washing, well... many of us were "brainwashed" with gravity, relativity and all sort of facts. Poor us!
cperez1000 3 years ago 3
The fossil record shows great diversity and highly complex creatures at the begining of life without transitional intermediates, its called the cambrian explosion 500mya and it looks nothing like Darwins hypothetical tree of life, even Dawkins has admitted to this problem. You have things backwards, the burden of proof is on believers in the theory.
benthemiester 3 years ago
That's not true. Perhaps if you actually studied the cambrian explosion you wouldn't say stupid bullshit like that. There was multicelluar life long before the cambrian, as long as 1.2 billion years ago, from which the cambrian organisms evolved.
And yes, the burder of proof for proving evolution is on those who support it. They have met the burden of proof.
And don't pretend that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution.
fatmanprime 3 years ago
And where are all of these transition fossils that you speak of that show these evolutionary stages from bacterial life to the cambrian era where all the major phyla appear? Complex creatures appear abruptly and vastly in cambrian rock, you can chose not to believe it, but it dosent change the facts. If you have met the burden of proof, it has been so in your own mind.
benthemiester 3 years ago
Why don't you study evolution at a university or something, instead of resorting to asking random people on the internet? It makes you look like an idiot.
And yes, I am aware that the cambrian explosion took place. It was a 70-80 million year period of very fast evolution, and an explainable one.
You are going to have a hard time getting fossils of the early multicellular creatures because they were so squishy, but some living fossils remain, for example stromatolies.
Get an education!
fatmanprime 3 years ago 2
First of all I dont no where you get a 70-80MY cambrian era,its more like 10-20MY it seems that number goes up every year, the chinese believe the number is even much lower than that,even the inflated number you give is just a blink of an eye in the geological time scale. Half of the cambrian fossils that we have found are soft bodied wich destroys your squishy argument.Second you contacted me dumb ass! and third I have corresponded with Ugenie Scott,Fransico Ayala,J Szostac & many others
benthemiester 3 years ago
You're just plainly deny the duration of the cambrian, so there's no point in arguing.
But for argument's sake, let's say that the cambrian was 10-20 million years. What's your point?
fatmanprime 3 years ago
The Cambrian is a geologic period and system that began about 542± 0.3 Ma (million years ago) at the end of the Proterozoic eon and ended about 488.3± 1.7 Ma
PrivateSi 3 years ago
And by the way stromalites had declined by 80 percent in their diversity and abunduncy by the time of the cambrian era. That is called degeneration not evolution, sorry kid but your just winging it.
benthemiester 3 years ago
What does the abundancy or diversity of stromatolites have to do with evolution?
The point I made was that life didn't appear suddenly in the cambrian, but evolved rapidly during the cambrian from existing life forms.
There are several hypotheses as to the cause of the rapid evolution during the cambrian, look them up if you're interested?
P.S.
Writing to supporters of evolution does not make you qualified. Why not publish a peer-reviewed paper and win a nobel prize?
fatmanprime 3 years ago
You implied that stromatolites were ancestral to cambrian phyla other wise why mention it when I was talking about the sudden apprearance of complex phyla.The problem is your replies are devoid of any examples of transitionals, if you cant understand that basic concept then maybe cause and effect science is not your thing. Punctuated equilibrium is science fiction.
benthemiester 3 years ago
Due to the squishy nature of life before the cambrian, it is hard to find the fossils you speak of.
However, evidence for precambrian life is piling on, even evidence for precambrian metazoa, for example the bilateral Kimberella, and some cnidarians.
You should also check out the Doushantuo formation, which preserved fossils of bilateral embryos, cnidarians, sponges, seaweeds, corals, etc..
What is your point anyway? Are you just some creationist nutcase filling percieved gaps with god?
fatmanprime 3 years ago
You dont have to be a Christian or a Muslem, Jew, Hindi, agnostic, or atheis to comment on the observable evidence, in fact J Gould, Niles Eldredge,& Richard Dawkins all atheist have discussed the major difficulties with this part of the geological record among other parts as well. Ive already demonstrated that half of cambrian fossills are soft bodied and you keep repeating a squishy argument defence. I usually like to debate with people I can learn from but your giving me nothing here.
benthemiester 3 years ago
theres no micro evolution? its in the encyclopedia! in dna things changed, get left out? and thats the problem usefull information never gets added.
benthemiester 3 years ago
I think you got it backwards, im challenging the theory of macro evolution, the burden of proof is on evolutionist, so the question I should be asking is, you tell me whats new. I would be interested in knowing exactly what have you seen from these guys. If theres a specific question just ask, I tell you what, what exactly is your strongest argument for evolution. The more specific the more of a straight anwer you'l get. Your being a little vague.
benthemiester 3 years ago
I think alot of people would be surprized to know how many scientist of all different world views are dissenting from darwin. In fact the last three words would be great key words. dissent from darwin
benthemiester 3 years ago
Its interesting how Ugenie Scott uses examples of the most fire and brimstone people to try to make her point and then trys to apply that philosophical umbrella to all who critique the theory she never mentions Denton,Kenyon,Dembski,Berlenski,Behe,Nelson,Thaxton or even other atheist who have questioned Darwinsm.She then goes on to admit to trying to win the concensus by judicial litigation in the courts when this really should be decided by the universities after proper scrutiny and debate.
benthemiester 3 years ago
I've seen a lot of material from some of those scientists and looked up some of the others. They throw out the same insults they claim to recieve, use rehashes of the same decade-old debunked arguments and provide scant data. Can you link to anything that's new material and not just blog garbage to feed the fans? I'd read it for sure.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago