Added: 4 years ago
From: Impaler1815
Views: 58,340
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (4,666)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This was a great, well thought out video. Thanks for making it. :)

  • The world is 6000 old and we shared the world with the dinos! Nice point mate !

    1 quistion: Why the hell there are so many breeds of dog? All of them didn't exist 10 000 years ago. Did God "create" all of them or it was forceful evolution all done by man? Look at the domesticated horses they don't even have the same number of chromosomes as their wild ancestors did.

  • 100% B.S.

  • @AtheistSpanker Thank you for your precise, comprehensive rebuttal. You've given me a lot to think about.

  • @gamesbok

    Your correct, they aren't evidence. Good point.

  • @Frab2001 It still sounds like you're trying to make a point, but you don't want to tell anyone what it is.

  • @Impaler1815

    Yeah, these "artist renderings" always give me a good laugh. Well, thanks for the upload.

  • @Impaler1815

    The drawings are very imaginative and amusing. Yes, that is all I was pointing out.

  • @Frab2001 Well, good for you. I wish I could be amused that easily.

  • @impaler1815

    I'll take that into consideration. The drawings are seriously funny. I can comment in sentence fragments or just a single word if I choose. I doubt I am the only person to comment on You Tube without using a complete sentence. If it bothers you, just move on.

  • @Frab2001 So your point is you're amused by artist's renditions of prehistoric animals? Good to know.

  • nice drawings...lol

  • @Frab2001 You know if you're trying to make a point it would help if you used more than one sentence.

  • @impaler1815

    Yeah, thats it....uh huh.

  • I like the way the drawings are considered evidence. Hmm..

  • @Frab2001 I like the way you apparently don't know how to use google.

  • @Frab2001 Who took the drawings as evidence? You seem to be rambling.

  • This video is in no way sacreligous. It just shown how the earth has evolved. Animals breed with similar animals,then u get evolution. Look,we are doing it with digs everyday. They are breeding tiny runts with a ruby from a different breed to create these tiny dogs..and these dogs are always sick. So whether its forced,or it just happens,evolution is constant

  • @luvleeana oops. i'm sorry. i was writing this on my phone. They are doing this with Dogs. they breed the smallest runt of one breed, then the smallest from another breed.

  • Feels' like im in a lions den here but I watched about 15 seconds of your video, and I saw about 5-6 transitional fossils that have been disproven, among those were the crocodile walking thing, the fish and the ape to man. Lucy was never a transitional fossil, and neanderthal was just a human. Someone needs to refresh their studies!!

    Have a good day! =)

  • @Stianchez The only one, to my knowledge, that has been disproven is protoavis. The rest are legit. Also, I didn't put neanderthal in there. Someone needs to pay attention!!

    Also, you'll probably find your reasons for rejecting those fossils as transitional has been addressed in this video.

  • @Impaler1815 I'll have to look it up more directly, but neanderthal had our gene's in them. Proving they had sex with human's, which means.. they were humans. The only anatomical difference between the neanderthal fossil, and us is the forhead bone. Which in fact never stops growing, so if you got really old you'd look like a neanderthal

  • @Stianchez Why are you going on about neanderthals? They weren't in the video, why are we discussing them? Why aren't you instead discussing the other fossils you claimed aren't transitional, that were in the video? Also, get your information from somewhere besides Kent Hovind. You have got neanderthals totally wrong.

  • @Impaler1815 My bad for not watchign your entire video, a bit short of time and I saw some fossils in there that are no longer considered to be transitional so I was compelled to answer.

    Dont forget to check out my pm

  • @Stianchez Right, but neanderthals weren't one of those fossils, so why did you answer with that, instead of the ones that were in the video?

  • @Stianchez

    Disproven by WHO, redneck?!? Your local bucktoothed PREACHER?!?!

    Fucking jackass!

  • @DocReasonable Woha, slow down there cowboy. Im neither a redneck nor a preacher. I am norwegian. Why are you so angry? Just look up recent studies on the fossils, especially the crocodile like one, and the fish in the very beginning. Also check out the latest on the link between lucy and neanderthal, the whole chain broke down.

    I really dont see why bring up the hate? What happend to follow the evidence wherever it leads us?

  • I asked myself: What was really driving me to believe? Fear and powerlessness. Fear of death. Fear of uncertainty. Fear that there won't be a final evening of the score (easy to hold to after seeing your wife raped by marauding thugs before your eyes). Fear of ppl. Fear of random misfortune, and a need for purpose. It is a difficult transition, like leaving the womb, the breast, mother's arms, the family home. It takes courage, but some grow to accept the harshness of the world, and some can't.

  • @hisnameisfrankie Fear is not of God, nor is powerlessness. You've been led into a deception. Love and strenght is of God, the complete opposite of what you experience. Everyone goes through a period from childhood faith, to a mature faith.

    Don't fail yourself man.

  • @Stianchez Before I go on, which version of God are you talking about: Muslim,

    Mormon, Christian, Rastafarian, Zoroastrian, ...since you're an

    English speaker on Youtube I've left out many others, no disrespect

    intended.

  • @hisnameisfrankie Jesus christ =)

    Please PM your reply as there's multiple people on this chat and I don't get notification for all the comments.

  • @Stianchez I cannot dismiss everything that contradicts what I believed simply because it came later in time, that is the tyranny of the past me over the present me. As it took bravery to move from traditional beliefs to Christianity, so it took bravery to move from religion altogether. It’s my personal story and I think I’m a better man because if it. Some will be freed by my story of triumph, others by yours. Live, love, value life and value freedom and do what works for you.

  • @hisnameisfrankie I do this because I care and I want you to experience freedom and life. I see many false contradictions raised against Christianity, but as science develops it becomes evident. We were created. Have you not noticed how the Evolution theory(the bible of atheism) is retreating ? Tree of life being disgarded, transitional fossils, abiogenesis, dating systems, soft tissue, genetic entropy.

  • @Stianchez Sorry. I see a polarization of the issue in parts of North America, but N.A. is not the world. Perhaps something like a Christian Taliban will arise there. Generally however, I haven't seen a retreat of Evolution. And if all the things above have been challenged that's the normal course of science, and why I like it. It also show science is working well. All can be thrown away if contradictory information emerges. Science is not a set of facts, it is a way of arriving at them.

  • @Stianchez ...and even if evol is 'retreating' because of contradictory scientific evidence, that's science working well. Hopefully there won't be any silly people holding on to evolution, or any idea for that matter (but there always r, those r the ones who don't get it) else we would still think diseases were caused by evil spirits and healed by ritual. I'm not against the idea of humans being created. I'm not against any any idea really. Everybody has a right to their own guesses about life.

  • @hisnameisfrankie Im from Norway, europe. Not north america.

    Finally someone who isn't holding on to the paradime. Kudos.

  • @Stianchez If Evolution is 'retreating' what ever that means, it's because their bored by small minded twits like you who debate things based on fairy tales. How is it 'evident' that we were created? PS : Evolution theory is not a bible of anything. For the last time, Athiests do not worship anything. I know you'd like to think we do (you worship science haw haw) then you're on drugs.

  • @ponchred .... Evolution is a dieing theory. As science develops we understand that life is not as straight forward as we once thought. Your genetic material is degenerating, you're having a genetic melt down. Tree of life is on it's full speed out of the textbook common ancestory is being replaced with "bush of life" supporting creation again, fossils cambrian explotion, soft tissue and of course abiogenesis. Forming one functional protein has an odds of 10^150 .... thats just one...

  • @Stianchez

    Stop copy-pasting IGNORANT RUBBISH from creationist websites, and do something useful with your life instead.

  • @DocReasonable I can PM you a satisfying reply, but there is something called a 500 comment limit, even posting the verses would fill up the limit, and it is much easier to post a reply that has been written and articulated well rather than creating x amount of comments in a messy comment section.

    Christianity formed modern society, and contribute to the prosperity of this world. Is that not useful? You're the one who started this, what do you want?

  • @Stianchez

    'Unfortunately, Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves.'

    -ANSWERS IN GENESIS.

    Yes, even ANSWERS IN GENESIS admit that Hovind is a lying retard!!!

    No wonder the bogus 'doctor' Hovind is currently locked up for fraud - -which included stealing the taxes paid by his OWN EMPLOYEES!!

  • @Stianchez

    No, do NOT send me a PM -- I've already heard all of the ludicrous creationist lies imaginable -- unless you've invented some new ones just lately.

    Tell me though, what are your qualifications that enable you to know more about evolution than the world's leading paleontologists and biology professors?

  • @DocReasonable Why on earth do you bring Kent Hovind in all of a sudden? PS Kent hovind didn't do anything wrong, he just refused to pay tax to a corrupt government.

    You seem to have your mind set even before presenting an argument spicing it up with ridicule.

    There wont be any progress here, so I am done. Talk to me again if you ever honestly decide to seek the truth.

  • @Stianchez HOW DARE YOU imply that you hold 'the truth'? Under what authority do you sell CERTAINTY? You believe in pink unicorns, hence you believe you are smarter than everyone else. You sir, are a dreg of the human condition and I pity you.

  • Comment removed

  • @ponchred Ridicule is the type of defense someone turn to when they have no argument. Just because someone does a writing mistake on youtube, they suddenly become intellectual bankrupt.

    Having good language skills has nothing to do with understanding evolution. That's like saying you can't be good at soccer because you're english skills aren't up to par.

    You didn't present a single argument in your statement, although you said something interesting. Do you claim you have no faith?

  • @Stianchez You are 'intellectually bankrupt'. Perhaps further your thinking to consider that I didn't present an argument because you yourself, wrote a great big pile of words (probably copied from a website) to make yourself seem clever, but that in reality said nothing and made you seem rather dim. I have faith. I have faith it's going to rain this afternoon because there are thunder clouds in the sky this morning.

  • @Stianchez

    I mention the charlatan Hovind, because that is where you fringe lunatics get all your 'ideas' from.

    Kent Hovind collected tax from his employees and KEPT IT FOR HIMSELF.

    He lies about having a doctorate, and he knowingly spreads creationist garbage to deceive gullible clowns like you. He claims T.rex was on Noah's Ark and ate pumpkins... he claims the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks and all KINDS of other hogwash.

  • Believe in god or ELSE you get eternal hell, seems god does business mafia style. He created satan, hell, rules, us - imperfect, and demands we worship, but he loves us so much he can't change the rules because,,,?

  • @linkuei83 Because changing his own rules would mean he was wrong. Admitting he's wrong would damage his fragile ego. That's why he needs mortals to constantly validate him.

  • @Impaler1815 hahahaha well yeap, that's the answer, wonder if any religious people knew it. Wonder what would happen if god was a person and went to a shrink.

  • @linkuei83 It has nothing to do with changeing the rules. You have a free will, if he forced you to love him. Would it be free will? Would the love be genuine? No, we would merely be like robots. Do as we are programmed to do.

  • @Stianchez If I held a gun to your head and told you to do something, would you say you did it out of your own free will?

  • @Impaler1815 Tell me how offering you a free gift out of this misery is the equivalent of holding a gun to your head? That is possibly the worst analogy I have heard in my entire life. Dont argue for something you dont even have basic fundamental knowledge of, even if you dont believe in God try to understand the other position before turning to ridicule.

    God is all good, he offers you a free way out despite the imperfections, how is that holding a gun to someones head?

  • @Stianchez Wow, you don't think about your religion at all.

    God's the one who gave us the punishment. He's not saving us, he's sparing us. He could have just not made us sinful in the first place. But no, he made us sinful, and punishes us for doing what he made us to do. Where's the good in that? Where's the free will in that?

  • @Impaler1815 Define religion, before you call my belief a religion.

    You got it all wrong man, You have a free will to decide what ever you want to do. God doesn't give you punishment you choose it. God is the one breathing life into you. If god exists, then he is the source of your life. We weren't made sinful, we brought that upon ourselves by choosing this nature , you got the free will to choose to get out of this sin. To get out of this shit. Do you take it or not? Upto you

  • @Stianchez Religion: Devotion to a higher power, usually with the promise of reward and punishment for not following said religion.

    Sure we can decide, but we get punished eternally for not deciding the way God wants us to. That's not exactly free.

    Yes, God hasn't killed me yet. That doesn't make him good.

    We were made sinful, actually. God knew how we were going to sin when he made us, yet he made us that way anyway. He didn't have to make us that way, he's omnipotent.

  • @Stianchez

    If you think you have 'free will' then go ahead and do something GOD DOESN'T LIKE you dumbass FUCK.

  • @Stianchez We 'choose' our punishment? So your saying all of the little altar boys who have been brutally raped by priests 'chose' their punishment? Where was your 'God' then? BTW, 'do as I say or you'll fucking go to hell' is actually a pretty big gun to put to someone's head. Just pointing that out.

  • @ponchred ....... Do atheists loose their ability to think when debating against christianity?

  • Comment removed

  • @Stianchez actually it has everything to do. How can this be love if you are damned for an eternity if you choose not to. HIS FUCKING RULES. You either love him and go to heaven of not and go to hell. Try enforcing same tacts on your kids to see how it works.

  • @linkuei83 You're not damned for an eternity. God is omnipotent, which means he is perfectly just, either you pay for your imperfection, or Jesus does it for you. After you have payed for your sin you perish, you are no more. God is the one breathing life into you, if you dont choose God, you dont choose life.

    If god exists, picture yourself creating a people, you have to keep them alive with your energy, they say they dont want anything to do with you, what choice do you have?

  • @Stianchez So we have to pay for our imperfection, that God gave us? That doesn't sound very loving. Sure, he gave us a way not to pay, but again, that's just sparing us, not saving us. He could just not punish us eternally in the first place.

    If God doesn't want to spend energy on sinners, why did he create them in the first place? This is pretending an omnipotent being cares about spending energy.

  • @Impaler1815 If I dont reply to any of your replies, it's because I didn't find it. I prefer if we could PM from now on if you dont mind. Alot of people talking and it doesn't show up in my inbox.

    God didn't give you this imperfection, our imperfection is the absence of God. It is not of him.

    God is omnipotent, which mean's he is perfectly righteous. He cannot let anything imperfect into heaven which would mean it wasn't heaven. I'll explain this in detail in a PM.

  • @Stianchez

    Why does the choice have to be between good and evil? Why HAVE evil? There are millions of other choices we can make, without evil ever being an option. We can easily have free will WITHOUT any choice to perpetrate evil.

    Evil helps no one, so why did God invent the concept of it?

    God also created Satan, and knew exactly what Satan was doing all along.

    WHO is evil? ONLY GOD, none other.

  • @DocReasonable Do you believe in darkness? It doesn't exist darkness is the absence of light, do you believe in cold? It doesn't exist cold is the absence of heat. Do you believe in evil? It doesn't exist it is the absence of God. <--- Dont view "not existing" as not occuring, just think about that sentence for a few minutes and you'll get it.

    God never invented evil, evil is the ABSENCE of God.

    God knows what will happen in the future because it already happend. We chose it.

  • @DocReasonable Before calling me a liar, you need to be more critical

    I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all of those things. I am the Lord.

    7 I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

    For full explination on that just go here carm(dot)org / does-god-create-evil

    remove space and add a dot.

  • @Stianchez

    And what did God mean by this:

    'And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.' Nahum 33:6

    'Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?' --2 Kings 18:27

    'Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.' God, Numbers 31

  • @DocReasonable Part 2 Since im on a 500 limit, my last reply wasn't justified, make sure you read the link before you make any further comment on the God versus Evil question.

    now you are dragging in many elements that I need more than 500 comment in order to debate properly. Go to my user, PM me the verse you want to adress and we will take it one step at the time. I cannot answer those satisfyingly on a 500 comment limit.

  • @Stianchez

    If you have free will , why don't you use it? And if you DON'T use it, you don't have free will.

    You're a sycophantic SLAVE top the Lord -- who as the Bible amply demonstrates is a bloodthirsty, slavering psychopath.

  • @DocReasonable "If you have free will , why don't you use it? And if you DON'T use it, you don't have free will." What on earth are you on about.

  • @linkuei83 Hell isn't eternal.

  • @Stianchez ORLY!? Based on which doctrine. If i ask 100 persons i'll get 100 other versions of hell, seems anyone can interpret the bible or any other religious text into whatever he wants to because this suits him. Well sorry but you don't get to have your own interpretation.

  • @linkuei83 Your statement is contradictary,you just say if you ask 100 persons you'll get 100 differnet versions,and then you say I cant have my own interpretation thenwho in the name of all that is righteous get to decide which "version" of hell is correct?

    It's easy to know that hell isn't eternal, just read the hebrew.You suffer according to your sin,if hell was eternal everyone would suffer the same amount.You suffer your sin, and you perish. God is life, wicked people chose death

  • @DocReasonable sigh.... the new testament is made up of many text from many countires in different languages...

    The word used there is aion, which means a set period of time. You are not critical to anything you read at all

  • @Stianchez

    NO, stupid the New Testament is written ONLY IN GREEK!!!!

    The word you're stupidly trying to think of is EON not aion, which MEANS 10,000 years!!! AND it is NOT the word used in the GREEK MANUSCRIPTS,

    SO damn stupid aren't you?!

  • @DocReasonable This will be my last reply to you, and the last time I read your comment unless you PM to me, so pay attention. You are not critical to your sources, thank you for correcting my english in regards to Eon, but that word means a set period of time.

    The MAJORITY views the new testament as either written in greek or a greek / hebrew mixture mixture of Aramaic and Koine Greek or Mishnaic Hebrew.

    Study on the topic

    yashanet.com / studies / matstudy / mat3b(dot)htm

  • @Stianchez

    Shut up you fucking retard -- the NT was written in GREEK ONLY. YOu're confusing it with the OLD Testament, that;s how STUPID you are.

    The word used in REvelation 14 was NOT eon, it was FOREVER.

    If the English versions of the Bible are ALL WRONG, then that means MOST CHRISTIANS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG TOO.

    Anyway, FUCK OFF you retarded liar.

  • @Stianchez are you fucking nuts? My statement is contradictory? What i said stands, everyone can get their OWN interpretation of hell depending on what religion and/or denomination they adhere to, SO it's not possible for everyone to be correct, it's possible they are all wrong, what sets YOU apart from them? So NO you cannot get your own interpretation when you follow a DOGMA. If this is gods word shouldn't be susceptible to ANY interpretations.

  • @linkuei83 Why is it that atheists, are always so disrespectful and rude? Didn't your parents teach you any manners or do you live in a world with inferior morals? Im just asking, why do you always have to be so rude? I really don't get it. Why are you so angry?

    God's word isn't suspect to any interpretations, it's very clear if you just take time to read the hebrew / greek, and read it in context. Get a study bible.

  • @Stianchez because we are fed up with theists being completely ignorant and/or liars. I know the bible, you on the other hand doesn't know much about logic. You think bible is the word of god, why not Quran, or torah or bhagavad gita. Everyone of those religions thinks he IS the smart one that knows the truth and word of god. Do you understand this? Now to further my point, why your EXACT denomination of christianity think it's the right one?

  • @linkuei83 ... You know the bible and you ask me the question why not the other holy books. You do realize without us "theists" you wouldnt exist? Atheism is the disbelief in God. Just a fun fact.

    Your generilazation is disgusting. There is as much difference between the Bible and the Quran as there is between christianity and atheism. I can't account for other peoples belief.

    Long story short, christianity is the only world view that can account for life.

  • @Stianchez You are dishonest and a liar. That is the only fact you have shown.

  • @DaToNyOyO How am I dishonest, and a liar? I started this argument by accusing some of the "transitionals" had been disproven and as the author agreed. Indeed one of them clearly had been.

    Doesn't that mean you are a liar for telling me I am dishonst and a liar?

  • @Stianchez

    GET OUT, retard.

  • @Stianchez

    You need to stop saying that every verse in the Bible has been mistranslated, you stupid clown, because that means it has NO VALUE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

    Can you UNDERSTAND this simple concept, you brain-damaged imbecile?

  • @Stianchez The bible is a bunch of bronze age nonsense. It was taken seriously then because back then people were gullible imbeciles who also believed in sea monsters and dragons and it fit what they thought they knew back then. Here in the 21st century, it's irrelevant. Anyone who takes it seriously in any way, shape or form is retarded.

  • @ponchred Funny how dinosaurs were called dragons before the 18th century. You atheists sure seem to care alot about a bronze age nonsense, thats only taken seriouse by gullibile imebciles and is considered irrelevant

    *Thumbs up*

  • @Stianchez THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU MORON! What point are you trying to make? Who exactly called dinosaurs 'dragons'? Christians will stoop to any nonsensical intellectual low to try and seem clever, even if it makes them seem incredibly stupid. You people are the ones who worship the bronze age nonsense, my pedigree chum. Not us. We live in the present.

  • @ponchred To the entire world, dinosaurs were commonly known as dragons before the 1800. This isn't some conspirancy set up by Christians thats just how it was.

    Indeed you live in the present and it's painfully obviouse. If you are going to debate the past, then you have to work from the different aspects of the past.

    This moron is signing out. Goodluck in your search. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to PM me.

  • @Stianchez A cowardly retreat. Lets say people did call dinosaurs 'dragons' back in the day. It doesn't change the fact that in this day we know the difference and we also know that dragons are not real. So whatever point you were trying to make (people 'called' dinosaurs 'dragons' so therefore dragons exist) is flawed. That's the kind of small minded idiocy that clings to religion as an intelligent answer for things they just don't understand. And yes, you're a mega-moron.

  • @Stianchez And if the word of god cannot be interpreted tell me if you should stone your disobedient children, marry or pay your rape victim, take slaves and many other things dictated by god in the bible. How exactly you interpret those eh?

  • @linkuei83

    Part 2 Same old arguments that has been answered a million times over. How about you do some research on the topic. Go to gotquestions(dot)org type Rape, or God is evil, and all your questions will be answered.

    If you want me to answer those, then I'll have to PM you as 500 comment limit is no where near sufficient enough to give a decent answer

    The word of God is clear, if you understand basic culture, and the languages of that time. There are many bad interpretations.

  • @Stianchez

    'As you approach a town to attack it, offer its people terms for peace; then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. If they refuse to make peace, you must attack the town. When the LORD hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.' Deut 20

  • @Stianchez Same arguments, u mean that i don't understand what the bible says? You mean i INTERPRET it wrong? You mean that the mosaic law about paying 50 silver to your rape victim that came from god is hard for me to understand? How exactly am i confused about it. Please do explain this one. How am i supposed to read it. Wouldn't you think that a book written by god would be easy to understand it?

  • creationists cannot be reasoned with becuase you cannot reason with the irrational and they are completely irrational- they wont accept the proof of evolution because they simply dont want to . Desire is a powerful force and they want to believe god exists and they want to believe thier religion is right therefore they cannot be reasoned with and will not accept irrefutable proof. sad!

  • I'm going to say this as kind as i can say it,I sencerly hope all so called nobelivers wake up before they find themselves standing before their creator without excuse.

  • @Landslide464 Yeah, I'm sure an omnipotent being is beyond caring about irrational devotion from mortals. If God is loving and just, he'll understand why we made the rational choice not to believe in him.

  • @Impaler1815 God is loving and just far beyond our understanding.Tell me what is rational about proclaming you don't believe in God who you believe in,therefore no excuse.I'm certan God understands intentional ignorance.

  • @Landslide464 "God is loving and just far beyond our understanding."

    What's loving and just about giving infinite punishment for a finite crime?

    "Tell me what is rational about proclaming you don't believe in God who you believe in"

    Wait, what? You're saying I believe in God…but I don't believe in him? Huh, go figure.

    "I'm certan God understands intentional ignorance."

    What exactly am I intentionally ignorant of?

  • @Landslide464 us non believers are really getting sick of threats of hellfire an damnation from theists- please learn to live and let live amd keep your religious beliefs to yourself or between your fellow believers!

  • @dancingnancy09 Where did i threaten any so called non believers with hell fire?

  • @Landslide464 you 'hope 'so called non belivers' wake up before we meet our maker with no excuse' ?? or what?? that is a threat just like the same 'believe in god and follow christianity or youre going to burn in hell' threats atheitst get on a regular basis from christians who are completely intolerant to beliefs other thier own-like i said please either keep your beliefs to yourself or stick to sharing them with those who agree with you

  • @Landslide464 as do i.

  • There is no such evolution. It is pointless talking about anything. Of species formation, according to certain principles, rather than chaotic mutations. Species formation can even be calculated. About it a little in my video.

  • Creationists are always saying show me a transitional fossil, "half-this half-that." Yet when you show them many fossils that display characteristics of two different groups, they simply say "that is no evidence they evolved, they were just fully formed animals created by god with those specific traits" .... there will never be a way of satisfying these people.

  • @carlsm95 "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

    - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

  • @davidthmovies I love that classic quote, i've heard it before :)

  • Personally I think your definition is way too narrow.

    Transitional should mean simply that a fossil or living creature is evidence of a common ancestor between two groups in that it shares features of the two groups and cannot be demonstrated *not* to have descended from their common ancestor.

    That's about all that can be *predicted* by Natural Selection since ancestry can't be determined from fossils.

    cont...

  • I say this because the argument with YECs normally starts with them saying "Darwin said you should be able to find transitional fossils, none have been found, therefore evolution is false".

    So I think when responding to this argument we need to be clear about what Darwin (and by extension NS) actually *does* predict.

    He did *not* predict that we would find ancestors, obviously, that would have been plain stupid and all but the most rabid YEC will have to accept that he wasn't stupid.

    cont...

  • What he predicted was that we would find "intermediates" and as I said, that's about all you can predict from NS.

    Since we have found intermediates, NS has not been falsified.

    I've been asked by YECs to produce LCAs in the past, and the response has to be "who predicted we would find LCAs? Since an LCA is a single individual you'd have to be insane to think that you would find one let alone be able to prove that you had".

    cont...

  • Anyway, by the definition I gave a platypus would classify as transitional between reptiles and mammals.

    It has features from both groups and can't be shown *not* to have descended from the LCA. I think that is the prediction, and therefore that should qualify it.

    If people want a tighter definition they should be able to demonstrate that NS makes a tighter prediction.

  • Hoatzins don't have teeth and in fact they have a very unique digestive system among birds that is analogous to that of rumenants. Their crop acts as a fermentation vat for the plant matter they eat (they are purely herbivorous). The ostrich also has clawed forelimbs and they don't lose these claws with adulthood like a hoatzin does.

  • its funny how creationists assume because you believe in evolution you cant believe in god..i believe in spirituality and a part of me believes that there may be a higher entity behind all of this. I just simply dont believe in their version of that entity. I just dont understand how their god forgot to tell them about things like dinosaurs or that fact its impossible to put 2 of every animal on a boat!

  • @riceburnagtv

    There is a pattern to the relationship between science and religion. Science keeps pushing god to the back as an explanation for things in the natural world. Soon enough, god will have no room to exist. Those of us that care whether or not our beliefs are true tend to toss out ideas of "higher powers" because such things can't be demonstrated or supported with evidence. The idea of god is going the way of the dodo.

  • Hoatzin have no teeth!

    Please, correct it!

  • Fossils are not dead animals. They're design templates used by the Rock Gods to create new species which come from the rocks! You people are blind to the evidence all around you... rocks are the source of life!

  • Professor C.H. Hurst personally examined and photographed the Berlin Specimen in 1893 and observed that there were serious discrepancies between the engraving and the actual specimen [34]. The furcula has already been mentioned. The principal discrepancy occurred in the wing area, and the engraving and his photograph of the left-wing

  • Hoyle and Spetner concluded that the London Specimen was actually a genuine fossil of the Compsognathus, an extinct reptile, to which had been added the impressions of modern feathers. Hoyle suggested that the forgers had spread a mixture of finely ground limestone and gum arabic thinly across the wing and tail areas then pressed modern feathers into this mixture. The feathers were removed after the cement had completely hardened

  • Finally, in late 1987, the museum put their most famous fossil on display with a list of rebuttals to the charges of hoax in an attempt to regain the public confidence. From that day to this the public had heard nothing more of the debacle.

  • The charges led to counter-charges by Alan Charig and others of the British Museum [21]. In the meantime, the public press, reminded of the Piltdown affair at the same museum in 1953, smelled the makings of another scandal and eagerly fanned the flames of contention. Sir Fred Hoyle quickly published a little book containing some very interesting photographs and documentation of the charges and counter-charges 

  • Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and eventually persuaded the British Natural History Museum authorities to let him examine the actual specimen. Museum specimens of the calibre of the Archaeopteryx are securely squirreled away in vaults only accessible to the eye of certified believers; the public sees a mere plaster copy

  • Archaeopteryx lithographica

    1860 Single feather referred to as von Meyer's.

    1861 London Specimen found at Solnhofen.

    1877 Berlin Specimen found at Solnhofen.

    1956 Maxberg Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx.

    1970 1855 Haarlem Specimen (pterosaur) re-assigned.

    1973 1951 Eichstadt Compsognathus re-assigned.

    1988 Solnhofen Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx

  • in 1861, Haberlein had another specimen for sale, but this time it was of the entire creature except for its head. Haberlein invited museum representatives to see it, but they were not permitted to make notes or drawings. One observer, M. Witte of Hanover, gave a very complete verbal description to professor Andreas Wagner who had discovered and named a small dinosaur Compsognathus. Wagner recognized from the description what seemed to him to be his Compsognathus but with feathers!

  • The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent "discoveries" are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

  • Comment removed

  • hmm, apperantly we all evolved from paintings of animals...

  • @cwross1976 Apparently you're unable to search for the fossils themselves. Although, if you can't use a simple google search I doubt you'd be able to interpret the fossils.

  • @Impaler1815 @cwross1976 has a point.Evolutionists have to resort to paintings and drawings. Have you checked fossils yourself???They rarely have a full structure. They have at most 1/6th to 1/4th of bones found scattered at locations&then reconstruct the rest of the skelatal structure. Some have been even constructed from a pieces of a skull (pakiscetus for example which is the crux of whale evolution) The ones where a small part of a skeliton is found is used for transitional forms

  • @thespybreaker You've obviously come straight from a creationist website and made no effort to research your claims.

    1. The features that make a fossil transitional are based on the parts of the fossil we do have. It's not like scientists dig up fully land mammals and assume the parts they don't have are the whale parts.

    2. One fossil is not the crux of whale evolution.

    3. We have far more than a skull of pakicetus.

  • @Impaler1815 Just trying to imagine land mammals magically and atheistically altering limbs and organs while evolving into whales from crossing millions of years and numerous species is quite a fantastic tale. It does not even make good science fiction.

  • @alexthasy You obviously don't know much about evolution if you think it involves magic. I'm guessing you've never read anything about evolution that isn't from another creationist.

  • @Impaler1815 alex doesn't read- knowledge scares him.

  • @alexthasy "Just trying to imagine land mammals magically and atheistically altering limbs and organs while evolving into whales" Yep, that's exactly the incredibly stupid, uninformed, idiotic, cretinous, moronic, half witted, ignorant, daft, foolish kind of thing we can imagine you doing.

    Heaven forbid you actually find out that the process you are trying to imagine has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the witless tripe you extracted from your own arse.

  • @alexisretarded

    Random mutations and Natural selection are observed all around. The fossil record is quite good as proof for evolution. Visit a natural history museum.

    now a god creating stuff out of his butt? lolol you believe in magic alex. get help for your brain damaged brain.

  • @transtlantic You are the one who should do pilgrimage to your Darwinian Cathedral and pay your respect to Saint Lucy and the holy remains of those land mammals said to have magically evolved into whales. The gods of evolution will bless you for it

  • @alexthasy So a building that houses information on a science is a cathedral. A piece of evidence of that particular science is a saint. And going to see said building and piece of evidence is a pilgrimage. With definitions like that, every science is a religion.

  • @alexisbraindamaged

    God doesn't exist, fact.

    Why would i believe in God and design, if you can't use that crap in order to explain Plant speciation?

    Evolution theory is the ONLY explanation to observed phenomena in biology

  • @Impaler1815 I am certain that if you were to give virgin fossils not yet speculated on to 4 different groups of Darwinian researchers they would all come with entirely different hypothesis as to their evolutionary history.

  • @alexthasy And how exactly would they come to these different conclusions? Would they apply different features to the individual fossils? Would they put them at a different spot on the nested hierarchy? Would they come up with different dates for them? I don't expect you to actually answer any of those, because that would mean you know what you're talking about, and aren't just making baseless assertions and/or parroting what other creationists have told you.

  • @Impaler1815 They would conjecture differently altogether to make them fit what ever their imaginary could produce to fit in the Darwinian evolutionary fairy tale. They had land mammals magically and atheistically altering limbs and organs over millions of years and numerous species while evolving into whales. That conjectural atheist shit would not even make poor science fiction

  • @alexthasy "They would conjecture differently altogether"

    I know what you're assertion is, I'm asking you to back up your assertion with specifics. That way everyone will see if you actually know what you're talking about. At the moment, everyone assumes you don't.

    "They had land mammals magically and atheistically...."

    Back to this again? Go to wikipedia, look up the mechanisms of evolution. Return with an account of all the times magic is used.

  • @Impaler1815 I am being challenged to demonstrate that species are being intelligently designed, programmed and engineered in order to rationalize their need for an intelligent creator. The mechanism of an atheistic evolution would need being supported by a mythical force to justify the exquisite designing, engineering and programming of the whales. Atheism cannot answer for an orderly evolution of the species

  • @alexthasy Theres nothing mystical about evolution. Do you think there's something mystical about a light bulb and electricity? What about the computer your using? You press little pieces of plastic and the computer knows what you want..! How does it know???? Magic? Of corse not. Is it mystical? well yer, probably, if you didnt KNOW how it worked.

  • @alexthasy said " The mechanism of an atheistic evolution would need being supported by a mythical force."

    Amazing how your illogical way of thinking is identical to that of illiterate Bronze Age goat-herders:

    "Hallelujah! The water is coming out of the sky again! It must be the magical sky daddy opening up the windows in the sky again for us. Without magical sky daddy my goats would die."

    *Falls prostrate in reverence to magical sky daddy*

    Seems you haven't intelletcually evolved.

  • @alexthasy Obviously you haven't actually done any research into evolution. It's called natural selection of random variation. There's nothing mythical about it.

  • @Impaler1815 There is no reason and 0% probability for anything to evolve intelligently designed, programmed and engineered under an atheist evolutionary process.

  • @alexthasy Very valid argument "because there is nothing mystical things have no reason to evolve. EVOLUTION DISPROVED!" LOL

  • @TROBassGuitar I am using the same logic about the magician cutting the lady in half and putting her back together alive or to the fact that the rocks of Rushmore were not carved by the elements.

  • @alexthasy Not really. You're using the logic of "Earth must definitely be flat, and the sun definitely orbits around us at a constant height, and in a circular orbit" It's self-contradictory and stupid.