@tgillspy1 I look at the awesome coincidence around me and understand perfectly well that I am a fluky speck of dust in the stunning cosmic vastness. I have NONE of the arrogance and ignorance of the religiously-deluded who think all this was created for them by some utterly impossible magic sky daddy.
I enjoy every day and live my life to the full knowing that it could be my last, while you grovel and happy-clap in stasis waiting for your eternal reward.
@tgillspy1 Mud is smarter than you. Seriously, you need help if in the Information Age in the 21st century, you STILL don't understand evolution and, uh, Reality.
Who spawned you Creationist drones, anyway ? Some mad scientists with a tub full of Stupid and some sperm ?
@tgillspy1 yes but its been 150 years now and there is a greater understanding of many things you clearly want to deny . its ok live in your fantasy but in the end you wont know much about anything... and the leaders like it that way... so much easier to manipulate ... you have not once ever in any of your conversations ever proven anything just complete belief blinding you to reality itself... the test of truth for us is to be honest and you are clearly not.. god did it.= intellectual dead end!
@tgillspy1 yes but its been 150 years now and there is a greater understanding of many things you clearly want to deny . its ok live in your fantasy but in the end you wont know much about anything... and the leaders like it that way... so much easier to manipulate ... you have not once ever in any of your conversations ever proven anything just complete belief blinding you to reality itself... the test of truth for us is to be honest and you are clearly not.. god did it.= intellectual dead end!
@tgillspy1 those few with degrees have political agendas.... religion/politics go hand in hand.... scientists are not for that but what the EVIDENCE leads them to.... thats it.... they cant just make shit up and HOPE to get away with it! ... im sorry but your just to dumb for words.... god is the ultimate atheist! your beliefs are the contradiction!
@tgillspy1 nonsensical..what kind of warped mind have you got.its like you have never lived outside a book... FEAR leads to hate and fear of a god does just that..you do it because you want something our of it..heaven or wonderland...and you think your unselfish. look if god wanted a perfect universe... it should of not bothered... thats why your brainwashed BS is uncompatible with reality..not long ago ppl thought the earth was flat... now they dont.. science is honest and brutal! deal with it!
@tgillspy1 i think your confused!.... life is a process... not magical instant creation in a can!... your the deluded one!... nothing in life is that easy HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT PART!!!... species exist today because of selfish reasons.... safetly in numbers... chemical attraction... breeding... man would have been fucked without that... same with animals alot of them are in clusters... thats WHY they exist now... and many that didnt do this are EXTINCT!.. your ideals are childish and retarded!
@tgillspy1 to be honest all this BS your talking about and all these issues.... there is a better solution dont create it in the first place..... your type always have to apply intent.... you really dont get it do you!.... stay where you are please the rest of us have to think and reason!... you need that book to be good... i dont!.... and if you go on about morals and the so called good book you clearly know nothing about natural order... IT has no morals... please drop this stuff its BS!
@jammapcb jamma, tgillspy is just a troll posing as a christian. it's not worth working yourself up over. he's just trying to spark a negative reaction from people.
@tgillspy1 Sin what the fuck is that!!!!.... someone with sex issues wrote that.... lol... death has FUCK ALL to do with sin... otherwise bacteria is sinful, animals and plants are to..... look over there its an evil tree that sins WTF drugs are you on... please your to ignorant to take seriously!
@tgillspy1 so did the aztecs and the mayans and the egyptians etc etc.... what exactly does that teach us NOTHING!!!.... which is really the point here... your afraid to face what the evidence leads to... maybe there is a god maybe there is a god that no man made scripture could possibly know about... the whole idea is just daft... we know its written by lowly men as its full of BS and wild claims with nothing to back it up... if its truth theres evidence...0 evidence its insane to chase!
@tgillspy1 we are still like animals we have another million + years to go before we can define ourselves higher up the ladder...but if you want to see which lifeform on this planet is the most superior look under a microscope... I find nature/god/entity whatever you want to label it has a unintentional sense of humour. You think your religious and deserve special treatment.. its time for a wakeup call... the bottom feeder is the most crucial for life as it dictates existence 4 everything above
@tgillspy1 clearly you have never been near an ape or ever interacted with one... and you sit there spouting dogma as if its important ... they are words nothing more written by the ignorant of the past... being apart of life and seeing it, understanding it, experiencing it are far beyond your superstitious beliefs and any written document...EVIDENCE is enlightenment as you can relate to it, retest it and prove it is a sound theory.. what have you got..hear say wishful opinions with 0 evidence!
@tgillspy1 read into genetics.... then you'll see something called cold harsh fact... we are interconnected and related... from social behaviour to communication and also the ability to learn .... each primate has advantages and disadvantages its the part that makes us SEEM seperate but we are so close in so many ways... so please spare me your dogma written by those who knew nothing of genetics... its not to late to learn something with EVIDENCE to lead us in the right direction!
sprout some wings and fly all over the world but be in everyplace all the time at the same time forever then i'll trust what you say cos you'll be God!
@tgillspy1 yes thats true read that and somehow be convinced that talking snakes,,,, some dude with a boat that only store a very small percentage of all species.... believe in a flat earth.... talk about things that are hear say... and say hallaujah a few times... and all his forgiven and you go to never never land... oh yeah it will change you into a deluded nutter with a mental disorder in the world of make believe and ancient news articles!
@eddygoombah Good point. There's no challenge in beating a troll in a quip-fight. :( It's just sad that they take up so much time in discussions like evolution vs creationism.
@tgillspy1 Just as how each model of car looks like the one before it and can be traced all the way back to the first car? Yet the first cars are in no way similar nor compatible with any known transportation today? And how cars evolved into several subsets like airplanes and diesel engines and electric and so on? And how the only difference is that a car is something that's designed while evolution is an automatic, proven fact of life?
You're right, that IS a great logical sign of evolution.
@tgillspy1 again, you are not saying anything. How many times do I have to tell you this. You are the dictionary definition of the word idiot. This is not name calling, this is describing what you are based solely on your actions.
I'm done talking to you
If you want to try and convince people of what you believe, stop trolling their comment sections.
Get off your ass, get a camera, make a video.
But other than that, you and I are done. You have brought nothing to the table but idiocy
@tgillspy1 You are a young earth creationist. You think that the earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans. And in order to push your beliefs, you make blanket statements without any evidence. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best accurate description behind the natural mechanism of how life diversifies ad survives. It is backed by over 150 years of empirical data and is the cornerstone of modern biology. This is why you are an idiot.
@tgillspy1 and I don't poke fun at christians. I poke fun at anyone, christian, atheist, UFO believers, moon hoaxers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, scientologist, muppet... anyone who makes claims that cannot be supported by evidence.
if you act stupid, blatantly stupid, you earn mockery. All you have to do is not act stupid. Stop thinking that christians are singled out.
and I have no beef with christians. rather young earth creationists. I have already went over this. You don't like to read
@tgillspy1 I don't have to prove it. All you have done here is say "Your position 'X' is wrong."
you give no evidence to back up your claim, you just say that, and then you go so far as to make the claim that magic man made everything. again not giving any proof.
do you not see how this is completely stupid? please tell me you see that.
@tgillspy1 i never said that either. However, I am saying that my position is more valid than yours, based on the evidence.
Regardless, I can provide evidence for modern biology and cosmology... The only thing you have done is speak vaguely, make horrible logical fallacies, and have quote mined....
so, based on your actions alone, and what you have shown here so far, your understanding about the subject matter is so lacking, that just by default, your stance is completely flawed.
@tgillspy1 i never said that. I am simply stating that, based on what you are saying here, that you are blatantly acting stupid. Please stop, because no one is this dumb. It's as if you are purposely doing it.
@tgillspy1 you took the quote out of context. Try actually reading the entire thing and understand what he was trying to say BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO CRITIQUE IT.
@tgillspy1 That Darwin quote is a blatant quote mine. If you bothered to actually read it, it said that even though it is counterintuitive that an eye develop through natural selection, the evidence still points to it being that way.
@tgillspy1 and yet a snowflake exists without any supernatural hand in play.
To assume a designer is to completely not understand the mechanics behind these natural observances. You yourself admitted that you haven't fully studied the matter. Stop pretending you understand what's going on and actually learn about it. Science cannot take the stance of a designer because that hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore cannot be science.
@tgillspy1 you asked for evidence. I gave it to you. It's not my fault you wish to sit in the corner, plug your ears, and shout "LA LA LA!!!"
again, if you disagree with this, that's fine. but you need to supply evidence that counters the evidence that I am presenting. You cannot just say... "OK, well, too bad, that's just wrong."
@tgillspy1 Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis.... ect etc etc.....
@tgillspy1 being sure suggests knowledge. atheism doesn't deal with knowledge, but belief. i believe that i god doesn't exist. It is impossible to "know" of god's existence.
but again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?
@tgillspy1 well, you make blanket statement without any actual knowledge of the subject matter, you seem to ignore most of what I say and simply talk "at" me, and you then make biblical claims without any evidence...
you're not a troll? well, you could have fooled me.
@tgillspy1 I have no idea who you are. but from your current dialog, you are a fake creationist troll. No one can be this stupid. So if I did in fact "block" you, it was because you were not here to actually have a conversation, but to troll...
@tgillspy1 I wanna ask you this. Why do you feel compelled to say that something is absolutely not true, when you haven't studied it at all? Are you a troll?
And, again, when have I ever blocked you. Are you also purposely ignoring that as well?
@tgillspy1 no, I am an atheist. But I really have no idea what that has to do with the validity of the theory that describes the natural mechanism behind the diversity of life.
@tgillspy1 simply saying it is intellectual, and that it bears no resemblance ti facts in the real world doesn't make it so,
especially when I just said that the theory of evolution is supported by over 150 years of empirical data supporting the theory of evolution, which includes genetic history, fossil record, and observed modern speciation events.
do you want me to type it again so you can understand it?
and I'm not dismissing the allegation that I blocked you. When did I ever do that?
@tgillspy1 i don't remember you, nor do I remember blocking you or anyone else.
regardless, I don't think that christians are idiots. I think that young earth creationists are because you ignore the 150 years of empirical data supporting the theory of evolution, which includes genetic history, fossil record, and observed modern speciation events.
Have some guts and actually read some books based on actual biology.
i myself think its stupid to sit and try to prove one another wrong! the human mind is complex but on a universal scale humans are very primative. i think we should start thinking outside our 5 sences and in the so call spiritual realm. thought is fabric nothing is absolout or should i say we should not deal in absoluts? yes i too have aspergers syndrome
and you do know that the they were called the dark ages because society, art, philosophy, culture, science, and technology were all being kept in the "dark" because of religion, right?
@eddygoombah lol i'm just a kid who wants attention don't take me seriously(i still believe in god but let's put the nukes aside and be friends.after all this is the point of youtube) :))
@eddygoombah damn... i meen im an athist and i belive in evolution. im not an atheist bc of evolution just bc it makes the most sense out of the others. i meen just saying god did it is stupid and should be outlawed in teaching in public schools bc of the 1st amendment right? isnt that what creationism does? say a god did it or some alien did which is ID which is prity much the same thing as creationism? also i know some people think god did it but i didnt know that high... just wow.
@MsBloubul Please watch these two series of videos:
Why people laugh at creationists
Critical analysis of Kent Hovind
I am not trying to spite you or insult you in any way, I just want to correct you. You cannot criticize anything without knowing what you are criticizing so please, educate yourself on what evolution actually is and other scientific phenomena. These videos will clear things up. And DO NOT be lazy in research, if you are not, then you will understand why we are Atheists.
@MegaAnitoon The critical analysis of Kent Hovind is such garbage I started laughing until I realized that people actually believe that this analysis is real. Its a mixture of outdated textbook theories, flat out lies, cutting out the clips of Hovinds explanations to make him look like he doesnt have reason, and social appeasement and manipulation.
@MsBloubul huh? that absolutely makes no sense. A fact is a fact. A scientific theory uses those facts to explain an observance in nature. education... it's fantastic!
@eddygoombah science is knowledge gained by testing, observation and demonstration. spontaneous generation from non living matter in to the first self replicating organism is not science. abiogenesis. this is a 20th century hypothesis, which has been proven wrong by 21st century technology. amino acids does not have properties of attraction to configurate the original protein on the contrary it's genetic information in which influenced amino acids to protein.
abiogenesis is not a modern equivalent of spontaneous generation, and to suggest that they have anything to do with each other is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent abiogenesis
@eddygoombah its great how u blocked kissntellen, ur to incompetence to reply to an intellectual person sush as kissntellen so u blocked her. that just shows ur panic to not show weakness. i wouldn't blame u, because if i was an evolutionist i wouldn't wana be debating kissntellen either.
@dawkinshater101 I never blocked anyone. And the only way you would even think that I blocked kissntellen would be that you are in fact her and tried to reply during a YouTube technical session where no one has the ability to comment on any page.
So you came back later under a sock account to suggest that I blocked your previous trolling attempt.
@eddygoombah there are no natural process which manufacturer genetic information so with all rationality given, we could conclude that a mind of a deity is necessary to confederate a molecules as complex as dna.
what do you call mitosis? Regardless, a deity is not needed to simply duplicate chemicals, which all DNA is. DNA being "information" is simply an analogy used by scientists to better help people understand its properties.
@eddygoombah DNA must be in a sequential order for it to be functional in a cell. natural selection is a process in which genetic information is rearranged to create a new sequence, but this process only conjoin two existing genetic code, therefore not a creative process. abiogenesis n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis , spontaneous generation. definition from answer.com.
@eddygoombah they r 2 piece of the same puzzle. what is natural selection going to select from if there was no dna? with out abiogenesis, evolution is an incoherent theory. i think its hilarious how instead of stating evidence to support ur theory, u chose to detached urself from abiogenesis.
@eddygoombah instead of stating evidence to support ur theory, u comment on somthing totally irrelevant to the topic. i thought from watching ur video "conversation with a deist" that u would have a higher probability to knowing what ur talking about. the only reason i went from kissntellen to my friends account is because u blocked me from stating my opinion and not letting me present evidence to support my theory. if ur going to reply with a inane comment, then don't even bother.
I think the reason why evolutionists believe in macro-evolution is they believe: minor change + minor change + minor change + minor change = major change - and this is 100% true, but the question remains - can we keep changing - are there limits to how much we can change - is major changes like monoploid to diploid or a-sexual to sexual possible - can it happen over millions of years? If so, how?
@Sacredblack I didn't say "micro-evolution is the miniature process of macro-evolution". What I said is that the only difference between the two is the number of changes involved. Try this. Move an inch. Did your view change? Yes, but not much right? Now move a mile in the same direction. Can you still see the same view? No, everything's changed.
@Sacredblack But if you move another inch, your view doesn't change. another and it doesn't change. It's only all those inches together that make the mile. Yet each individual inch is almost completely indistinguishable from the last. And much like movement of distance over time, evolution too has a measurement of speed. It's called the, get this, the "Darwin". The more "Darwins", the faster evolution is occurring.
@Sacredblack If you're still following me, my point is this. The to divide evolution up into "micro" and "macro" while saying that the former occurs but the latter doesn't is a completely incoherent statement to anyone who actually understands the subject. Hence my analogy: to say that micro is real and macro is not is akin to saying that inches are real and miles are not.
If you disagree, ask a biologist with a PhD if my analogy to the micro/macro argument is at all inaccurate.
Micro-evolution is the evolution within species. Unlike macro-evolution, micro-evolution operates during periods of historical time, it produces changes that are not intrinsically new, it produces no increase in complexity, it is reversible, it produces new ecotypes, and it does not produce new genetic code.
Macro-evolution is evolution above the species level, as opposed to micro-evolution, which is evolution below the species level. Macro-evolution operates during periods of geological time, it produces changes that are new, it produces an increase in complexity, it is irreversible, it produces new species, and it produces new genetic code. Micro-evolution is the exact converse in all of these attributes.
@luccaskunk My girlfriends father is a biologist major. A PhD is not necessary in the slightest to understand how micro and macro evolution work they are both simple concepts. I'm not saying that the two are completely unrelated and cannot connect. I'm saying that they are two separate processes that do not look to or rely on one another. Thus, as my girlfriends father does not believe in both, one does not logically need to believe in both micro and macro as your "inch: mile" theory claims.
@Sacredblack Your girlfriend's father is a biologist major? Oh heavens to Betsy he must be the bestest biology major EVER! You know what they call that in science? They call it "original research". Anyone can say "My X's Y says Z therefore I am correct."
Let me ask you this: Is a student attending an as yet unstated university with as yet undetermined level of accreditation truly qualified to contradict millions upon millions of biologists with PhDs and mountains upon mountains of evidence?
@teeoh38 excuse me, but when I posted this, the web site was not an advertisement, nor did it ask for money. It was just a normal link to an article. Please keep in mind that this video was made 3 YEARS ago.
In order to get the article you have to join (create an account with) the magazine and then pay for the issue. It would be more worthwhile if they had many articles worth buying.
What's the difference between explosion and expansion? So space and time "expanded" that still doesn't explain how it came to be. In evolution theory, or fact whatever you call it, where did the very first "bit" of anything come from. Be it an atom a quark a string WHATEVER... where did it come from?? Did it create itself or did it always exist?
@AsaphProject what the heck does evolution have to do with the big bang? Evolution is biology. Big Bang is astrophysics. That's two entirely different realms of science. If you have these questions, why don't you read up on it. It's not my responsibility to make sure you are a least basically scientifically literate...
@eddygoombah There is more than biological evolution, there is chemical and stellar evolution too, but the reason I'm asking is because if you don't believe in a creator and one reason for that is the "proof" of evolution, you must have some evidence for how evolution began. Where did the raw material come from that started biological evolution? Did it always exist or did it create itself from nothing? Biological evolution I might understand if I could scientifically see how it began.
Haha that is the weakest defense I have seen yet. "no, evolution refers to the natural mechanism behind the diversity of life. Stop reading creationist web cites..."
Seriously AsaphProject brings up the biggest flaw in atheistic evolution. It goes against the laws of physics. Energy can only be stored or transferred. It cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cannot create matter. Where did it initially come from? The big bang theory if anything supports creationism.
@Sacredblack Nothing new you say? Ok then if that is where you want to draw the line... There is a new species of algae in the Sargasso sea which can now digest plastic, and quite efficiently at that. This is a trait that did not exist previously as plastic is not naturally occuring.
@Sacredblack In addition, there is a species of bacteria in Japan that consumes nylon, another previously non-biodegradable substance. Both of these evolved entirely new genes which produce entirely new enzymes. By the definition of "macro evolution is the introduction of something new" then macro evolution has been observed within our lifetime. Twice. However, I stand by my statement that the only difference between the two is simply the number of cumulative changes. No real difference at all.
@Sacredblack Big bang supports creationism? That same question of "where did the matter come from?" applies to God. If the answer to "Where did God come from?" My guess is, like most creationists, that your answer would be "God exists outside of time and space and therefore does not need to come from anywhere."
@Sacredblack Let me counter that real quick. If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. The stuff that made the big bang, prior to the big bang, existed in a state that was outside of normal time and space.
Oh, right. Also... Evolution does not reference the Big Bang Theory. It make no use of it and draws no principles from it. That's interdisciplinary. Physics vs Biology. That's like arguing Engineer vs Surgeon. It's incoherent.
@AsaphProject If you really want to understand this (I doubt that you do) search for "Abiogenesis" on this site.Alternatively you may wish to believe that an invisible man blew on a handful of mud.........
As you said Creationists claim that the only evidence ever given is "change within kinds of animals" Here is a chance to offer more There are dozens of reputable scientific institutions that teach “cosmic evolution” and that it's what leads to organic evolution. Without it you need not argue about the latter because it wouldn’t exist. If evolution, as a whole, is such a proven fact then this should be a fairly simple question. Without speculation, belief, or faith… how did evolution begin?
@AsaphProject again, I am not responsible for your education. Please google "abiogenesis" there are numerous theories describing how the first life could have arose naturally....
if you are genuinely sincere in finding out, then please look it up
Hey Eddy. Thanks for posting that link. Unfortunately, I declined paying the subscription fee that was required for me to view the page. However, I did some simple internet research regarding the Creationist/ Evolutionist debate. Overall, I have found that the evidentiary support for Evolution overshadows every single Creationist Argument. I thoroughly believe that, with all we know now, ANYONE WHO DOESNT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
LOL, shame. I feel bad for you Eddy. You must think life is so simple, and not complex. An explosion created human beings/life. Listen to what you are saying. Also, in all of human existence, every human gene deformity caused death, and none of the deformities was useful in any way whatsoever. So....you were saying??? Give me proof of a deformity, where it was reproduced to start a new race of humans, and made them better than they were before. Then I will believe.
@keatano1 You keep talking about this "explosion". what exactly are you referring to? The Big Bang Theory? If so, you are mistaken. It certainly wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion of spacetime. And are you suggesting that every mutation is a negative deformity? So I guess nylonase is just a myth then. Regardless, I am not responsible for your education. If you want to stay blinded within scientific illiteracy that's fine, just don't get ass hurt when people call you an idiot.
@agfigueroaa Did you not even bother to look up what I told you to look up? I am not responsible for your education in basic science. If you wish to actually learn, then I suggest you atop trying to pick a fight with a stranger on YouTube and actually look this stuff up. The only one to blame for your ignorance is you.
@agfigueroaa Please The Mayr bird, The Pacific Robin, Larus Gulls, Ensatina salamanders, the Greenish Warbler, Evening Primrose, Tragopogon, and the Woodsia Fern just to name a few off the top of my head.
next time, instead of taking the 5 minutes to write your ignorant comment, take 20 seconds to google speciation, and another 20 sec to google genetic drift.
@eddygoombah I wanna know what is an acceptable definition for you. I do not wanna you to say me later that typical argument "Ahhh that is not a scientific definition" or "that source is not reliable".
And please, you do not need to belittle or insult people to get your points across or to make them stronger.
@agfigueroaa you're the one who is belittling people by saying that you can't take me seriously. All I'm asking for is to educate yourself. If you feel that is an insult to you, then I don't know how to help you.
@eddygoombah I think I did not belittle you when I said that I cannot take seriously people who take seriously "American Science". We get this publication here and I can clear see the scum it is. In other words, I did not belittle you, but all readers who take seriously that publication. Since you claim of yourself being educated, I guess you have gone far beyond that magazine. Ergo, I assumed you are not in that cluster, arent you, Professor?
@eddygoombah But, in spite of all you arrogance, you have not been able to provide "the definition of species given by science" that you claim exists.
You went beyond and said that it is as easy as searching for the Internet.
Professor, have u read about "the species problem"? and how even Evolutionists disagree on the definition of "species". Apart from checking that, I strongly recommend you to check the essentials of the scientific method, you might encounter some surprises there.
@eddygoombah Yes, I said that. But I am still waiting for the definition of species that you claim exists. Remember, you are the Professor, who tell others to educate theirselves, not me. I am just a Creationist.
I wonder now, if you ave any scientific credentials, in deed.
@agfigueroaa I don't need credentials. I just paid attention in school. Do you also berate people who understand world history above a 3rd grade level?
@agfigueroaa and since you are incapable of finding things out on your own:
species: group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.
Evolution in simple terms is pure bull fertilizer. This video is nonsense. I admire peoples faith in evolutionism because there isn't anything there. The empreror has no clothes. When you see a video titled 15 answers to Creationist nonsense, you know that it contains pure nonsense.
@Digitalis17894 Fossils are simply dead things. Here's why fossils actually form a good testimony against evolutionism. 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. The remainder is what is used to form the alleged 'missing link' fossils. Ironically if you took all of the bones that are so called 'transitionals', they would scarcely fill a single coffin. Genetic mutation - sounds like a good example of de-evolving to me.
@eddygoombah Ok, you know about how big a coffin is, right? Now, take every 'transitional fossil' that is peddled as a 'missing link' or some link between man and ape. If you put them all together, it would almost - not quite but almost fill a single coffin. Evolutionism has a bad track record with Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, etc...
@eddygoombah If what you are saying is true, then there should be literally billions of transitional fossils everywhere. But there isn't. Even Darwin acknowledged the marked lack of transitional fossils and said it was one of the biggest problems with his theory. Maybe you need to observe the lack of transitional fossils.
How many times do you want me to tell you that every living species in the history of life is in fact a transitional fossil? You should also go ahead and look up the process behind fossilization. I am not responsible to keep you scientifically literate. Read. Research. Repeat.
@CiscoWes Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a clone of your parent nevermind. The rest of us, though propogation, exchange alleles, causing random mutations that, pressured by natural selection, will probably lead to genetic changes through a number of generations. My bad.
@eddygoombah Oh ok so THAT is how you are able to say everything is a transitional. It's another classic version of the evolutionists' bait & switch. Since something isn't an exact clone, than it is a transitional.
@eddygoombah I'm not a 'transition' between my mom and dad. That's hokey voodoo science. We're all 50/50 genetic info. from mom and dad. No 'transitional'.
@eddygoombah Everything isn't a transitional fossil. EVEN DARWIN noted that the marked absence of transitional fossils was one of the biggest problems with his theory. I didn't say it, DARWIN did. Now if everything is a transitional fossil, it seems like he wouldn't have said what he said.
@CiscoWes darwin wrote that in the 1800 's, you idiot. Do you understand the staggering mount of fossils we have unearthed in the last 150 yrs? And I mean that in the most sincere way possible. you are an idiot, completely and absolutely.
@eddygoombah You are using emotion to drive your thought process instead of facts. TODAY, right now, there STILL has not been any transitional fossils found. There are 'alleged' transitional fossils but there isn't anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a transitional fossil. 99% of the fossils found are incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No transitionals.
@Digitalis17894 Oh ok, so the belief that a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor is logical? The belief that life arises from nonlife is logical? What kind of 'logic' are you using to prop up evolutionism?
@CiscoWes I'm sorry, I guess the scientific community that labeled evolution a fact has been disproved by a 15 year old wanna be trying to sound smart. Oh, and evolution doesn't imply that life came from non-life. Thats Abiogenesis. And besides, I commented on Creationism. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean that they believe in evolution.
I love how much research you put into your comment.
@Digitalis17894 Once the 'scientific community' thought the world was carried on the back of a turtle, or carried on the back of a man the same time several Bible scriptures said otherwise. What are the 'facts' of evolution? Secondly, life from nonlife - it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists believe in molecules to man evolution. Fundamental evolutionists I guess. Evolutionism is divided into several different denominations it appears.
@CiscoWes Would you really call them a scientific community? Well, I wouldn't.
So I guess because some "scientists" were wrong the Bible is right?
No, it doesn't depend on who you ask. Abiogenisis is the study of life from non-life. Like I said, Abiogenisis and evolution don't have to be associated with each other. And don't say "Evolutionism" and "different denominations", since there is no such thing as "Evolutionsim".
@Digitalis17894 'evolutionism' encompasses all of the little facets or beliefs of evolution in general. Since there are so many, the 'ism' helps to cover all of them. Some discredit abiogenesis and recoil in horror when you discuss abiogenesis and evolution in the same sentence, while others say abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution. It depends on who you ask.
@Digitalis17894 Again it depends on who you ask. Some literal evolutionists, or 'fundamental evolutionists' would subscribe to the belief of abiogenesis. Life just somehow poofed out of nothing and has given us every life form we know and the ones yet to be discovered. Evolutionism does have many different facets or 'denominations' so it does really depend on who you ask.
@tgillspy1 I look at the awesome coincidence around me and understand perfectly well that I am a fluky speck of dust in the stunning cosmic vastness. I have NONE of the arrogance and ignorance of the religiously-deluded who think all this was created for them by some utterly impossible magic sky daddy.
I enjoy every day and live my life to the full knowing that it could be my last, while you grovel and happy-clap in stasis waiting for your eternal reward.
allieron 8 months ago
@tgillspy1 Mud is smarter than you. Seriously, you need help if in the Information Age in the 21st century, you STILL don't understand evolution and, uh, Reality.
Who spawned you Creationist drones, anyway ? Some mad scientists with a tub full of Stupid and some sperm ?
allieron 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgillspy1 yes but its been 150 years now and there is a greater understanding of many things you clearly want to deny . its ok live in your fantasy but in the end you wont know much about anything... and the leaders like it that way... so much easier to manipulate ... you have not once ever in any of your conversations ever proven anything just complete belief blinding you to reality itself... the test of truth for us is to be honest and you are clearly not.. god did it.= intellectual dead end!
jammapcb 8 months ago
@tgillspy1 yes but its been 150 years now and there is a greater understanding of many things you clearly want to deny . its ok live in your fantasy but in the end you wont know much about anything... and the leaders like it that way... so much easier to manipulate ... you have not once ever in any of your conversations ever proven anything just complete belief blinding you to reality itself... the test of truth for us is to be honest and you are clearly not.. god did it.= intellectual dead end!
jammapcb 8 months ago
@tgillspy1 those few with degrees have political agendas.... religion/politics go hand in hand.... scientists are not for that but what the EVIDENCE leads them to.... thats it.... they cant just make shit up and HOPE to get away with it! ... im sorry but your just to dumb for words.... god is the ultimate atheist! your beliefs are the contradiction!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 nonsensical..what kind of warped mind have you got.its like you have never lived outside a book... FEAR leads to hate and fear of a god does just that..you do it because you want something our of it..heaven or wonderland...and you think your unselfish. look if god wanted a perfect universe... it should of not bothered... thats why your brainwashed BS is uncompatible with reality..not long ago ppl thought the earth was flat... now they dont.. science is honest and brutal! deal with it!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 i think your confused!.... life is a process... not magical instant creation in a can!... your the deluded one!... nothing in life is that easy HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT PART!!!... species exist today because of selfish reasons.... safetly in numbers... chemical attraction... breeding... man would have been fucked without that... same with animals alot of them are in clusters... thats WHY they exist now... and many that didnt do this are EXTINCT!.. your ideals are childish and retarded!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 to be honest all this BS your talking about and all these issues.... there is a better solution dont create it in the first place..... your type always have to apply intent.... you really dont get it do you!.... stay where you are please the rest of us have to think and reason!... you need that book to be good... i dont!.... and if you go on about morals and the so called good book you clearly know nothing about natural order... IT has no morals... please drop this stuff its BS!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@jammapcb jamma, tgillspy is just a troll posing as a christian. it's not worth working yourself up over. he's just trying to spark a negative reaction from people.
eddygoombah 9 months ago
@eddygoombah thanks eddy I guessed that... but sometimes trolling a troll is the only decent remedy!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 EVERYTHING DECAYS.... its called entropy... so your logic is all to shit... be quiet and go learn something... crazy fool!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 Sin what the fuck is that!!!!.... someone with sex issues wrote that.... lol... death has FUCK ALL to do with sin... otherwise bacteria is sinful, animals and plants are to..... look over there its an evil tree that sins WTF drugs are you on... please your to ignorant to take seriously!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 so did the aztecs and the mayans and the egyptians etc etc.... what exactly does that teach us NOTHING!!!.... which is really the point here... your afraid to face what the evidence leads to... maybe there is a god maybe there is a god that no man made scripture could possibly know about... the whole idea is just daft... we know its written by lowly men as its full of BS and wild claims with nothing to back it up... if its truth theres evidence...0 evidence its insane to chase!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 we are still like animals we have another million + years to go before we can define ourselves higher up the ladder...but if you want to see which lifeform on this planet is the most superior look under a microscope... I find nature/god/entity whatever you want to label it has a unintentional sense of humour. You think your religious and deserve special treatment.. its time for a wakeup call... the bottom feeder is the most crucial for life as it dictates existence 4 everything above
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 clearly you have never been near an ape or ever interacted with one... and you sit there spouting dogma as if its important ... they are words nothing more written by the ignorant of the past... being apart of life and seeing it, understanding it, experiencing it are far beyond your superstitious beliefs and any written document...EVIDENCE is enlightenment as you can relate to it, retest it and prove it is a sound theory.. what have you got..hear say wishful opinions with 0 evidence!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 read into genetics.... then you'll see something called cold harsh fact... we are interconnected and related... from social behaviour to communication and also the ability to learn .... each primate has advantages and disadvantages its the part that makes us SEEM seperate but we are so close in so many ways... so please spare me your dogma written by those who knew nothing of genetics... its not to late to learn something with EVIDENCE to lead us in the right direction!
jammapcb 9 months ago
sprout some wings and fly all over the world but be in everyplace all the time at the same time forever then i'll trust what you say cos you'll be God!
Jimboefocodiad 9 months ago
@Jimboefocodiad huh?
eddygoombah 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eddygoombah evolution has no scientific proof
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
@tgillspy1 yes thats true read that and somehow be convinced that talking snakes,,,, some dude with a boat that only store a very small percentage of all species.... believe in a flat earth.... talk about things that are hear say... and say hallaujah a few times... and all his forgiven and you go to never never land... oh yeah it will change you into a deluded nutter with a mental disorder in the world of make believe and ancient news articles!
jammapcb 9 months ago
Eddy, thank you for the information. Scientific American does a very good job.
NeoPsiTom 10 months ago
@tgillspy1 LOL... says the guy who has nothing to say except "You're wrong, so there"
sorry tgillspy, you're not baiting me into another pointless discussion with a troll like yourself.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@tgillspy1 You are right, you will become an atheist.
TheKilgoretrout 11 months ago
@tgillspy1 You forgot "Based on the incomplete mythos of this one supposed holy book..."
Adkit2 1 year ago
@Adkit2 Dude, dont bother with tgillspy1, he's just a troll.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah Good point. There's no challenge in beating a troll in a quip-fight. :( It's just sad that they take up so much time in discussions like evolution vs creationism.
Adkit2 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 You forgot "Based on my novel and uneducated understanding..."
Adkit2 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 Just as how each model of car looks like the one before it and can be traced all the way back to the first car? Yet the first cars are in no way similar nor compatible with any known transportation today? And how cars evolved into several subsets like airplanes and diesel engines and electric and so on? And how the only difference is that a car is something that's designed while evolution is an automatic, proven fact of life?
You're right, that IS a great logical sign of evolution.
Adkit2 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 again, you are not saying anything. How many times do I have to tell you this. You are the dictionary definition of the word idiot. This is not name calling, this is describing what you are based solely on your actions.
I'm done talking to you
If you want to try and convince people of what you believe, stop trolling their comment sections.
Get off your ass, get a camera, make a video.
But other than that, you and I are done. You have brought nothing to the table but idiocy
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 any biology book will help you. go to any library. You know what, spend a day there! It's fun learning things! Get out of the dark ages.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 You are a young earth creationist. You think that the earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans. And in order to push your beliefs, you make blanket statements without any evidence. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best accurate description behind the natural mechanism of how life diversifies ad survives. It is backed by over 150 years of empirical data and is the cornerstone of modern biology. This is why you are an idiot.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 and this has to with what exactly?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 What does knowing anyone have anything to do with it?
if you act like a retard, then you should be shown that you are acting like a retard.
guess what, you're acting like a retard.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 blah blah blah...
you keep talking but not saying much of anything...
I keep saying that if you make a claim, back it up with evidence.
How many times do I need to say it?
You said I blocked you before? No wonder. You are a blathering idiot.
You're not listening to me at all.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 and I don't poke fun at christians. I poke fun at anyone, christian, atheist, UFO believers, moon hoaxers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, scientologist, muppet... anyone who makes claims that cannot be supported by evidence.
if you act stupid, blatantly stupid, you earn mockery. All you have to do is not act stupid. Stop thinking that christians are singled out.
and I have no beef with christians. rather young earth creationists. I have already went over this. You don't like to read
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 I don't have to prove it. All you have done here is say "Your position 'X' is wrong."
you give no evidence to back up your claim, you just say that, and then you go so far as to make the claim that magic man made everything. again not giving any proof.
do you not see how this is completely stupid? please tell me you see that.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 i never said that either. However, I am saying that my position is more valid than yours, based on the evidence.
Regardless, I can provide evidence for modern biology and cosmology... The only thing you have done is speak vaguely, make horrible logical fallacies, and have quote mined....
so, based on your actions alone, and what you have shown here so far, your understanding about the subject matter is so lacking, that just by default, your stance is completely flawed.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 i never said that. I am simply stating that, based on what you are saying here, that you are blatantly acting stupid. Please stop, because no one is this dumb. It's as if you are purposely doing it.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 you took the quote out of context. Try actually reading the entire thing and understand what he was trying to say BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO CRITIQUE IT.
it's a novel idea. and fun!
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 any term is a man made term, you dolt.
again... stop being stupid. It's like you are doing it on purpose.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 That Darwin quote is a blatant quote mine. If you bothered to actually read it, it said that even though it is counterintuitive that an eye develop through natural selection, the evidence still points to it being that way.
Stop being stupid.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 Dude, I'm from upstate NY. I know about snow.
Regardless, what's that have to do with anything you've been blathering about?
That's great about your god and everything, but what does that have to do with evolution?
Do you just like pressing buttons on your keyboard for fun?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 Pics or it didn't happen
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 and yet a snowflake exists without any supernatural hand in play.
To assume a designer is to completely not understand the mechanics behind these natural observances. You yourself admitted that you haven't fully studied the matter. Stop pretending you understand what's going on and actually learn about it. Science cannot take the stance of a designer because that hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore cannot be science.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 You do know that you just listed things that occur naturally and are completely understood w:o supernatural causes.
Fail
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 you asked for evidence. I gave it to you. It's not my fault you wish to sit in the corner, plug your ears, and shout "LA LA LA!!!"
again, if you disagree with this, that's fine. but you need to supply evidence that counters the evidence that I am presenting. You cannot just say... "OK, well, too bad, that's just wrong."
try actually using evidence! It's fun!
or else, go away.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis.... ect etc etc.....
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 being sure suggests knowledge. atheism doesn't deal with knowledge, but belief. i believe that i god doesn't exist. It is impossible to "know" of god's existence.
but again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?
you wanna stick to one subject?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 well, you make blanket statement without any actual knowledge of the subject matter, you seem to ignore most of what I say and simply talk "at" me, and you then make biblical claims without any evidence...
you're not a troll? well, you could have fooled me.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 i DID say I was an atheist. No wonder you act the way you do, you cannot read.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 I have no idea who you are. but from your current dialog, you are a fake creationist troll. No one can be this stupid. So if I did in fact "block" you, it was because you were not here to actually have a conversation, but to troll...
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 blah blah blah...
obvious poe is obvious.
you're not really convincing anymore.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 I wanna ask you this. Why do you feel compelled to say that something is absolutely not true, when you haven't studied it at all? Are you a troll?
And, again, when have I ever blocked you. Are you also purposely ignoring that as well?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 no, I am an atheist. But I really have no idea what that has to do with the validity of the theory that describes the natural mechanism behind the diversity of life.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 evidence: Fossils. Ontogeny. Phylogeny. Genetics. Developmental Biology, Natural selection etc...
" you have never proven a missing link" What is a missing link? you have yet to tell me.
" if you evolved why are there still apes today?" This is the equivalent of saying, well if Australians exist, why are there still British people?
"I will read some book on biology" You mean you are making absolute statements regarding a subject you haven't even studied?
wow.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 again, simply stating something doesn't make it true. you need to provide evidence.
or are you just typing because it is fun to press buttons?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 simply saying it is intellectual, and that it bears no resemblance ti facts in the real world doesn't make it so,
especially when I just said that the theory of evolution is supported by over 150 years of empirical data supporting the theory of evolution, which includes genetic history, fossil record, and observed modern speciation events.
do you want me to type it again so you can understand it?
and I'm not dismissing the allegation that I blocked you. When did I ever do that?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 define "missing link"
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@tgillspy1 i don't remember you, nor do I remember blocking you or anyone else.
regardless, I don't think that christians are idiots. I think that young earth creationists are because you ignore the 150 years of empirical data supporting the theory of evolution, which includes genetic history, fossil record, and observed modern speciation events.
Have some guts and actually read some books based on actual biology.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
Creation is evolutionary, on purpose.
kansasisaband 1 year ago
Anyone that denies evolution is either ignorant as to what the theory of evolution is about, or is just very stupid. It's as simple as that.
joshie92 1 year ago
i myself think its stupid to sit and try to prove one another wrong! the human mind is complex but on a universal scale humans are very primative. i think we should start thinking outside our 5 sences and in the so call spiritual realm. thought is fabric nothing is absolout or should i say we should not deal in absoluts? yes i too have aspergers syndrome
flatbranch1 1 year ago
you are telling me this guys still beleive in evolution?darek ages here we come
Jtiger987 1 year ago
@Jtiger987 I think you meant "dark" ages...
and you do know that the they were called the dark ages because society, art, philosophy, culture, science, and technology were all being kept in the "dark" because of religion, right?
your statement couldn't be more idiotic.
eddygoombah 1 year ago 4
@eddygoombah i was joking lol thanks for corecting me anyway come and kill if you want i don't care
Jtiger987 1 year ago
@Jtiger987
huh? confusing troll is confusing
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah lol i'm just a kid who wants attention don't take me seriously(i still believe in god but let's put the nukes aside and be friends.after all this is the point of youtube) :))
Jtiger987 1 year ago
@Jtiger987
No, the point of youtube is to view or post videos.
I recommend getting a dog instead
eddygoombah 1 year ago 6
people still debate this? i thought we were better than the witch burnings era.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@TonPappa welcome to the madness... get ready to facepalm. Creationists account for about 46% of the US population....
dark ages here we come
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah damn... i meen im an athist and i belive in evolution. im not an atheist bc of evolution just bc it makes the most sense out of the others. i meen just saying god did it is stupid and should be outlawed in teaching in public schools bc of the 1st amendment right? isnt that what creationism does? say a god did it or some alien did which is ID which is prity much the same thing as creationism? also i know some people think god did it but i didnt know that high... just wow.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@TonPappa same here, I understood evolution way before I was an atheist.
but, never underestimate the stupidity of the average person.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah so true.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@MsBloubul Please watch these two series of videos:
Why people laugh at creationists
Critical analysis of Kent Hovind
I am not trying to spite you or insult you in any way, I just want to correct you. You cannot criticize anything without knowing what you are criticizing so please, educate yourself on what evolution actually is and other scientific phenomena. These videos will clear things up. And DO NOT be lazy in research, if you are not, then you will understand why we are Atheists.
MegaAnitoon 1 year ago
@MegaAnitoon The critical analysis of Kent Hovind is such garbage I started laughing until I realized that people actually believe that this analysis is real. Its a mixture of outdated textbook theories, flat out lies, cutting out the clips of Hovinds explanations to make him look like he doesnt have reason, and social appeasement and manipulation.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@Sacredblack So you ignore thunderf00t and bash the other? Typical Christian tactic.
MegaAnitoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaAnitoon What is thunderf00t? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@MsBloubul huh? that absolutely makes no sense. A fact is a fact. A scientific theory uses those facts to explain an observance in nature. education... it's fantastic!
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah science is knowledge gained by testing, observation and demonstration. spontaneous generation from non living matter in to the first self replicating organism is not science. abiogenesis. this is a 20th century hypothesis, which has been proven wrong by 21st century technology. amino acids does not have properties of attraction to configurate the original protein on the contrary it's genetic information in which influenced amino acids to protein.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@kissntellen
abiogenesis is not a modern equivalent of spontaneous generation, and to suggest that they have anything to do with each other is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent abiogenesis
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah its great how u blocked kissntellen, ur to incompetence to reply to an intellectual person sush as kissntellen so u blocked her. that just shows ur panic to not show weakness. i wouldn't blame u, because if i was an evolutionist i wouldn't wana be debating kissntellen either.
dawkinshater101 1 year ago
@dawkinshater101 I never blocked anyone. And the only way you would even think that I blocked kissntellen would be that you are in fact her and tried to reply during a YouTube technical session where no one has the ability to comment on any page.
So you came back later under a sock account to suggest that I blocked your previous trolling attempt.
Well done.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@MsBloubul kent hovind is not only a laughing stock, he is a known liar and tax fraud. When you listen to him you become dumber.
eddygoombah 1 year ago 5
@eddygoombah there are no natural process which manufacturer genetic information so with all rationality given, we could conclude that a mind of a deity is necessary to confederate a molecules as complex as dna.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@kissntellen
what do you call mitosis? Regardless, a deity is not needed to simply duplicate chemicals, which all DNA is. DNA being "information" is simply an analogy used by scientists to better help people understand its properties.
no magic man needed!
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah DNA must be in a sequential order for it to be functional in a cell. natural selection is a process in which genetic information is rearranged to create a new sequence, but this process only conjoin two existing genetic code, therefore not a creative process. abiogenesis n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis , spontaneous generation. definition from answer.com.
dawkinshater101 1 year ago
@dawkinshater101 sigh... you do know that evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, right?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah they r 2 piece of the same puzzle. what is natural selection going to select from if there was no dna? with out abiogenesis, evolution is an incoherent theory. i think its hilarious how instead of stating evidence to support ur theory, u chose to detached urself from abiogenesis.
dawkinshater101 1 year ago
@dawkinshater101 so you're going to completely ignore the fact that you are using a sock trolling account?
::sigh::
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah instead of stating evidence to support ur theory, u comment on somthing totally irrelevant to the topic. i thought from watching ur video "conversation with a deist" that u would have a higher probability to knowing what ur talking about. the only reason i went from kissntellen to my friends account is because u blocked me from stating my opinion and not letting me present evidence to support my theory. if ur going to reply with a inane comment, then don't even bother.
dawkinshater101 1 year ago
@dawkinshater101 I never blocked you. It takes a lot to make me block anyone. Stop suggesting I did.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
I think the reason why evolutionists believe in macro-evolution is they believe: minor change + minor change + minor change + minor change = major change - and this is 100% true, but the question remains - can we keep changing - are there limits to how much we can change - is major changes like monoploid to diploid or a-sexual to sexual possible - can it happen over millions of years? If so, how?
PrysdieHeer 1 year ago
Microevolution is real and Macroevolution is not in the same way that an Inch is real and a Mile is not.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@luccaskunk That is so ignorant. Micro-evolution is not the miniature process of Macro-evolution.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@Sacredblack I didn't say "micro-evolution is the miniature process of macro-evolution". What I said is that the only difference between the two is the number of changes involved. Try this. Move an inch. Did your view change? Yes, but not much right? Now move a mile in the same direction. Can you still see the same view? No, everything's changed.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@Sacredblack But if you move another inch, your view doesn't change. another and it doesn't change. It's only all those inches together that make the mile. Yet each individual inch is almost completely indistinguishable from the last. And much like movement of distance over time, evolution too has a measurement of speed. It's called the, get this, the "Darwin". The more "Darwins", the faster evolution is occurring.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@Sacredblack If you're still following me, my point is this. The to divide evolution up into "micro" and "macro" while saying that the former occurs but the latter doesn't is a completely incoherent statement to anyone who actually understands the subject. Hence my analogy: to say that micro is real and macro is not is akin to saying that inches are real and miles are not.
If you disagree, ask a biologist with a PhD if my analogy to the micro/macro argument is at all inaccurate.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@luccaskunk
Micro-evolution is the evolution within species. Unlike macro-evolution, micro-evolution operates during periods of historical time, it produces changes that are not intrinsically new, it produces no increase in complexity, it is reversible, it produces new ecotypes, and it does not produce new genetic code.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@luccaskunk
Macro-evolution is evolution above the species level, as opposed to micro-evolution, which is evolution below the species level. Macro-evolution operates during periods of geological time, it produces changes that are new, it produces an increase in complexity, it is irreversible, it produces new species, and it produces new genetic code. Micro-evolution is the exact converse in all of these attributes.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@luccaskunk My girlfriends father is a biologist major. A PhD is not necessary in the slightest to understand how micro and macro evolution work they are both simple concepts. I'm not saying that the two are completely unrelated and cannot connect. I'm saying that they are two separate processes that do not look to or rely on one another. Thus, as my girlfriends father does not believe in both, one does not logically need to believe in both micro and macro as your "inch: mile" theory claims.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@Sacredblack Your girlfriend's father is a biologist major? Oh heavens to Betsy he must be the bestest biology major EVER! You know what they call that in science? They call it "original research". Anyone can say "My X's Y says Z therefore I am correct."
Let me ask you this: Is a student attending an as yet unstated university with as yet undetermined level of accreditation truly qualified to contradict millions upon millions of biologists with PhDs and mountains upon mountains of evidence?
luccaskunk 1 year ago
great! I just watched an advertisement for a website. what an ass this guy is.
teeoh38 1 year ago
@teeoh38 excuse me, but when I posted this, the web site was not an advertisement, nor did it ask for money. It was just a normal link to an article. Please keep in mind that this video was made 3 YEARS ago.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
In order to get the article you have to join (create an account with) the magazine and then pay for the issue. It would be more worthwhile if they had many articles worth buying.
DarkKnight56 1 year ago
sayang lang imong utok dong.
inday811 1 year ago
What's the difference between explosion and expansion? So space and time "expanded" that still doesn't explain how it came to be. In evolution theory, or fact whatever you call it, where did the very first "bit" of anything come from. Be it an atom a quark a string WHATEVER... where did it come from?? Did it create itself or did it always exist?
AsaphProject 1 year ago
@AsaphProject what the heck does evolution have to do with the big bang? Evolution is biology. Big Bang is astrophysics. That's two entirely different realms of science. If you have these questions, why don't you read up on it. It's not my responsibility to make sure you are a least basically scientifically literate...
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah There is more than biological evolution, there is chemical and stellar evolution too, but the reason I'm asking is because if you don't believe in a creator and one reason for that is the "proof" of evolution, you must have some evidence for how evolution began. Where did the raw material come from that started biological evolution? Did it always exist or did it create itself from nothing? Biological evolution I might understand if I could scientifically see how it began.
AsaphProject 1 year ago
@AsaphProject no, evolution refers to the natural mechanism behind the diversity of life. Stop reading creationist web cites...
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah
Haha that is the weakest defense I have seen yet. "no, evolution refers to the natural mechanism behind the diversity of life. Stop reading creationist web cites..."
Seriously AsaphProject brings up the biggest flaw in atheistic evolution. It goes against the laws of physics. Energy can only be stored or transferred. It cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cannot create matter. Where did it initially come from? The big bang theory if anything supports creationism.
Sacredblack 1 year ago
@Sacredblack Nothing new you say? Ok then if that is where you want to draw the line... There is a new species of algae in the Sargasso sea which can now digest plastic, and quite efficiently at that. This is a trait that did not exist previously as plastic is not naturally occuring.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@Sacredblack In addition, there is a species of bacteria in Japan that consumes nylon, another previously non-biodegradable substance. Both of these evolved entirely new genes which produce entirely new enzymes. By the definition of "macro evolution is the introduction of something new" then macro evolution has been observed within our lifetime. Twice. However, I stand by my statement that the only difference between the two is simply the number of cumulative changes. No real difference at all.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@Sacredblack Big bang supports creationism? That same question of "where did the matter come from?" applies to God. If the answer to "Where did God come from?" My guess is, like most creationists, that your answer would be "God exists outside of time and space and therefore does not need to come from anywhere."
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@Sacredblack Let me counter that real quick. If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. The stuff that made the big bang, prior to the big bang, existed in a state that was outside of normal time and space.
Oh, right. Also... Evolution does not reference the Big Bang Theory. It make no use of it and draws no principles from it. That's interdisciplinary. Physics vs Biology. That's like arguing Engineer vs Surgeon. It's incoherent.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@AsaphProject Creationists made up chemical and stellar evolution to confuse sheep.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@AsaphProject If you really want to understand this (I doubt that you do) search for "Abiogenesis" on this site.Alternatively you may wish to believe that an invisible man blew on a handful of mud.........
lewisner 1 year ago
As you said Creationists claim that the only evidence ever given is "change within kinds of animals" Here is a chance to offer more There are dozens of reputable scientific institutions that teach “cosmic evolution” and that it's what leads to organic evolution. Without it you need not argue about the latter because it wouldn’t exist. If evolution, as a whole, is such a proven fact then this should be a fairly simple question. Without speculation, belief, or faith… how did evolution begin?
AsaphProject 1 year ago
@AsaphProject again, I am not responsible for your education. Please google "abiogenesis" there are numerous theories describing how the first life could have arose naturally....
if you are genuinely sincere in finding out, then please look it up
eddygoombah 1 year ago
Hey Eddy. Thanks for posting that link. Unfortunately, I declined paying the subscription fee that was required for me to view the page. However, I did some simple internet research regarding the Creationist/ Evolutionist debate. Overall, I have found that the evidentiary support for Evolution overshadows every single Creationist Argument. I thoroughly believe that, with all we know now, ANYONE WHO DOESNT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
Thanks again, Eddy.
nunirahmon 1 year ago
Comment removed
nunirahmon 1 year ago
You look like Kane from Command and Conquer
Boss5414 1 year ago
@Boss5414 actually, I look like me.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
LOL, shame. I feel bad for you Eddy. You must think life is so simple, and not complex. An explosion created human beings/life. Listen to what you are saying. Also, in all of human existence, every human gene deformity caused death, and none of the deformities was useful in any way whatsoever. So....you were saying??? Give me proof of a deformity, where it was reproduced to start a new race of humans, and made them better than they were before. Then I will believe.
keatano1 1 year ago
@keatano1 You keep talking about this "explosion". what exactly are you referring to? The Big Bang Theory? If so, you are mistaken. It certainly wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion of spacetime. And are you suggesting that every mutation is a negative deformity? So I guess nylonase is just a myth then. Regardless, I am not responsible for your education. If you want to stay blinded within scientific illiteracy that's fine, just don't get ass hurt when people call you an idiot.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists maintain that intelligence arises out of non-intelligence.
Atheist maintain that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos.
Creationists maintain that intelligence, info & logic arise from a mind.
Proof that God exists.
Scientific facts:
(A) Information arises from a mind.
(B) Language arises from a mind.
(C) DNA = Information + language.
There are only two known languages. They are.
(1) Of human mind origin (2) DNA code.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
You have to be kidding .... taking serious Scientific American!... I cannot take you seriously any more.
I wanna know one thing, professor : Is the speciation process observable? If yes, name a few.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Under the definition of species given by Macro-evolution.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa howabout under the definition of the word species given by science and not some made up creationist term?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah So then Professor, Which is this definition?
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Did you not even bother to look up what I told you to look up? I am not responsible for your education in basic science. If you wish to actually learn, then I suggest you atop trying to pick a fight with a stranger on YouTube and actually look this stuff up. The only one to blame for your ignorance is you.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Please The Mayr bird, The Pacific Robin, Larus Gulls, Ensatina salamanders, the Greenish Warbler, Evening Primrose, Tragopogon, and the Woodsia Fern just to name a few off the top of my head.
next time, instead of taking the 5 minutes to write your ignorant comment, take 20 seconds to google speciation, and another 20 sec to google genetic drift.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah I wanna know what is an acceptable definition for you. I do not wanna you to say me later that typical argument "Ahhh that is not a scientific definition" or "that source is not reliable".
And please, you do not need to belittle or insult people to get your points across or to make them stronger.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa you're the one who is belittling people by saying that you can't take me seriously. All I'm asking for is to educate yourself. If you feel that is an insult to you, then I don't know how to help you.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah I think I did not belittle you when I said that I cannot take seriously people who take seriously "American Science". We get this publication here and I can clear see the scum it is. In other words, I did not belittle you, but all readers who take seriously that publication. Since you claim of yourself being educated, I guess you have gone far beyond that magazine. Ergo, I assumed you are not in that cluster, arent you, Professor?
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@eddygoombah But, in spite of all you arrogance, you have not been able to provide "the definition of species given by science" that you claim exists.
You went beyond and said that it is as easy as searching for the Internet.
Professor, have u read about "the species problem"? and how even Evolutionists disagree on the definition of "species". Apart from checking that, I strongly recommend you to check the essentials of the scientific method, you might encounter some surprises there.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa
so you are admitting that you haven't researched the items I told you to.
just like a creationist. You would rather sit here and gripe than actually learn anything.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah Yes, I said that. But I am still waiting for the definition of species that you claim exists. Remember, you are the Professor, who tell others to educate theirselves, not me. I am just a Creationist.
I wonder now, if you ave any scientific credentials, in deed.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa I don't need credentials. I just paid attention in school. Do you also berate people who understand world history above a 3rd grade level?
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa and since you are incapable of finding things out on your own:
species: group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.
took 20 seconds to look that up. AMAZING!
eddygoombah 1 year ago
You have to be kidding .... taking serious Scientific American!... I cannot take you seriously any more.
I wanna know one thing, professor : Is the speciation process observable? If yes, name a few.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
lol.
Fersomling 1 year ago
If God as defined by mainline churches does exist, then He is hiding, and hiding exceedingly well.
Fersomling 1 year ago
@Fersomling did you mean "mainstream"? I don't think church goers do heroine.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
Evolution in simple terms is pure bull fertilizer. This video is nonsense. I admire peoples faith in evolutionism because there isn't anything there. The empreror has no clothes. When you see a video titled 15 answers to Creationist nonsense, you know that it contains pure nonsense.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes So fossils don't count? Does the occurrence of genetic mutation not count also?
Digitalis17894 1 year ago
@Digitalis17894 Fossils are simply dead things. Here's why fossils actually form a good testimony against evolutionism. 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. The remainder is what is used to form the alleged 'missing link' fossils. Ironically if you took all of the bones that are so called 'transitionals', they would scarcely fill a single coffin. Genetic mutation - sounds like a good example of de-evolving to me.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes " if you took all of the bones that are so called 'transitionals', they would scarcely fill a single coffin"
CITATION NEEDED
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah Ok, you know about how big a coffin is, right? Now, take every 'transitional fossil' that is peddled as a 'missing link' or some link between man and ape. If you put them all together, it would almost - not quite but almost fill a single coffin. Evolutionism has a bad track record with Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, etc...
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes
every species that has ever come into existence is a "transitional form"
please learn something about evolution before you claim knowledge about it
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah If what you are saying is true, then there should be literally billions of transitional fossils everywhere. But there isn't. Even Darwin acknowledged the marked lack of transitional fossils and said it was one of the biggest problems with his theory. Maybe you need to observe the lack of transitional fossils.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes
How many times do you want me to tell you that every living species in the history of life is in fact a transitional fossil? You should also go ahead and look up the process behind fossilization. I am not responsible to keep you scientifically literate. Read. Research. Repeat.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah everything isn't a transitional fossil! What is everything transforming into?
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a clone of your parent nevermind. The rest of us, though propogation, exchange alleles, causing random mutations that, pressured by natural selection, will probably lead to genetic changes through a number of generations. My bad.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah Oh ok so THAT is how you are able to say everything is a transitional. It's another classic version of the evolutionists' bait & switch. Since something isn't an exact clone, than it is a transitional.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes are you a clone of your parents? no. You are a transition between your mom and dad. You don't even know what it is you are talking about.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah I'm not a 'transition' between my mom and dad. That's hokey voodoo science. We're all 50/50 genetic info. from mom and dad. No 'transitional'.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes No, we are not.
Do you like making up shit?
Digitalis17894 1 year ago
@eddygoombah Everything isn't a transitional fossil. EVEN DARWIN noted that the marked absence of transitional fossils was one of the biggest problems with his theory. I didn't say it, DARWIN did. Now if everything is a transitional fossil, it seems like he wouldn't have said what he said.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes darwin wrote that in the 1800 's, you idiot. Do you understand the staggering mount of fossils we have unearthed in the last 150 yrs? And I mean that in the most sincere way possible. you are an idiot, completely and absolutely.
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@eddygoombah You are using emotion to drive your thought process instead of facts. TODAY, right now, there STILL has not been any transitional fossils found. There are 'alleged' transitional fossils but there isn't anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a transitional fossil. 99% of the fossils found are incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No transitionals.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes ugh....
that's right, using data from peer reviewed scientific journals is "using emotion to drive my thought process instead of facts"
you sir are a retard
eddygoombah 1 year ago
All you need to disprove Creationism is logic.
Digitalis17894 1 year ago
@Digitalis17894 Oh ok, so the belief that a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor is logical? The belief that life arises from nonlife is logical? What kind of 'logic' are you using to prop up evolutionism?
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes I'm sorry, I guess the scientific community that labeled evolution a fact has been disproved by a 15 year old wanna be trying to sound smart. Oh, and evolution doesn't imply that life came from non-life. Thats Abiogenesis. And besides, I commented on Creationism. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean that they believe in evolution.
I love how much research you put into your comment.
Digitalis17894 1 year ago
@Digitalis17894 Once the 'scientific community' thought the world was carried on the back of a turtle, or carried on the back of a man the same time several Bible scriptures said otherwise. What are the 'facts' of evolution? Secondly, life from nonlife - it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists believe in molecules to man evolution. Fundamental evolutionists I guess. Evolutionism is divided into several different denominations it appears.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes Would you really call them a scientific community? Well, I wouldn't.
So I guess because some "scientists" were wrong the Bible is right?
No, it doesn't depend on who you ask. Abiogenisis is the study of life from non-life. Like I said, Abiogenisis and evolution don't have to be associated with each other. And don't say "Evolutionism" and "different denominations", since there is no such thing as "Evolutionsim".
Digitalis17894 1 year ago
@Digitalis17894 'evolutionism' encompasses all of the little facets or beliefs of evolution in general. Since there are so many, the 'ism' helps to cover all of them. Some discredit abiogenesis and recoil in horror when you discuss abiogenesis and evolution in the same sentence, while others say abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution. It depends on who you ask.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@Digitalis17894 Again it depends on who you ask. Some literal evolutionists, or 'fundamental evolutionists' would subscribe to the belief of abiogenesis. Life just somehow poofed out of nothing and has given us every life form we know and the ones yet to be discovered. Evolutionism does have many different facets or 'denominations' so it does really depend on who you ask.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes And WTF, how are genetic mutation and de-evolution related in any way?
Digitalis17894 1 year ago