no you tell me did the colorado river start above, or below the height of the top here let me repeat the TOP of the grand canyon, in mountains at least 12000 here TWELVE THOUSAND FEET above sea level? kind of useful to include how high the river actually starts. yeah nice try bud.
The river simply carried away the rocks efficiently, while the techtonic plates lifted the land surrounding it. This condition is like a geological buzz saw.
For mainstream scientific views try the excellent books by Richard Dawkins, ' The ancestors tale', ' Climbing Mt Improbable ', ' The Blind Watchmaker ', Also Daniel Dennett, ' Darwins dangerous idea' , also Victor J. Stenger, John W. Loftus , Dan Barker, Robert M. Price
Compared to the Valles Marinaris on Mars, the Grand Canyon is nothing more than a hole in the ground. Valles M. is about 4000 km in length, the Grand Canyon a few hundred. Creationists, how do you explain the geology on other planets? Was there a super-flood on Mars or are natural processes, such as tectonic activity and erosion taking place over millions or even billions of years, the real explanation? My guess - you can't!
Did this amature video actually get aired on TV? There was a show that had top chosen people from all religions, spiritualists and a few different scientists that all took about 20 minutes each to tackle every debate where eventually those who believed we have a God were losing horribly. I'd love to see it get back on the air because this most likely taught people how to know what's indisputable against what was read in their bibles or just why such the mannerism of a loving God is an oxymoron..
Laughable. He's talking about where the river is now. Millions of years ago it was higher, carving down as land around was pushed up by the same forces that made the Rockies. Why do I subject myself to creation science videos?
The colorado plateau has been rising for thousands of years. That's just basic geology, and as it has risen, the river has cut down into it, so that over time, the walls are now higher than the start and finish. Perfectly natural and similar to other places all over the world. Question answered.
Here's a thought: if you want to learn about spirituality, read a bible. If you want to learn about geologic principles, read a geology book. Fair enough?
@deiselgas Here's a thought. Why only read the Bible? Read real science textbooks, too.
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
Hey Hovind no need for water to flow up hill to carve out the canyon. All that's needed is for the crust to rise over 4 million years due to tectonic plate shift. But of course you probably think the earth's crust is solid, yellowstone is not a giant volcano, and God is the singular cause of all earthquakes.
Oh god as soon as I heard "Hovind" I wanted to shut this shit off, but I for some reason I find this asshat family entertaining. Hey how's your dad Erik? Heard he was in prison for tax evasion. Pretty sure you should be there too for aiding you father in his crimes.
The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some slow growing corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally the canyon was cut by water flowing down hill. How long do you think this took?
the grand canyon was formed by the river COMBINED WITH the uplift of the Colorado plateau when the rocky mountains were being formed. This creationist stuff is bullshit END OF
the Grand Canyon is obviously here because it was formed by the world wide flood. Anyone that looks at the facts can see this clearly all the evidence is pointing to a massive worldwide flood. nothing else could have dont this. Anyone that thinks it eroded over millions of years what did all the deposits disapear? Thats not Science thats a Fairytale much like the evolution Fairytale that has No evidence to suport it.
Watch Spillover-Theory . . . watch?v=SeBPKE5eDU0, also google canyon lake formation at San Antonio, a mini-grand canyon was formed in a matter of hours not millions of years...I´ve visited Grand Canyon and the more I look at it the more evidence I can see that this Canyon was carved on a hurry by a huge amount of water, of course this is an insult for the doctrine of evolution since its process requires millions and millions of years, actually Noahs flood evidence is world wide.
@realhomosapiens You can't explain how all the layers of rock exposed in the canyon got there. It still took millions of years to make 5000 feet of different kinds of rocks and raise them to 7000 above sea level.
Hi greg long time no see you...very respectufully I want you to know that you don´t eve even grasp what is the connection here ... all geolgist acknowledge that the whole earth was under water sometime in the past...that´s a fact proven by science...sure you won´t admit all of this since your blind faith allows you only one explanation...the one with no God in the equation...hopefully sometime you can see reality as it is.
If you´re right, then tell me, Why there are so many marine fossils right below your hatred Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Oh? I just visisted the Grand Canyon recently and also there at 8000ft above msl there are marine creature fossils? Why? and the very same is all over the world, in Sabinas Coahuila down here in Mexico, far away from the short line more than 500 nm away you can find marine fossils as well as dinosaurs fossils, WHY?
@realhomosapiens They grew there. All marine fossils grew under the current sea level and then Plate Tectonics raised the whole ocean floor above see level. There are not 'shells on the top of mountains''. The whole top of the mountain IS AN OLD SEA BED. Read a Geology book. Think 500 million years.
You mean dinosaurs and fishes grew in the very same place at the very same time and of course they DID agree to die and fossilize at the very same place an time? Where did you read that? in a cartoon book?
If you can explain how those dinos and fishes died at the very same place, I´m done, of course hallucinations are not acceptable, regardles if they are scientific ones...go ahead
@realhomosapiens YES, dinosaurs fell into lakes and were fossilsized with fish. Shorelines changed over the years, so layers can alternate. The point is there are no bunny or modern bird fossils with the early and middle age dinosarus. There are no dinosaur fossils in the same age rock as the trilobites fossils.
@gregrutz Please try to do a little research before asking me a question you can look up yourself (no offence) there are canyons all over the earth found this with very little searching. The Grand canyon was known as the largest canyon on earth until this was found Yarlung Zangbo Grand Canyon on the Yarlung Zangbo River is the longest and deepest canyon in the world.
The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut. How long do you think this took?
@gregrutz It's not even worth explaining to these people. Their minds are made up and your time is wasted typing to them. Anything that conflicts with their dogma must be alternately explained away including interpretations of their own holy book from their sky god.
haha wow.. His dad is a trickster just like him.. I'm just waiting for one of them to confess and join the light side.. (vs the dark side where they now are)
If Noah's flood really occurred as written in holy books, it was the worse intentional destruction of life that parallels nuclear holocaust. Am I really supposed to believe that ALL other humans and creatures were judged unworthy by its own creator and just snuffed out by horrible drowning? So far, this God who convinces Abram to put his son on an altar to be carved up and floods the entire earth is worse than anyone I've ever heard.
You have to be sadistic and insane to believe in this mess.
Check out potholer54's channel, he uses this video in his debunking of such a preposterous claim.
To paraphrase him: Given the choice between water flowing up hill and a super natural being drowning 99.999% of all people on Earth I'm more inclined to believe water flows up hill
I was wondering how the Ark carried the giant redwoods? I was also wondering if this guy understands that the land is still rising in this area, and his data is wrong?
How can people hold on to ideas that were discredited in 1835?
The canyon on the right is virtually a horseshoe. A great flood of the type proposed would carve a near straight channel in whichever direction it was flowing. The overall pattern is one of a meandering river, even on the left of the picture.
Notice how the river goes around the mound / plateau. So the water was never going over, it was going around, in a pattern that would indicate a long process of erosion, taking the path of least resistance.
As the Pacific plate went under the North American plate (creating the Rocky Mountains) the canyon base was being pushed upwards. That is why you find such old rocks in the Grand Canyon, they were pushed up by plate tectonics.
They never talk about the 21 distinct layer of rock. How did slow growing corals and desert sands get there in the first place. How did these shallow sea limestones get to 5000 feet above sea level. How did the Super Group of rocks under these sediments get tilted. One flood can not account for the geology we see.
Or the fossil record.
There is no evicence for a global flood, the Chinese did not all die and they recorded floods for 10,000 years.
@vozuluzov Look at the graphic a bit closer :15. The orientation is facing north and it's only about half of the canyon in the middle section with the Kaibab plateau. He correctly points to the east as the entrance and the west as the exit, but neither location depicted is the exact entry or exit. The main point is the canyon entrance and exit are roughly 4-7k feet lower at each end than the 9k' peak of the plateau. The Colorado river would have had to flow up hill many thousands of feet.
@JohnD24x7 Yes, scientists have a problem. The plateau was pushed up to 7000 feet above sea level some 20 million years ago. The river didn't start carving the canyon until 5-7 million years ago. Rivers go through mountains all the time, the river was there first, before the mountains were raised up.
Correct. The orientation of the graphic has the viewer looking north. Therefore, when Eric says the Colorado River exits the canyon (around the :32 mark), his first little blue arrow is in the EAST. His second little blue arrow appears in the WEST when he mentions the entrance (around :36). Thus he is saying the Colorado River runs from west to east... which is bassackwards. Download Google Earth and check it out for yourself.
Is this guy for real? Apparently he has never heard of upheavel and tectonic plates. But then I guess mythology does require fabrication and conveniently forgetting about certain facts we know about our world.
@mar504 If you're suggesting that the the grand canyon was first carved over millions of years and then middle was uplifted?? If so you really need to learn more about the geology of the canyon and the surrounding plateau.
HA HA HA!! I thought this was an animation demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was actually formed, not some evangelical creationist's view. Well that threw me for a minute. "Or was it Noah's Flood???" Me: "WTF?! I need more sleep."
Anyway, while I'm here: I know water's powerful, but a simple flood is not going to dramatically slice right through the igneous intrusive and metamorphic layers of the inner gorge in the canyon. I don't understand this logic presented in the video...
@steponme208 According to the Bible, the water stood for 40 days and nights before it started descending. By this time the soil would be really soft, which is also the first half of the Niagara Falls could of all washed away in days, right now it's eroding like 5 feet back a year (not sure). So when the soil was soft and this huge left over lake/dam broke through, it eroded so much area on it's way out. Look up broken dams, there you can see erosion marks very similar to the Great Canyon.
@robotroid No no no no, I'm talking about igneous and metamorphic compositions of rock. 5 weeks of sitting water isn't going to "soften" these layers because they were formed beneath the surface with an intense amount of heat either directly or indirectly by magma. 40 days of water isn't going to 'carve' out these layers of the canyon 6000 feet deep. And I looked up broken dams but I don't see erosion, I see ruble.
Anyone with Google Earth can prove this kid has no clue. Notice the original flashy graphic is oriented with North as up. So East is to the right and West is to the left. Hovind's arrow for where the Colorado River "exits the canyon" is actually where it ENTERS the canyon... and vice versa The river flows from East to West (away from the Rockies and towards the Pacific). Hovind gets it BASS ACKWARDS!!! What a maroon.
If the flood formed the grand canyon then why is it in the shape of a river rather than a seabed? Also if the great flood could have done this shouldn't we see more canyons like this?
When the water went away... where did the salt go? It would have KILLED every plant. The ratio of salt to water in sea-water or ocean water is waaaay too high to have drained into the earth (or magically disappeared) 4000 years ago and have ANY plant life survive. No plants = no animals= no life in present day form.
The ocean doesnt have salt... But, the ocean produce salt..Big difference... Next time use LOGIC before you open you fat mouth..HAHAHAHHAHA... Did you know that the deep ocean is no longer salty? and the salty one are only near shores? OH you didnt know that did you? You must be dumb as a RAT...You evovlve from a monkey yet you dnt want to fuck a monkey, why?
If the ocean produces salt than it technically contains salt and can leave deposits of it. Have you ever tasted sea water? If not than I can tell you that it is very salty.
Actually I have...I am a seaman... And a diver..I tasted see water spoecially the deep sea water its no longer salty....The salty part is near the shores...PACIFIC ocean and atlantic are not salty..have you tried it?
LOL, so salt just magically is formed by the ocean... you FOOL. Where does it come from? Hmmmm? Where did all that water come from? Where did it go? You have no answer.
Also, that much water doesn't just disappear... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD.... NONE.
@herbiethebarber There is another video on that, one of the creation minutes. And the water all went to the oceans, before the flood, it is predicted that the earth was covered 90% by land, with water being under the crust of the earth and during the flood the "fountains of the deep" I believe it says, broke open making the water escape.
I really wonder if Eric is intentionally trying to misinform people, or he really didn't take grade school geology to learn about uplifts and erosion. did you really thought scientist where that stupid and didn't notice that? sigh... preying on the uneducated like always... makes me sick
well, for one he's got the river flowing backwards. Secondly the "peak" is far from the river. The river went around it, not over it.
Have you even looked into the CSE or do you trust any group with a bible in their hand? I don't understand how any self-respecting x-ian can support the CSE after all the shit they've done.
the part where he said the river flew upwards to carve the grand canyon? grade school geology will tell you the river flow downwards while the land was being uplifted, the uplift rate obviously slower then the erosion rate. we see similar formation in other rivers as well...the better question will be. what part of his presentation isn't intentionally misinforming. machwon seem to beat me to the reply already.
Yea, in order to be a creationist you MUST have a complete misunderstanding of science. Once you understand science and you see it for what it truly is you can't believe that stars can fall on a flat 6000 year old earth encased in glass.
Funny how they hold on dear to the idea of creation, but not geocentritism, flat earth, or rain caused by opening a window in the sky
LOL you're right! not only is he saying it's flowing backwards he said that that scientists believe that ir was just the river that caused it, he forgot about other other types of erosion.
Clearly this is a problem for his credibility. Also his dad is a convicted fraudster doesn't help either.
So you agree that the literal interpretation of The Bible and creationism has no evidence, at least we can agree somewhere.
You don't look at one transitional fossil, you look at MANY and see the graidiants. Which shows me you don't have any idea what evolution really is. Macro evolution IS observable. Quit making that bogus statement, I have told you many times that macro evolution is the result of micro evolution over a longer period of time.
machwon, micro evelution is not on par with Macro. It is diversification within the same type of animal. This is already in the dna code. Still rabbits making rabbits no matter how different they may look, still rabbits. Breeders can breed all different kinds of dogs but they'll never get a pig or an ardvark. This is really misleading to try connect this observed phenomenon with the faith of Macro evolution. God is true. I had a life changing expeirance with the Holy Spirit. He designed it all.
We have observed "macro-evolution." Sorry, you are wrong. A google search for "observed instances of speciation" into google and you will see many examples of it.
also if you think evolution means once species just miraculously gives birth to a new species you have no idea what evolution is. Whoever or whatever gave you this idea was lying to you.
Even if there is scientific proof of the existence of God doesn't prove or disprove evolution. It's a non-sequitur. logical fallacy much?
that is because you nor CSE do not understand macro-evolution. When you say there is micro evolution but impossible to have macro evolution, it is the same as saying you can walk across the street, but you can't walk a mile. Macro evolution is micro evolution over a much longer time.
You are right that a cat can't give birth to a dog, but no one but creationists think that is what macro evolution is. watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
I'm am not saying that macro evolution is when a one kind of an animal produces another right away. God created all animals with a varying gene code, so they can adapt to their surroundings. If you put a bunch of dogs in different parts of the world for millions of years, they will adapt to a certain point and stay like that, they will not start becoming something else, because natural selection selects of what is already there, it doesn't create. Macro evolution has never been observed.
We have hundreds libraries each of which have hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that link all forms of species to another, Macro evolution IS observed.
The 'Therory' Evolution is a fact. There is more evidence supporting it than the 'Therory' of gravity.
The evidence is out there, you just have to open your eyes and look.
I have opened my eyes and looked, when I couldn't find the evidence behind evolution. Please, give me a name, or show me ONE transitional fossil that I can look at, because I haven't found any. The theory of evolution is a religion, because people believe it even though there is no evidence. The theory of gravity can be observed. Evolution (Macro evolution to be specific) cannot.
It all hypothesis, that is why it's the "theory of evolution" whereas we have various "laws (not theory) of gravity. If you fall off a roof, you'll find gravity is not a theory.
Sorry, gravity is a scientific theory. Unfortunately, theory means something different in the scientific realm. Other scientific theories include electricity. The laws of gravity fall into the theory, much like the laws of physics and conservation of energy fall into the theory of relativity.
I love that.. theory means somthing different in the scientific realm. There you go with the shell game. Changing the meaning of words does not mute his point. This theory of macro evelution can never be observed tested or repeated for to establish it as a fact like gravity. But I do understand your position. To give up your faith in evolution you would have to be open to the unthinkable. Very scary for you folks I think. A Creator. Who said you would deny the flood 2000 years ago. Right again.
Sorry, but we have observed speciation (or what the creationists call 'macro-evolution) but you have never taken time to look for examples because it would uproot your whole world view. The real shell game is for creationists to convince the world there can only be one definition for a word. Clearly I would not burn my hand on Megan Fox's ass because she is "hot" or that her ass is even a mule.
What made me loose faith was when I read the bible, cover to cover NOT evolution in school. Also, creationism builds it's case on evolution is wrong and never provides any evidence for creationism. A false dichotomy. Logical fallacies has never proven anything other than those who are making them have no idea what they are talking about.
Also show me where in any peer-reviewed scientific literature has there been any discussion about the non-existence of god. Couldn't god use Evolution?
`Couldn't god use Evolution? ` - it`s possible but that dscredits the biblical account that death is caused by the fall of adam and eve due to sin `the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ Our Lord`
How did any of the animals live with out killing and eating other plants and animals if there was no death before the fall. Wouldn't those animals died from starvation? Ohh right, that would of been death too.
Protip: Biblical stories were never ment to be taken literally, they are like mystical synopsis or moral homilies. To take it literally is missing the point of the story.
Now we can have theological debates, but it doesn't negate the fact of evolution.
Also if the earth is 6000 years old how come we can observe things in space 13 billion light years away. if it was only 6000 we could only observe things 6,000 light years away, the other stuff's light wouldn't of got here yet.
@robotroid Evolution is a fact, it did happen. Explaining how and why it works is the scientific theory. Now that we have the terminology straightened out, can we get back to the fact that Creationism is NOT science because it is not a falsifiable claim. "Magic man done it" is not science, it's superstition. Every bit of evidence proposed by creationists that are falsifiable claims have been proven, excuse the pun, false. Example: Claims in the video above. ^^^
@robotroid And that's true. A lot of people claim evolution as a fact when it isn't. However it isn't JUST a theory like in everyday conversation, it's a scientific theory based on repeated tests, evidence, research, discussions, etc. And to find a theory that continuously has pieces putting together its puzzle is rare and remarkable and deserves some mark of respect.
@steponme208 In science, a theory is the highest level of evidence. i.e. germ theory, theory of gravity, theory of electricity...etc. However, because evolution takes place on earth and we can observe it better we have more evidence for that scientific theory than we do for the theory of gravity. It's kind of harder and more expensive to test gravitational pulls to densities of other astronomical objects or say trying to explain what that force is and how it functions.
@machwon we do observe evolution, I do not object to that. But we only observe micro evolution and macro evolution has never been observed, only hypothesized.
@robotroid That used to be true, but over the last decade more evidence has been discovered to support marco-evolution. In 2004 for example a fossil was found to have both fish and amphibious characteristics that indicate a transitional organism (I can't post a link, but google "pbs evolution" and click videos at the bottom. It's the first video on the list.)
@robotroid Stop with the talking points. Look at the evidence. The only diffrence between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution (as if those are scientific terms, I think you mean speciation) is time. We've observed speciation and we've have evidence for speciation that took place before man.
Instead of repeating the same old tired debunked arguments thats keeps getting tossed around by ignorant fools, try actually reading a book about it. A real book by a real scientist.
@machwon As long as they can interbreed, I wouldn't call them a different species. A chuwawa and a German Shepherd can't interbreed for technical reasons, but they are not different species of dogs. I have heard of rabbits that can't interbreed in between, but with some other species they can, but they are still rabbits, there is nothing new in their genetic information and only selected genes. Can you bring some examples of speciation please?
@robotroid Thats exactly what speciation is, they cannot breed. Have you even investigated wither or not there's been observed instances of speciation or are you on again with the talking points? You sound like one of those 9/11 "truthers" looping the same old debunked arguments over and over completely oblivious to counter arguments. Learn something or at least read the wikipedia entry before you speak on things, makes you look less ignorant.
@machwon Yes, I've read some of it. I've heard in my biology class, that there were ground squirrels in the Grand Canyon and as they got seperated to the two sides of the Canyon they became different species. I do believe in that and that is speciation (the squirrel didn't acquire any new traits that hasn't already been in the gene code) Evolution happens through mutations and natural selection, maybe it's just my ignorance as you pointed out, but I don't understand how they bring about ...
@robotroid new kinds of animals, from fish to amphibians to reptiles... and to man as they teach us. All these animals have different genes that single celled organisms don't have, so how do they get them? Natural Selection selects from what's already there. Also I have never read about ANY beneficial mutations. Bacteria can adapt to pesticides, but this happens by the bacteria that don't have this ability die out and those that do live, so it's in their genes already.
@robotroid You heard about it, huh? You weren't really paying attention then I take it. Most people study biology in biology class, you just herd some things.
Why do you insist that no new changes occur? Of course they do. We can relate ALL living things via DNA. We don't have ALL of the DNA sequences of ALL animals, and neither do they. You must understand the TIME involved. This isn't 1 animal changing into another, it is MILLIONS of animals having MILLIONS of offspring, if not BILLIONS. Evolution is a TREE NOT A LADDER.
@herbiethebarber i certainly understand what you mean, but it all started with a single cell organism right? or it started with the basic life. Where did all the extra DNA come from? Right now as we observe, no DNA is added from generation to generation, it's the same it's just the dominant traits show. There are mutations, I know that, but we learned in biology that mutations sometimes don't make much change and are unnocitable, and sometimes they are lethal, how come evolution is an exception?
@robotroid First the creation of DNA and the changing of DNA are 2 totally different things. I agree that the creation is not understood, but the change IS. We absolutely know without any doubt that DNA changes via mutation; and not pre-existing genome sequences, but BRAND NEW ones. That's what mutations do. Sure, one might see these changes as "mistakes", but mistaks are subjective. Mutations are usually very subtle. From your mother to you there are an estimated 150 to 200 mutations..
@robotroid Please research KEN MILLER, RICHARD DAWKINS (I AM NOT an atheist, but he is very well-versed on this topic), and Richard Lenski. Lenski has recently mapped the change in E. Coli that has produced a brand new strain via mutation. He is in the process of mapping this change and showing EXACTLY where the mutation occured, and how.
@herbiethebarber evilution never happened! My paster said the universe was created by the divine working of God and that it was done in 6 days! My pastor said to remember, God said it, I believe it, "that settles it!" If my pastor said creation is true, trust me dude, it true as pastor DOES NOT LIE! He also said to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing! I claim protection from you in JEEBUS name AMEN (lol)
Wow, are you serious? Speciation events usually take a long time. You need to go to talkorigins .o r g
Please read. Mutations change DNA structure. These changes can be VERY subtle. From your mother and father to you there are approx. 150 mutations. You must understand that a mutation doesn't (usually) give you .. say... 5 fingers! or a third leg... READ at the website I told you, it is THE BEST reference there is to answer ALL of your questions. Then get back to me.
It has been sent to many sources and the geologists know this stuff, it's just that anything that goes against the evolution religion being taught in our textbooks automatically gets thrown out. Very sad.
Its not sad its called reality, if your information is wrong and has no evidence then it is discarded. Because you think its correct doesn't mean it is.
No it is discarded, because Evolution is a state religion being supported by taxes and taught to students all over America. Evolution has no proof and it is still not discarded. It's not discarded because it's been proven, it is still there because the alternative is 'unthinkable'.
Actually its easily thinkable, god did it, pretty easy. The problem is there is no proof of god or jesus's story, the NT and OT are fiction with no evidence to back up their stories.
The unthinkable to you is that whoever wrote the bible stories made them up.
There is LOTS of proof of the Bible being true and scientifically accurate. It is either that you are ignorant of it, or you have never heard it. I hope the reason is that you haven't heard it, so please, if you have time, check the playlist on my page called Randall Niles Journey, he was an atheist like you, so please check it out and watch it.
First of all, the Bible is way ahead in science and it has many science facts in there that our science didn't know until modern days ( +-900 years). For example, the Bible says that the earth is in space and not on some turtle in the ocean in Job 26:7 "He...hangs the earth upon nothing."
Springs of the sea - Modern deep-sea-diving cameras have discovered amazing hot-water vents on the floor of the oceans-'the springs of the sea' which are mentioned in Job 38:16
Plants need sunlight, water , and minerals in order to grow and to make their own energy and food. The Bible has this in Genesis where God first created light(Genesis 1:3) then water(v.6) then soil (v.9) then plant life.
How can the Bible state all these things more than 2,000 before they
were discovered, unless this was by some supernatural power.
In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.m million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac)
Genesis was written WAY before 2,000 years before, why does it have these secrets
They aren't secrets, they are very vague and generally wrong verses that aren't even in the context of what you think they are saying. I could list other verses from the bible that say the opposite of what you say.
Isaiah doesn't say the earth is round, it says its a circle which isn't round. There is a word in Hebrew for sphere but it wasn't used.
I asked for evidence the bible is fact, do you know of any real evidence?
The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit: or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched - not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 640 and 680 BC This is at leas 300 years before Aristotle suggested in his book that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at the time when science believed that the earth was flat) that
Also, the prophecies in the Bible are all coming true, it's like everything was predicted in order and is happening. For example, Isaiah tells us that the people of Israel will be forced out of the country and scattered all over the world and will then come back in a single day. This happened in modern times. See this, I can't put it any better than him. watch?v=kHEjqvmQIZg
I actually didn't give u any of the extensive evidence of evolution. If you want some look up the Dover trial where in a court of law much of the evidence of evolution was displayed. Creationism had a chance to display its evidence but didn't offer much that was convincing. You might also want to call any geology department in a university in the entire world.
And evolution isn't a belief, reality doesn't need belief, it has evidence.
I'll look up the trial right now. Evolution is a religion. First of all it has no proof. like I had the quote before - people believe it because the alternative is 'unthinkable'. Reality doesn't need a belief, you're right, but evolution isn't reality.
Also the creation science evangelism (cse) ministry have been offering $250,000 for ANY proof of evolution for more than 16 years now, and none has been presented during this time.
This is the 21st century????
Sciencebox2010 1 week ago
this guy is a huge faggot
Pontus900 2 weeks ago
i wonder why ratings are disabled
TheHONKYLIPS 3 weeks ago
This utter stupidity in the video my makes my brain hurt.
physicscat 1 month ago
@physicscat Agreed
chrisiglehart 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is my favorite Hovind minute, when he has the river flowing
THE WRONG WAY !
gregrutz 1 month ago
grand canyon was underwater you twat...
Amstrup77 1 month ago
no you tell me did the colorado river start above, or below the height of the top here let me repeat the TOP of the grand canyon, in mountains at least 12000 here TWELVE THOUSAND FEET above sea level? kind of useful to include how high the river actually starts. yeah nice try bud.
darkwarrior860 2 months ago
What a fool, just like his father.
LoneRookRS1 3 months ago
A Different Perspective
Yes, Having the river flow the wrong way is A Different Perspective!
gregrutz 3 months ago
Your a fucking idiot. Consider eustatic sea level changes, tectonic dynamics, erosion....
bagglestheatheist 3 months ago
I think the water flowed uphill.
Destroyer4700 4 months ago
The river simply carried away the rocks efficiently, while the techtonic plates lifted the land surrounding it. This condition is like a geological buzz saw.
DaveMagee83 4 months ago
For mainstream scientific views try the excellent books by Richard Dawkins, ' The ancestors tale', ' Climbing Mt Improbable ', ' The Blind Watchmaker ', Also Daniel Dennett, ' Darwins dangerous idea' , also Victor J. Stenger, John W. Loftus , Dan Barker, Robert M. Price
zytigon 4 months ago
This is my favorite Hovind minute, when he has the river flowing
THE WRONG WAY !
gregrutz 4 months ago
yeah Thanks for nothing!
kelleyBraga1 4 months ago
Thanks for nothing.
Attiladesigner22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Compared to the Valles Marinaris on Mars, the Grand Canyon is nothing more than a hole in the ground. Valles M. is about 4000 km in length, the Grand Canyon a few hundred. Creationists, how do you explain the geology on other planets? Was there a super-flood on Mars or are natural processes, such as tectonic activity and erosion taking place over millions or even billions of years, the real explanation? My guess - you can't!
Tapiola2007 5 months ago
Did this amature video actually get aired on TV? There was a show that had top chosen people from all religions, spiritualists and a few different scientists that all took about 20 minutes each to tackle every debate where eventually those who believed we have a God were losing horribly. I'd love to see it get back on the air because this most likely taught people how to know what's indisputable against what was read in their bibles or just why such the mannerism of a loving God is an oxymoron..
ThankYouESM 5 months ago
Laughable. He's talking about where the river is now. Millions of years ago it was higher, carving down as land around was pushed up by the same forces that made the Rockies. Why do I subject myself to creation science videos?
Rastermon 5 months ago
why can't we rate this?
mgunthe 5 months ago
*facepalm*
madjimms 5 months ago
THE RIVER FLOWS THE OTHER WAY !!!
From east/right to west/left. Nice job dummy.
gregrutz 6 months ago
Wat
fortcollinsguy22 6 months ago
The colorado plateau has been rising for thousands of years. That's just basic geology, and as it has risen, the river has cut down into it, so that over time, the walls are now higher than the start and finish. Perfectly natural and similar to other places all over the world. Question answered.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
Yea, forget the fact that we see the very mechanics of erosion shaping riverbeds, including the grand canyon, all over the world to this very day.
/watch?v=ktf73HNZZGY
pyrobryan 7 months ago
another minute of my life wasted - i want it back!
bamesjasti 7 months ago
Here's a thought: if you want to learn about spirituality, read a bible. If you want to learn about geologic principles, read a geology book. Fair enough?
deiselgas 8 months ago
@deiselgas Here's a thought. Why only read the Bible? Read real science textbooks, too.
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Hey Hovind no need for water to flow up hill to carve out the canyon. All that's needed is for the crust to rise over 4 million years due to tectonic plate shift. But of course you probably think the earth's crust is solid, yellowstone is not a giant volcano, and God is the singular cause of all earthquakes.
massimmortal 9 months ago
Oh god as soon as I heard "Hovind" I wanted to shut this shit off, but I for some reason I find this asshat family entertaining. Hey how's your dad Erik? Heard he was in prison for tax evasion. Pretty sure you should be there too for aiding you father in his crimes.
massimmortal 9 months ago
deep down i know its not nice to laugh at mentally handicapped...
but... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
DrudgeKing 9 months ago
Or maybe aliens came and cut the canyon with laser beams!
MikeUTube9333 9 months ago
Wow. Just. Wow. I was hoping to see a video on "How the Grand Canyon Formed" but I guess this isn't it...
CaliforniaGuy007 10 months ago
its called uplift, jackass
CarlSagan6 10 months ago
Wow I think I just got more stupid watching this.
Juzmascuta 11 months ago
The Grand Canyon took 5 to 7 Million years just to carve, it took much longer to build up 5000 feet of sediments to cut through.
gregrutz 11 months ago
The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some slow growing corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally the canyon was cut by water flowing down hill. How long do you think this took?
gregrutz 11 months ago
He doesn't even know which way the river flows. It enters on the right.
He is trying to show the canyon was formed rapidly but can't explain how all the layers of rock got there in the first palce.
gregrutz 11 months ago
A magical man made it.
slotstik 1 year ago
the grand canyon was formed by the river COMBINED WITH the uplift of the Colorado plateau when the rocky mountains were being formed. This creationist stuff is bullshit END OF
TheRozza333 1 year ago
the Grand Canyon is obviously here because it was formed by the world wide flood. Anyone that looks at the facts can see this clearly all the evidence is pointing to a massive worldwide flood. nothing else could have dont this. Anyone that thinks it eroded over millions of years what did all the deposits disapear? Thats not Science thats a Fairytale much like the evolution Fairytale that has No evidence to suport it.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28
Watch Spillover-Theory . . . watch?v=SeBPKE5eDU0, also google canyon lake formation at San Antonio, a mini-grand canyon was formed in a matter of hours not millions of years...I´ve visited Grand Canyon and the more I look at it the more evidence I can see that this Canyon was carved on a hurry by a huge amount of water, of course this is an insult for the doctrine of evolution since its process requires millions and millions of years, actually Noahs flood evidence is world wide.
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens You can't explain how all the layers of rock exposed in the canyon got there. It still took millions of years to make 5000 feet of different kinds of rocks and raise them to 7000 above sea level.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens the spillover theory is about a lake not a global flood.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz
Hi greg long time no see you...very respectufully I want you to know that you don´t eve even grasp what is the connection here ... all geolgist acknowledge that the whole earth was under water sometime in the past...that´s a fact proven by science...sure you won´t admit all of this since your blind faith allows you only one explanation...the one with no God in the equation...hopefully sometime you can see reality as it is.
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens all geolgist acknowledge that the whole earth was under water sometime in the past
NO THEY DON"T. Geologist went looking for evidence of a flood 200 years ago and didn't find any.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz
If you´re right, then tell me, Why there are so many marine fossils right below your hatred Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Oh? I just visisted the Grand Canyon recently and also there at 8000ft above msl there are marine creature fossils? Why? and the very same is all over the world, in Sabinas Coahuila down here in Mexico, far away from the short line more than 500 nm away you can find marine fossils as well as dinosaurs fossils, WHY?
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens They grew there. All marine fossils grew under the current sea level and then Plate Tectonics raised the whole ocean floor above see level. There are not 'shells on the top of mountains''. The whole top of the mountain IS AN OLD SEA BED. Read a Geology book. Think 500 million years.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz
You mean dinosaurs and fishes grew in the very same place at the very same time and of course they DID agree to die and fossilize at the very same place an time? Where did you read that? in a cartoon book?
If you can explain how those dinos and fishes died at the very same place, I´m done, of course hallucinations are not acceptable, regardles if they are scientific ones...go ahead
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens YES, dinosaurs fell into lakes and were fossilsized with fish. Shorelines changed over the years, so layers can alternate. The point is there are no bunny or modern bird fossils with the early and middle age dinosarus. There are no dinosaur fossils in the same age rock as the trilobites fossils.
gregrutz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens ''all geolgist acknowledge that the whole earth was under water sometime in the past. ''
Wrong! Stop lying or you will go to hell.
Geologists proved the earth is old and there was no global flood.
Eric has the river flowing the wrong way !! LOL and you listen to him?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@coolvideo28 IF the Grand Canyon was formed by a world wide flood, why is there only one Grand Canyon?
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Please try to do a little research before asking me a question you can look up yourself (no offence) there are canyons all over the earth found this with very little searching. The Grand canyon was known as the largest canyon on earth until this was found Yarlung Zangbo Grand Canyon on the Yarlung Zangbo River is the longest and deepest canyon in the world.
coolvideo28 11 months ago
@coolvideo28 there is only one Grand Canyon dummy.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Obviously you cant read
coolvideo28 11 months ago
@coolvideo28 Obviously you have never read a science book.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@coolvideo28 The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 Distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK exposed in the Grand Canyon.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
No evidence for evolution?!? Please try to do a little research before looking so stupid.
There is so much evidence for it that it is accepted by everyone not brainwahsed by religion.
gregrutz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IDiot does not even know which way the river runs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut. How long do you think this took?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It's not even worth explaining to these people. Their minds are made up and your time is wasted typing to them. Anything that conflicts with their dogma must be alternately explained away including interpretations of their own holy book from their sky god.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
haha wow.. His dad is a trickster just like him.. I'm just waiting for one of them to confess and join the light side.. (vs the dark side where they now are)
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
If Noah's flood really occurred as written in holy books, it was the worse intentional destruction of life that parallels nuclear holocaust. Am I really supposed to believe that ALL other humans and creatures were judged unworthy by its own creator and just snuffed out by horrible drowning? So far, this God who convinces Abram to put his son on an altar to be carved up and floods the entire earth is worse than anyone I've ever heard.
You have to be sadistic and insane to believe in this mess.
03030303 1 year ago
By "some scientists" does he mean all?
Check out potholer54's channel, he uses this video in his debunking of such a preposterous claim.
To paraphrase him: Given the choice between water flowing up hill and a super natural being drowning 99.999% of all people on Earth I'm more inclined to believe water flows up hill
WWJellyfish 1 year ago
The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I was wondering how the Ark carried the giant redwoods? I was also wondering if this guy understands that the land is still rising in this area, and his data is wrong?
How can people hold on to ideas that were discredited in 1835?
TheGranule 1 year ago
I can not wait until we start exterminating people with IQ's below the minimum level.
moksith 1 year ago
My observations:
0:14
The canyon on the right is virtually a horseshoe. A great flood of the type proposed would carve a near straight channel in whichever direction it was flowing. The overall pattern is one of a meandering river, even on the left of the picture.
0:17 and from 0:32
Notice how the river goes around the mound / plateau. So the water was never going over, it was going around, in a pattern that would indicate a long process of erosion, taking the path of least resistance.
Knightyme 1 year ago
with that logic you do need God.
Geology201 1 year ago
Pretty simple.
As the Pacific plate went under the North American plate (creating the Rocky Mountains) the canyon base was being pushed upwards. That is why you find such old rocks in the Grand Canyon, they were pushed up by plate tectonics.
RyanV27 1 year ago
They never talk about the 21 distinct layer of rock. How did slow growing corals and desert sands get there in the first place. How did these shallow sea limestones get to 5000 feet above sea level. How did the Super Group of rocks under these sediments get tilted. One flood can not account for the geology we see.
Or the fossil record.
There is no evicence for a global flood, the Chinese did not all die and they recorded floods for 10,000 years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
If Hovind can't even correctly identify the entry and exit points of the Colorado River, why should we listen to anything else he has to say?
vozuluzov 1 year ago
@vozuluzov Look at the graphic a bit closer :15. The orientation is facing north and it's only about half of the canyon in the middle section with the Kaibab plateau. He correctly points to the east as the entrance and the west as the exit, but neither location depicted is the exact entry or exit. The main point is the canyon entrance and exit are roughly 4-7k feet lower at each end than the 9k' peak of the plateau. The Colorado river would have had to flow up hill many thousands of feet.
JohnD24x7 1 year ago
@JohnD24x7 Yes, scientists have a problem. The plateau was pushed up to 7000 feet above sea level some 20 million years ago. The river didn't start carving the canyon until 5-7 million years ago. Rivers go through mountains all the time, the river was there first, before the mountains were raised up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@JohnD24x7
Correct. The orientation of the graphic has the viewer looking north. Therefore, when Eric says the Colorado River exits the canyon (around the :32 mark), his first little blue arrow is in the EAST. His second little blue arrow appears in the WEST when he mentions the entrance (around :36). Thus he is saying the Colorado River runs from west to east... which is bassackwards. Download Google Earth and check it out for yourself.
vozuluzov 1 year ago
@vozuluzov thanks for that. I couldn't believe this video
jdj106 1 year ago
Is this guy for real? Apparently he has never heard of upheavel and tectonic plates. But then I guess mythology does require fabrication and conveniently forgetting about certain facts we know about our world.
mar504 1 year ago
@mar504 If you're suggesting that the the grand canyon was first carved over millions of years and then middle was uplifted?? If so you really need to learn more about the geology of the canyon and the surrounding plateau.
JohnD24x7 1 year ago
@JohnD24x7 Alright, since your the expert in geology why don't you explain to everyone just how the plateau was created.
mar504 1 year ago
HA HA HA!! I thought this was an animation demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was actually formed, not some evangelical creationist's view. Well that threw me for a minute. "Or was it Noah's Flood???" Me: "WTF?! I need more sleep."
Anyway, while I'm here: I know water's powerful, but a simple flood is not going to dramatically slice right through the igneous intrusive and metamorphic layers of the inner gorge in the canyon. I don't understand this logic presented in the video...
steponme208 1 year ago
@steponme208 According to the Bible, the water stood for 40 days and nights before it started descending. By this time the soil would be really soft, which is also the first half of the Niagara Falls could of all washed away in days, right now it's eroding like 5 feet back a year (not sure). So when the soil was soft and this huge left over lake/dam broke through, it eroded so much area on it's way out. Look up broken dams, there you can see erosion marks very similar to the Great Canyon.
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid No no no no, I'm talking about igneous and metamorphic compositions of rock. 5 weeks of sitting water isn't going to "soften" these layers because they were formed beneath the surface with an intense amount of heat either directly or indirectly by magma. 40 days of water isn't going to 'carve' out these layers of the canyon 6000 feet deep. And I looked up broken dams but I don't see erosion, I see ruble.
steponme208 1 year ago
Rivers don't make canyons? WTF?!?
gregrutz 2 years ago
This is comedy for anybody who's at least semi-intelligent!
Anyways, who let these guys get their hands on CGI? Making it look professional doesn't make it correct.
IcyLime20 2 years ago
Anyone with Google Earth can prove this kid has no clue. Notice the original flashy graphic is oriented with North as up. So East is to the right and West is to the left. Hovind's arrow for where the Colorado River "exits the canyon" is actually where it ENTERS the canyon... and vice versa The river flows from East to West (away from the Rockies and towards the Pacific). Hovind gets it BASS ACKWARDS!!! What a maroon.
vozuluzov 2 years ago
That was unenlightening. State one improbable theory and don't bother to explain how Noah's flood would have carved it out in the manner that it did.
meangreen4321 2 years ago
I now feel dumber...
schreck425 2 years ago 2
If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of utter crap!
(Apologies to Kipling).
TheBaldmeister 2 years ago
If the flood formed the grand canyon then why is it in the shape of a river rather than a seabed? Also if the great flood could have done this shouldn't we see more canyons like this?
swordhunter12 2 years ago
When the water went away... where did the salt go? It would have KILLED every plant. The ratio of salt to water in sea-water or ocean water is waaaay too high to have drained into the earth (or magically disappeared) 4000 years ago and have ANY plant life survive. No plants = no animals= no life in present day form.
herbiethebarber 2 years ago
The ocean doesnt have salt... But, the ocean produce salt..Big difference... Next time use LOGIC before you open you fat mouth..HAHAHAHHAHA... Did you know that the deep ocean is no longer salty? and the salty one are only near shores? OH you didnt know that did you? You must be dumb as a RAT...You evovlve from a monkey yet you dnt want to fuck a monkey, why?
emsing2001 2 years ago
If the ocean produces salt than it technically contains salt and can leave deposits of it. Have you ever tasted sea water? If not than I can tell you that it is very salty.
swordhunter12 2 years ago
Actually I have...I am a seaman... And a diver..I tasted see water spoecially the deep sea water its no longer salty....The salty part is near the shores...PACIFIC ocean and atlantic are not salty..have you tried it?
emsing2001 2 years ago
I'll have to trust you on that but it still doesn't prove the flood occurred.
swordhunter12 2 years ago
@emsing2001 I have some training in chemistry. Please enlighten us on how the ocean "produces" salt.
YurNotSpecial 2 years ago
LOL, so salt just magically is formed by the ocean... you FOOL. Where does it come from? Hmmmm? Where did all that water come from? Where did it go? You have no answer.
Also, that much water doesn't just disappear... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD.... NONE.
herbiethebarber 2 years ago
@herbiethebarber There is another video on that, one of the creation minutes. And the water all went to the oceans, before the flood, it is predicted that the earth was covered 90% by land, with water being under the crust of the earth and during the flood the "fountains of the deep" I believe it says, broke open making the water escape.
robotroid 1 year ago
If you are a smart and educated person,then why do you argue with people that
think the flat earth is 6013 years old and that a 900 years old man put 650
million pairs of animals in a boat?
No amount of logic or science would convince them and you should quit trying.
Its like arguing with a 6 years old about Santa Claus and using Quantum Mechanics
Theory to prove your point....
jeffduce55 2 years ago
There is just as much evidence that munchkins dug the grand canyon on cocaine than there is that a global flood did it.
herbiethebarber 2 years ago
So then are you telling me that Noah's flood flooded uphill to create the grand canyon? Stupid fucking creationists.
MortalTodd 2 years ago
hahahahhaa. that is all...
beerslammer666 2 years ago
I really wonder if Eric is intentionally trying to misinform people, or he really didn't take grade school geology to learn about uplifts and erosion. did you really thought scientist where that stupid and didn't notice that? sigh... preying on the uneducated like always... makes me sick
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
What part of his presentation regarding the Grand Canyon and the Colorado river to you feel is fraudulent? Or intentionally misinforming?
eekeemowmow 2 years ago
well, for one he's got the river flowing backwards. Secondly the "peak" is far from the river. The river went around it, not over it.
Have you even looked into the CSE or do you trust any group with a bible in their hand? I don't understand how any self-respecting x-ian can support the CSE after all the shit they've done.
machwon 2 years ago
the part where he said the river flew upwards to carve the grand canyon? grade school geology will tell you the river flow downwards while the land was being uplifted, the uplift rate obviously slower then the erosion rate. we see similar formation in other rivers as well...the better question will be. what part of his presentation isn't intentionally misinforming. machwon seem to beat me to the reply already.
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
Yea, in order to be a creationist you MUST have a complete misunderstanding of science. Once you understand science and you see it for what it truly is you can't believe that stars can fall on a flat 6000 year old earth encased in glass.
Funny how they hold on dear to the idea of creation, but not geocentritism, flat earth, or rain caused by opening a window in the sky
machwon 2 years ago
He has the river running the wrong way in this video.
windnpine 2 years ago
LOL you're right! not only is he saying it's flowing backwards he said that that scientists believe that ir was just the river that caused it, he forgot about other other types of erosion.
Clearly this is a problem for his credibility. Also his dad is a convicted fraudster doesn't help either.
machwon 2 years ago
the fact you said you cannot find transitional fossils after looking is either a lie, or evidence that you don't know how to use Google.
machwon 2 years ago
So you agree that the literal interpretation of The Bible and creationism has no evidence, at least we can agree somewhere.
You don't look at one transitional fossil, you look at MANY and see the graidiants. Which shows me you don't have any idea what evolution really is. Macro evolution IS observable. Quit making that bogus statement, I have told you many times that macro evolution is the result of micro evolution over a longer period of time.
machwon 2 years ago
machwon, micro evelution is not on par with Macro. It is diversification within the same type of animal. This is already in the dna code. Still rabbits making rabbits no matter how different they may look, still rabbits. Breeders can breed all different kinds of dogs but they'll never get a pig or an ardvark. This is really misleading to try connect this observed phenomenon with the faith of Macro evolution. God is true. I had a life changing expeirance with the Holy Spirit. He designed it all.
eekeemowmow 2 years ago
We have observed "macro-evolution." Sorry, you are wrong. A google search for "observed instances of speciation" into google and you will see many examples of it.
also if you think evolution means once species just miraculously gives birth to a new species you have no idea what evolution is. Whoever or whatever gave you this idea was lying to you.
Even if there is scientific proof of the existence of God doesn't prove or disprove evolution. It's a non-sequitur. logical fallacy much?
machwon 2 years ago
that is because you nor CSE do not understand macro-evolution. When you say there is micro evolution but impossible to have macro evolution, it is the same as saying you can walk across the street, but you can't walk a mile. Macro evolution is micro evolution over a much longer time.
You are right that a cat can't give birth to a dog, but no one but creationists think that is what macro evolution is. watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
machwon 2 years ago
I'm am not saying that macro evolution is when a one kind of an animal produces another right away. God created all animals with a varying gene code, so they can adapt to their surroundings. If you put a bunch of dogs in different parts of the world for millions of years, they will adapt to a certain point and stay like that, they will not start becoming something else, because natural selection selects of what is already there, it doesn't create. Macro evolution has never been observed.
robotroid 2 years ago
We have hundreds libraries each of which have hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that link all forms of species to another, Macro evolution IS observed.
The 'Therory' Evolution is a fact. There is more evidence supporting it than the 'Therory' of gravity.
The evidence is out there, you just have to open your eyes and look.
machwon 2 years ago
I have opened my eyes and looked, when I couldn't find the evidence behind evolution. Please, give me a name, or show me ONE transitional fossil that I can look at, because I haven't found any. The theory of evolution is a religion, because people believe it even though there is no evidence. The theory of gravity can be observed. Evolution (Macro evolution to be specific) cannot.
robotroid 2 years ago
Archaeopteryx
Mookusness 2 years ago
It all hypothesis, that is why it's the "theory of evolution" whereas we have various "laws (not theory) of gravity. If you fall off a roof, you'll find gravity is not a theory.
surfer870 2 years ago
Sorry, gravity is a scientific theory. Unfortunately, theory means something different in the scientific realm. Other scientific theories include electricity. The laws of gravity fall into the theory, much like the laws of physics and conservation of energy fall into the theory of relativity.
Your comment shows your scientific illiteracy.
machwon 2 years ago
I love that.. theory means somthing different in the scientific realm. There you go with the shell game. Changing the meaning of words does not mute his point. This theory of macro evelution can never be observed tested or repeated for to establish it as a fact like gravity. But I do understand your position. To give up your faith in evolution you would have to be open to the unthinkable. Very scary for you folks I think. A Creator. Who said you would deny the flood 2000 years ago. Right again.
eekeemowmow 2 years ago
Sorry, but we have observed speciation (or what the creationists call 'macro-evolution) but you have never taken time to look for examples because it would uproot your whole world view. The real shell game is for creationists to convince the world there can only be one definition for a word. Clearly I would not burn my hand on Megan Fox's ass because she is "hot" or that her ass is even a mule.
machwon 2 years ago
What made me loose faith was when I read the bible, cover to cover NOT evolution in school. Also, creationism builds it's case on evolution is wrong and never provides any evidence for creationism. A false dichotomy. Logical fallacies has never proven anything other than those who are making them have no idea what they are talking about.
Also show me where in any peer-reviewed scientific literature has there been any discussion about the non-existence of god. Couldn't god use Evolution?
machwon 2 years ago
`Couldn't god use Evolution? ` - it`s possible but that dscredits the biblical account that death is caused by the fall of adam and eve due to sin `the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ Our Lord`
TheOrangeChronicle 2 years ago
How did any of the animals live with out killing and eating other plants and animals if there was no death before the fall. Wouldn't those animals died from starvation? Ohh right, that would of been death too.
Protip: Biblical stories were never ment to be taken literally, they are like mystical synopsis or moral homilies. To take it literally is missing the point of the story.
Now we can have theological debates, but it doesn't negate the fact of evolution.
machwon 2 years ago
Also if the earth is 6000 years old how come we can observe things in space 13 billion light years away. if it was only 6000 we could only observe things 6,000 light years away, the other stuff's light wouldn't of got here yet.
machwon 2 years ago
@machwon thank you!
grandillusion52 1 year ago
@machwon Evolution isn't a fact either, it's defined as a scientific theory. I understand your point but the terminology is slightly off.
steponme208 1 year ago
@steponme208 Everyone claims it a fact, saying that theory is almost same as fact as it has so much evidence.
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid Evolution is a fact, it did happen. Explaining how and why it works is the scientific theory. Now that we have the terminology straightened out, can we get back to the fact that Creationism is NOT science because it is not a falsifiable claim. "Magic man done it" is not science, it's superstition. Every bit of evidence proposed by creationists that are falsifiable claims have been proven, excuse the pun, false. Example: Claims in the video above. ^^^
machwon 1 year ago
@robotroid And that's true. A lot of people claim evolution as a fact when it isn't. However it isn't JUST a theory like in everyday conversation, it's a scientific theory based on repeated tests, evidence, research, discussions, etc. And to find a theory that continuously has pieces putting together its puzzle is rare and remarkable and deserves some mark of respect.
steponme208 1 year ago
@steponme208 In science, a theory is the highest level of evidence. i.e. germ theory, theory of gravity, theory of electricity...etc. However, because evolution takes place on earth and we can observe it better we have more evidence for that scientific theory than we do for the theory of gravity. It's kind of harder and more expensive to test gravitational pulls to densities of other astronomical objects or say trying to explain what that force is and how it functions.
machwon 1 year ago
@machwon we do observe evolution, I do not object to that. But we only observe micro evolution and macro evolution has never been observed, only hypothesized.
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid That used to be true, but over the last decade more evidence has been discovered to support marco-evolution. In 2004 for example a fossil was found to have both fish and amphibious characteristics that indicate a transitional organism (I can't post a link, but google "pbs evolution" and click videos at the bottom. It's the first video on the list.)
steponme208 1 year ago
@robotroid Stop with the talking points. Look at the evidence. The only diffrence between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution (as if those are scientific terms, I think you mean speciation) is time. We've observed speciation and we've have evidence for speciation that took place before man.
Instead of repeating the same old tired debunked arguments thats keeps getting tossed around by ignorant fools, try actually reading a book about it. A real book by a real scientist.
machwon 1 year ago
@machwon As long as they can interbreed, I wouldn't call them a different species. A chuwawa and a German Shepherd can't interbreed for technical reasons, but they are not different species of dogs. I have heard of rabbits that can't interbreed in between, but with some other species they can, but they are still rabbits, there is nothing new in their genetic information and only selected genes. Can you bring some examples of speciation please?
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid Thats exactly what speciation is, they cannot breed. Have you even investigated wither or not there's been observed instances of speciation or are you on again with the talking points? You sound like one of those 9/11 "truthers" looping the same old debunked arguments over and over completely oblivious to counter arguments. Learn something or at least read the wikipedia entry before you speak on things, makes you look less ignorant.
machwon 1 year ago
@machwon Yes, I've read some of it. I've heard in my biology class, that there were ground squirrels in the Grand Canyon and as they got seperated to the two sides of the Canyon they became different species. I do believe in that and that is speciation (the squirrel didn't acquire any new traits that hasn't already been in the gene code) Evolution happens through mutations and natural selection, maybe it's just my ignorance as you pointed out, but I don't understand how they bring about ...
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid new kinds of animals, from fish to amphibians to reptiles... and to man as they teach us. All these animals have different genes that single celled organisms don't have, so how do they get them? Natural Selection selects from what's already there. Also I have never read about ANY beneficial mutations. Bacteria can adapt to pesticides, but this happens by the bacteria that don't have this ability die out and those that do live, so it's in their genes already.
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid Yes the variation is all ready there for natural selection to work.
Is feathers on a dinosaur a beneficial mutation?
The dinos with feathers are the only ones who live today.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@robotroid You heard about it, huh? You weren't really paying attention then I take it. Most people study biology in biology class, you just herd some things.
machwon 1 year ago
Why do you insist that no new changes occur? Of course they do. We can relate ALL living things via DNA. We don't have ALL of the DNA sequences of ALL animals, and neither do they. You must understand the TIME involved. This isn't 1 animal changing into another, it is MILLIONS of animals having MILLIONS of offspring, if not BILLIONS. Evolution is a TREE NOT A LADDER.
herbiethebarber 1 year ago
@herbiethebarber i certainly understand what you mean, but it all started with a single cell organism right? or it started with the basic life. Where did all the extra DNA come from? Right now as we observe, no DNA is added from generation to generation, it's the same it's just the dominant traits show. There are mutations, I know that, but we learned in biology that mutations sometimes don't make much change and are unnocitable, and sometimes they are lethal, how come evolution is an exception?
robotroid 1 year ago
@robotroid First the creation of DNA and the changing of DNA are 2 totally different things. I agree that the creation is not understood, but the change IS. We absolutely know without any doubt that DNA changes via mutation; and not pre-existing genome sequences, but BRAND NEW ones. That's what mutations do. Sure, one might see these changes as "mistakes", but mistaks are subjective. Mutations are usually very subtle. From your mother to you there are an estimated 150 to 200 mutations..
herbiethebarber 1 year ago
@robotroid Please research KEN MILLER, RICHARD DAWKINS (I AM NOT an atheist, but he is very well-versed on this topic), and Richard Lenski. Lenski has recently mapped the change in E. Coli that has produced a brand new strain via mutation. He is in the process of mapping this change and showing EXACTLY where the mutation occured, and how.
herbiethebarber 1 year ago
@herbiethebarber evilution never happened! My paster said the universe was created by the divine working of God and that it was done in 6 days! My pastor said to remember, God said it, I believe it, "that settles it!" If my pastor said creation is true, trust me dude, it true as pastor DOES NOT LIE! He also said to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing! I claim protection from you in JEEBUS name AMEN (lol)
ps just kidding about everything. :p
99minerkc 1 year ago
Wow, are you serious? Speciation events usually take a long time. You need to go to talkorigins .o r g
Please read. Mutations change DNA structure. These changes can be VERY subtle. From your mother and father to you there are approx. 150 mutations. You must understand that a mutation doesn't (usually) give you .. say... 5 fingers! or a third leg... READ at the website I told you, it is THE BEST reference there is to answer ALL of your questions. Then get back to me.
herbiethebarber 1 year ago
oh creationists and their stupidity, endless source of laughter.
whamii 2 years ago
Why not submit your logic to geologists and see if its logical.
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
It has been sent to many sources and the geologists know this stuff, it's just that anything that goes against the evolution religion being taught in our textbooks automatically gets thrown out. Very sad.
robotroid 2 years ago
Its not sad its called reality, if your information is wrong and has no evidence then it is discarded. Because you think its correct doesn't mean it is.
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
No it is discarded, because Evolution is a state religion being supported by taxes and taught to students all over America. Evolution has no proof and it is still not discarded. It's not discarded because it's been proven, it is still there because the alternative is 'unthinkable'.
robotroid 2 years ago
Actually its easily thinkable, god did it, pretty easy. The problem is there is no proof of god or jesus's story, the NT and OT are fiction with no evidence to back up their stories.
The unthinkable to you is that whoever wrote the bible stories made them up.
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
There is LOTS of proof of the Bible being true and scientifically accurate. It is either that you are ignorant of it, or you have never heard it. I hope the reason is that you haven't heard it, so please, if you have time, check the playlist on my page called Randall Niles Journey, he was an atheist like you, so please check it out and watch it.
Thanks.
robotroid 2 years ago
I watched Niles videos but he didn't offer any of the proof you mentioned.
Since you said there is LOTS can you list one thing for me please. I am ignorant of this information.
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
First of all, the Bible is way ahead in science and it has many science facts in there that our science didn't know until modern days ( +-900 years). For example, the Bible says that the earth is in space and not on some turtle in the ocean in Job 26:7 "He...hangs the earth upon nothing."
robotroid 2 years ago
Earth is round - Isaiah 40:22
Springs of the sea - Modern deep-sea-diving cameras have discovered amazing hot-water vents on the floor of the oceans-'the springs of the sea' which are mentioned in Job 38:16
Plants need sunlight, water , and minerals in order to grow and to make their own energy and food. The Bible has this in Genesis where God first created light(Genesis 1:3) then water(v.6) then soil (v.9) then plant life.
How can the Bible state all these things more than 2,000 before they
robotroid 2 years ago
were discovered, unless this was by some supernatural power.
In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.m million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac)
Genesis was written WAY before 2,000 years before, why does it have these secrets
robotroid 2 years ago
They aren't secrets, they are very vague and generally wrong verses that aren't even in the context of what you think they are saying. I could list other verses from the bible that say the opposite of what you say.
Isaiah doesn't say the earth is round, it says its a circle which isn't round. There is a word in Hebrew for sphere but it wasn't used.
I asked for evidence the bible is fact, do you know of any real evidence?
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit: or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched - not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 640 and 680 BC This is at leas 300 years before Aristotle suggested in his book that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at the time when science believed that the earth was flat) that
robotroid 2 years ago
Christipher Colombus sailed around the world.
Also, the prophecies in the Bible are all coming true, it's like everything was predicted in order and is happening. For example, Isaiah tells us that the people of Israel will be forced out of the country and scattered all over the world and will then come back in a single day. This happened in modern times. See this, I can't put it any better than him. watch?v=kHEjqvmQIZg
robotroid 2 years ago
and also watch?v=bmj_ebS0y_s
robotroid 2 years ago
I had no idea a compass meant sphere. How can you believe this stuff?
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
I have given you way more proof of the Bible than you did of evolution. Evolution has no evidence at all. So my belief beats yours anyway.
robotroid 2 years ago
I actually didn't give u any of the extensive evidence of evolution. If you want some look up the Dover trial where in a court of law much of the evidence of evolution was displayed. Creationism had a chance to display its evidence but didn't offer much that was convincing. You might also want to call any geology department in a university in the entire world.
And evolution isn't a belief, reality doesn't need belief, it has evidence.
iamleavingchina 2 years ago
I'll look up the trial right now. Evolution is a religion. First of all it has no proof. like I had the quote before - people believe it because the alternative is 'unthinkable'. Reality doesn't need a belief, you're right, but evolution isn't reality.
robotroid 2 years ago
Also the creation science evangelism (cse) ministry have been offering $250,000 for ANY proof of evolution for more than 16 years now, and none has been presented during this time.
robotroid 2 years ago