This should be very simple. No human being was present during the creation of the universe. Moses writes a simple narrative of how the world was created based on his communications with the G-Man. Today the descents of the people that Moses wrote Genesis (along with other books) for have all considered it pointless to debate over the literal interpretations and are considerate to the scientific methods of dating life, the elements and the universe.
@iluvideos You contacted me first you brainless twat. If you don't want to be spoken to, mind your own fucking business. That's the good thing about the internet, brainwashed christians can be called out for what they are. Liars, deceivers, conmen etc.
What, just because you reject the belief of Christianity, you can't be called out? Guess what genius, unless all you have to go by is your little meaningless insults (like most atheist often do), maybe you have some alternative from what the 'brainwashed christians' have to offer to people. Mind you, past atheists have had a pretty lousy track record.
@iluvideos Blah blah blah blah. I hear a lot about belief and faith and nothing about proof. It's good to know that it's only a matter of time now before your nasty little cult is gone. Bye.
I can admit that the earth is very old but life is sure not older than 10000 years old. Life is much younger than how evolutionists believe it is. In the bible it's written that God created the heavens and the earth. But I can believe that after that he took a break of a few billion years until he started to create life, meaning the vegetation, the animals and Adam and Eve.
@Casshyr Well I do not have an absolute solid evidence for that. It is something I admit I asumed it as a preassumption but I can't say I know for sure that the earth is 4,5 billion years old. What I said is that it is possible that after God created the earth, He took a break of a few billion years until He created life. The radio-active dating tests with Uranium may be right but I am not sure of that. It is just a preassumption I did.
@chris241289 i asked cuz the same logic for dating fossils work the same way for dating the age of Earth. It would seem weird that you accept one but not the other. Not to mention the age of fossils match up well with the age of the geographical layer at which it is dated to be...your acceptance for one but not the other seems contradictory to me and i want to know why. Or is it purely just to fit the Bible, where accepting both will somehow shatter that your Biblical view?
@Casshyr I already said that I do not trust the radio-active dating methods with uranium as being a proof of the real age of the Earth or of the fossils. I just said that it could be possible that the Earth could be old but not life. This is something I am sure that the "scientists" are wrong about. Life can't be that old as they say.
@chris241289 actually you said "radio-active dating tests with Uranium may be right", so i'm asking you why this "may be right" can't be applied to life too? Why can't life be old? I'm going to assume it's cuz of the Bible, and if yes, which passages say so.
@Casshyr Yes, I admit that it is because of my christian faith why I believe life is young but the Earth can be old. But you do not admit that the tests with uranium are not 100% trust worthy.
@Casshyr Well in the Genesis book it is written that God created life and the during those 7 days of creation. The word day litterally means a day of 24 hours. And after that if we go through the passages and examine the age of the patriarchs we can see that life is a few thousands years old. But why do you even care about what the Bible says if you are an atheist?
@chris241289 but you earlier said you would be ok if world is old. So lets assume this is indeed the case. If the world is old, then the word "day" in Genesis no longer is a 24-hour clock, cuz otherwise the world is only ~6000 years old, as demonstrated by Hovind. So if you follow that premise, why would you still think life forms is constrained to be young?
@Casshyr But why do you even care what I believe? You won't accept what I say anyway. So what's the point? Well those seven days of creation in the Genesis book are literally 24 hour days, but before those 7 days I don't know how time was measured; and the Earth was created before those 7 days of 24 hours began.
@chris241289 um, i care cuz it's interesting? isn't that the same reason why you post comments on youtube? to stimulate discussions? My point is i don't think the Bible contradicts a young life IF you assume an old earth, and I welcome you the chance to give me your view and prove me wrong. In Genesis day 1, God created heaven and the earth (correct?). If Earth is indeed billions of years old, then this "day 1" is not a 24-hour clock.
@Casshyr I am sorry but I do not try to stimulate debates or or discussions or arguing. I just said what I believe but it wasn't my intention to chalenge others to useless debates. Any debate is useless if noone wants to accept the truth given by the facts we have.
@chris241289 uh lol fine if you don't want to talk about this, sure. But FYI looking at your past comments, you seem to have no problem challenging others to defend their view (i.e. starting debates).
@chris241289 "But you do not admit that the tests with uranium are not 100% trust worthy." => nobody denies that radiometric testing may be inaccurate, but until a better non-religious evidence comes along, this is the best tool we have. Note the emphasis on non-religious.
the big bang theory doesn't require a transcendent being in the first place to make it occur. the big bang theory doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe. all it says is what happened AFTER the universe was created. the origin is another completely seperate topic, which is being explored through string theory and branes.
Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God....Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law....There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy." James 4:1-11
" I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:10-31
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." Hebrew 11:3
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, please be aware that condemning our non-believing brothers and sisters in Adam is a greater sin than their dis-belief. Their ignorance may save them as our knowledge and judgment will be our own judgment before the Lord. We are not being the light and showing the love to which Christ calls us. Peace and God Bless all here in this forum. I hope and pray for your Spiritual Journey and that your life experience here leads you to Heaven, believer and non.
With regard to religion, God made man, man uses religion in order to practice faith. God is infallible and man is fallible. Due to man's fallibility that does not nullify God. Religion has been abused in order for men to gain and thus those who do wrong in the name of God have not worked in accordance to the Word of God. His Word is Love and He is a person, Jesus Christ our Lord and savior who dwelt among us.
People prefer not to be on the path for the love of the truth and step out on the personal spiritual search for the Creator. Plato stated that philosophy is the pursuit of the truth and to pursue the single Creator of all things is that pursuit and to learn what it is the Creator wants of us. That can be characterized in a single word, Love. To the professed atheists I ask when did you come to the knowledge of God? There must be a God in order for there to be an atheism.
What is lacking here is Plato's acknowledgement of an all powerful single creator of life. He deduced this through faith in logic and reason. Plato is considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he uses sound deductive reasoning for our creation. To me the greatest teaching of the Bible that people believe a falsehood rather than the love of the Truth that they are saved. This is the most self evident truth in the Bible.
First I want to suggest that the caption Kent Hovind is a felon is subjective. He maybe by writ of the law but not spirit. He is in prison for a complicated tax evasion. To which I say he is a hero as in light of recent governmental abuse of our money he is only engaging in a behavior that is American at its core. To which I suggest people read the Founding Fathers on that matter. It was their warning not to engage in direct taxation such as income or property taxes.
Everything that comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth is so monumentally stupid that I'm really amazed that anyone would bother debating him. I applaud this man's patience.
@H0tkebab not at all. It is perfectly ok to merge God with science. But it is NOT ok to put God over science, like what the creationists do. You want to say evolution is started by God? Abiogenesis is started by God? No problem, Einstein himself sorta believed in that too. But don't put God over science, because you don't have solid evidence that your holy book (ex. Bible) is indeed the word of God that outweighs science.
I agree, though God for the Christian is more important than science, its important not to reject science purely on the basis of one interpretation of theology.
@TheGreekMan1981 how can you don't know any? Just browse around youtube, look up evolution vs creation. A LOT of these fundies reject science and instead turn to the non-peer reviewed non-credited creation "science".
@TheGreekMan1981 i dont see too many christian following this matthew 19:21, funny, christian really seem to be cherry picking what they think is the words of god but when it tells them to sell evrething, close your bank account, sell your house, give your car and go in a missionary mission, i dont beleive iv ever meet one,!! if id beleive that shit id be scare to go to hell, and i would do what is the word of god, but strangly you dont see that happening to often,!,
@H0tkebab no it isnt, but it is exactly what we must avoid in order to push further the research, god is teh equivalent of saying magic did it, it is stupid primitive, imagine we would have stick with the god explanation about the rain, thunder, fire, earthquake, illness, theyve all been explain by god or gods, before science rule it all, latest news, the big bang is just probably something that happend all the time since we are probably living in a multiverse, look it up
Yes, I've heard this before, its called the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. However thats not what I am implying. However for you to say that this is a multiverse, you are running into the error of creating an eternal regress, infinity does not exist in nature (not within the law of cause and effect). I'm implying that God is the causal agent of not just our universe but all possible multiverses through the big bang theory and gravity. Kalam cosmological argument, look it up.
@H0tkebab as oppose to the magic creation fallacy?, listen, evrething pointed out at a mutiverse, first god put the earth at the center of the creation, okay wrong religion says, oh,, we knew that all along, then there is many solar system, again, religion says yeah yeah we knew that, then many galaxy, then god is put behind that again, retrospectivly, now, the big bang, off course now, you put god behind that, and then the multiverse,,,,well,,, seem a good place to displace god once more,
@H0tkebab whatver science come up with, let suppose we find a total explanation of how thing happend, a theory of evrething, and then it suppose there is no god, well christian are gonne come up with , well god design this so he is unpprovable, but still he started evrething, there is no end to this, this is the fallacy, this logic is wrong,
evrething pointed out that your a animal, if your brain is destruct in part or completly, you lose fonction, when your gonna die your not gonna go anywhere
@H0tkebab i did, and by the way the kalam cosmological argument isnt really strong at all, quantum mecanics, and the latest discovery point at a probabilistic universe, that as always been, and always be, and if there is no begining, then like hawking said, what place is there for a creator? and anyway, why would you want to live under celestial dictatorship, and what kind of eternity is it to worship a king and his son, ?? the whole thing is stupid to begin with. look at north korea,
@lapmarty god in the kalam consmological evidence, is really just a unkonwn,
we could replace god, by what we dont know yet, it as always been the case, probably always be the case, the mistake is to be satisfied with the answer god did it, it is wrong, it is a stupid process, it is rooted in wishful thinking, and serve no other purposes that to comfort people, there is no reason outside a anthropomorphic concept that justify this way of thinking, sorry but it seem so obvious it is a pity
@lapmarty What is more stupid is the fact that idiots like you don't know the difference between Micro and Macroevolution. God is very much REAL. God is VERY MUCH IN CHARGE. Jesus is THE KING! Try to read something and understand something before you put it down. As a Christian I at least had the decency to study biology for years to understand evolution which is total bull. The only part of evolution that is a fact is microevolution. However, that doesn't do anything but prove God!
@TheGreekMan1981 "As a Christian I at least had the decency to study biology for years to understand evolution which is total bull" => cool, finally an educated Christian. Lets test if this claim is indeed true. Please define evolution theory and find support for that definition based on peer-reviewed article(s).
@TheGreekMan1981 first a insult, yes you really follow the bible, second, you debating here and being convince of your BELEIF dont change the fact that evolution happend, macroevolution is a reality, Chromosome 2, bare the mark that we did in fact fusion a chromosome from ours common ancestor with apes, the evidence is overwhelming, no university departement around the planet agree with your creationism stupidity, You refuse to see thruth cause of emotional reason, so be it, but you loose,FACT!!
@TheGreekMan1981 in fact you so much loose the only place you can debate this, is here on youtube where it bare no weight at all!!! that is really funny, and finally religion get it in the teeths, after hundread of years ruling, killing girls, raping, and other abomination that only FAITh can produce, you now are the laught of the planet, Macroevolution, you isiots, look at the hippopotam and whales genetic, the proof are evrywhere, only idiots like you dont see it, cause it contredict a book!
No beginning or end, then time is an illusion and so is everything that begins and ends in our lifetime if we are bound to a finite system, what that means is that tomorrow, yesterday, the past, the present and the future do not exist. I don't find this idea logically compatible, especially in a universe that is bound by the laws of cause and effect where our perceptions and observations state otherwise.
Yes, I do agree that as humans, as species, there are so many things we do not understand, but, it does not mean that a certain group of fanatics have all the answers just because the have such thing called "faith" which is a believe that requires no logic or explanation. I'm sorry I do not have that innocence. I am a grown up in 2012 almost!
@ninosl2001 You must know that this statement summons the death knell for science. Because if you need an explanation for an explanation, and an explanation for an explanation for an explanation and so on infinitely then science could never come to any conclusions. This is known as infinite regress and is a logical fallacy. On this basis the Kalam Cosmological Argument summons the need for a cause of the universe that has no beginning.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A BEING THAT EXISTED BEFORE NOTHING EXISTED !!! THATS JUST AS CRAZY IF NOT MORE SO THAN THE BIG BANG !!!!! AND IF THIS BEING IS AS PERFECT AS CHRISTIANS CLAIM WHY IS THE UNIVERSE SO NOT PERFECT !!!! WHY IS ONE HAND SHORTER THAN THE OTHER ???? WHY IS THEIR THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT !!!! I COULD GO ON FOR HOURS !!!! RELIGION HAS NO PLACE WITH SCIENCE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IDEALS !!! THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ARGUED OVER
And this is it, Hodbrook finally quits, defeated. But he couldn't go without saying that Jesus broke into a penitenciary and freed his uncle ''Prison break'' style!
@TheAntiV It's typical from creationists, they just don't know what evolution is, they taalk about the big bang theory, animals giving birth to other species of animals and many more idiotic nonsense. Hodbrook is the most uneducated man I've ever met.
Lets take a look at your "FACT" of evolution and see how much more superior it sounds: billions of years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very hot very dense region much smaller than the period on a page - even that sounds more ridiculous than all of the so called "fairy tales" of the Bible and the folklore of every culture throughout the ages including the Brothers Grim, combined - try just getting a hill of dirt and sqeaze it into a dot
@Hodbrook then it spun faster and faster and then exploded to form all of the stars and galaxies of the universe - firstly it could not have happened this way because the law of the conservation of angular momentum states that if a spinning object were to break apart in a frictionless environment (which the big bang was since it was ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE) that all objects would be spinning in the same direction - but venus, uranus and possibly pluto are all spinning backwards
@Hodbrook Not only that but some whole galaxies are spinning backwards: how did this happen. Then the theory states that the earth's surface was like the moon's with large pools of bubbling lava - this too is impossible since pulonium halos cannot stay fixed in rock that isn't already solid - and then the earth cooled down and it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years and turned them into soup and the soup came alive so and so number of years ago (you do believe we came from a rock
@Hodbrook Spontaneous generation was proven wrong by Louis Pasteur approximately 150 years ago and it still couldn't be done by Miller's experiments today which didn't simulate real life conditions and still didn't succeed (and it would only prove that it makes intelligence to make life even if he succeeded) - if you want more information on why I'll be happy to REPEAT it for you. Ammonia was one of the gases he used to create his two amino acids, but ammonia is destroyed by UV light.
@Hodbrook And UV light can only be blocked by ozone which is made by oxygen; but evolutionists claim there was no oxygen in the earth's atmosphere when life arose because oxygen would also make it impossible to create life since the chemicals would oxidize: either way it is impossible. So he couldn't have even created the amino acids that he did if he would have simulated the evolutionist scenario: and in the end there are twenty other amino acids that he needed to make and the...
@Hodbrook difference between making an amino acid and a cell is like making a letter and saying that by chance these letters will produce webster's dictionary: that is the difference between aminos and life: just study cells of the human body and you will see that they are unbelievably complex: my studies in Health Science took hours to cover these concepts and I cannot be convinced that anything living is a "simple" life form - to say that is simply a LIE - and evolution is a BIG LIE.
@Hodbrook Then - so the theory goes - this early life form found something to mary and something to eat and slowly evolved into all the life we see today. To claim that we see humans become resistant to AIDS and bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is a case of microevolution and is not a change that is major enough to make it recognizably different. It's as stupid as saying that just because we see variations like white cats having black kittens that we must have all come from..
@Hodbrook a rock: and I showed you earlier that that is exactly what you believe no matter however you want to say it. Now lets go into all of the other problems with evolutionary theory. In this environment that we have today it is assumed that everything just came into being by the process of evolution in spite of the complexity of the universe and all of it's laws. Evolutionists say that creation is in conflict with science: well no it isn't but let me tell you about evolution's...
@Hodbrook conflict: not just with science: but also with common sense: the sun for example, is burning several feet per hour (or whatever the number is) and is losing mass: this is a fact because as much as evolutionists like to say that it is by nuclear fusion (or whatever their explanation is called) the sun has been observed over the past 300 years to be losing diameter: if we calculate backwards we will find that just under a billion years ago the sun was so close that it would..
@Hodbrook have touched the earth: and it doesn't have to come nearly that close in order to fry everything on the planet: even Venus is uninhabitable just by heat alone and it's not even as close to the sun as Mercury: whether you calculate backwards with linear or logarithmic curves you will find that the earth's age is limited to far less than a billion years: and they say life came here about three billion years ago: that is dreaming and is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible.
@Hodbrook The moon also goes around the earth and is getting further away from the earth by a couple of inches per year: whether it moves away at a logarithmic curve or linear line on a calculator you will still see that if you calculate backwards just a few million years that it would be close enough to cause the tides to drown everything on planet earth. The earth's speed is also slowing down and it is roughly slowing down at about a second per 1 and a half years or so approx...
@Hodbrook calculate back just a billion years (which is two billion years after life got started according to you) and the earth would have been spinning so fast that the winds would have been enormously strong from the coriolis effect and life couldn't possibly have survived and that's just a billion years. Comets also defy evolution because they would have deteriorated in ten thousand years or less but are still around: the Oort cloud theory was proposed to counter this problem...
@Hodbrook and it states that all comets come from a cloud that is 50,000 astronomical units away: the problem with that is that it cannot be observed and therefore it cannot be proven: the reason for this is because we can just barely see Pluto with a powerful telescope and it's only 39 AUs away: you can't even see a comet at that distance; but even if you can you certainly won't see it coming from more than a thousand times that distance: you see, there is no Oort cloud: it doesn't..
@Hodbrook exist: Oort never saw the Oort cloud: it was made up like everything else in evolution: and they say that the coal deposits of the earth were laid before man ever got here: when in fact human artifacts were found in coal mines - such as a golden chain and a golden bell - these are definitely human artifacts. Oil also disproves evolution because the pressure of the oil down in the ground is 20,000 psi and it is coming up through the ground all the time now days because of...
@Hodbrook this enormous pressure: but it should have all splashed out from the pressure millions of years ago: but it's still down there. I could go on and on. There is plenty more to choose from: take your pick and prove any of them wrong: but you'd actually have to be able to disprove all of them wrong if your theory be true: so do it: it can't be done: the only way it can be done is if you make up shit and twist the laws of the universe. You're theory really sounds better lol
As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.
The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.
If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddly-squat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.
A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth...
and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans.
Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
"The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans;a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii."
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!
It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail.
He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit.
In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation.
Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen).
Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet.
There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.
(Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.
Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart).....
and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change.
Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.
So all scientists are part of this huge conspiracy against you poor little creationists? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.
@TheAntiV I just can't wait for Hodbrook to read all this and be like: I ain't understanding those big biggie words so they all madness derpie derp! You have to insert the word ''Magic'' every now and then to get that doofus to understand.
Shit, I also forgot that words with more than four letters automatically confuses him. Seriously though I have no idea what school he goes to but if he did a paper on this to the university I went to he'd get an automatic "F."
@TheAntiV Anyways: I don't care it's like two people in high school arguing which one is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan: Jordan wouldn't care and neither do I: I'll be going now but I hope that even though I haven't given you something to think about then at least someone else will see the light: thank you for your time: and don't bother replying because I won't be reading this page anymore since I've said all that needs to be said: the messages don't go to my email.
Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.
It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere -- for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.
The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (Tian et al. 2005).
here is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).
Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved.
This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches.
These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone.
UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003).
The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light.
Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).
The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments.
Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).
Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial (Wakefield 1998).
The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton.
The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation.
As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.
Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation.
Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.
Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium.
The claim is based on so much ignorance and so many misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin.
The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).
The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos. Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, ....
which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions. Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations. Solar systems within galaxies have still different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.
Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.
@Hodbrook The big bang theory is not evolution you freaking twat XD Also you just quoted Kent Hovind, a man with no scientific credentials, congradulations for your non-stop stupidity.
@Reasonwillwin And despite what you say you haven't proven any of my facts wrong: try thinking sometime and you'll see I'm right: but once a retard always one I guess: just like TheAntiV idiot below: retards can't be convinced of sanity because to them it is sanity: well keep dreaming pal and go back to your delusion: or else shut up with the bullshit and reply to my arguments with facts and not with ad hominem attacks on Kent Hovind: who does in fact have a PhD in education
Talking snakes, invisible sky magicians, magical trees, giant boats able to hold millions of animals AND there respective food provision for the year, a man surviving being eaten by a giant fish, a shield made of ice surrounding the earth and aa jewish zombie=TOTALLY REAL DERPIE DERP
Creationists, always there to make themselves look atrociously stupid.
Before you do that wait until the day is done and I've finished replying to all of your comments: then you can send this debate to your professor: if you truly want to know the truth waith just a few hours and I'll give it to you.
No one knows the truth. Not a single individual. We can only make logical guesses based on facts. Scientists have never said they knew all the facts. But if we automatically responded with "God did it" to every question to why life came about then all the scientific discoveries that have lead to improvements to human health would have never existed.
Sorry but I'm tired of arguing. Let's just agree to disagree. It's beginning to turn ugly anyway. I can't see you in my inbox anyhow. Unless you want to switch this into personal messaging rather than spamming the shit out of this comment section.
@TheAntiV Sure: that is what all of you evolutionists do: edit then brag: my God you are one gutless motherfucker and I am ashamed of the human race big time right now
This is why I'm done. You did such a tremendous job at proving me right how incredibly ignorant you are of the facts surrounding evolution. In fact I plan on using this exchange as a perfect example of the flaws in creationist thinking and sending it to known biology professors. As for that claim you made about embarrassing your biology teacher, I'm betting the exchange when something like this:
@TheAntiV Where you joker: I know this is going to turn out to be some huge joke and you're going to have a huge laugh because I know we can't meet: I'm in Australia currently and you're on the other side of the world: unless you want to fly over or something
@TheAntiV You are the perfect example of delusion. Do you know what really happened: I'll show you.
Teacher: "Judging from what we've observed our ape like ancestors do we can then..."
Me: "Excuse me teacher. Is this something we know for sure or do you just believe it. I understand that I've never seen lots of events take place but we do have historical evidence for such events. Evolution has neither historical evidence or scientific evidence to back it up."
@Hodbrook I'll use another example for the analogy then."
This is what happens in real life. You evolutionists talk a good fight but in reality the Creationists have a superior number of facts on there side and evolutionists have to invent scenarios where they win like the link you showed above to make them feel superior: the truth is they feel insecure: and so do you. Watch Kent Hovind's debates and tell me one time when evolutionists win the debate: or an example of a single fact they use
No the only type of evolution isn't microevolution. That is a lie that you just pulled out of your ass. Please provide me an example of a scientist saying that. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Macroevolution is the change of one species into another plain and simple. That's evolution whether you like it or not.
@TheAntiV Yeah it's microevolution whether you like it or not and I challenge you to get a cat or any other kind of animal and breed a dog or a fish or a frog or a human from it: just give it a try: and you'll say that's impossible: THAT"S MY FUCKING POINT YOU FUCKING RETARD
@Hodbrook ''Yeah it's microevolution whether you like it or not and I challenge you to get a cat or any other kind of animal and breed a dog or a fish or a frog or a human from it: just give it a try'' Evolution is not about a Dog giving birth to a fish or a cat, what the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever been to school? Oh and by the way, with all your swearing and attacking, you ain't acting really christian, just sayin
Nope sorry. It's macroevolution. You just need to accept it. No matter what the Bible says macroevolution has been repeatedly observed. Accept it and stop fighting it.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution....
but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).
There are various views of the dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated Equilibria are patterns of change that indicate stasis, or long
This should be very simple. No human being was present during the creation of the universe. Moses writes a simple narrative of how the world was created based on his communications with the G-Man. Today the descents of the people that Moses wrote Genesis (along with other books) for have all considered it pointless to debate over the literal interpretations and are considerate to the scientific methods of dating life, the elements and the universe.
iluvideos 3 days ago
These two fuckwits arguing over who's version of a book of fairy tales is true. Cunts.
jimmyjazz240 5 days ago
@jimmyjazz240
Sounds like your suffering from withdrawal symptoms. You should get your fix of constant atheistic youtube rantings before its gets worse.
iluvideos 3 days ago
@iluvideos You believe in god, that's funny.
jimmyjazz240 2 days ago
@jimmyjazz240
And you, don't... and you make it very clear with you little comments... which are not welcomed... THAT'S funny...
iluvideos 2 days ago
@iluvideos You contacted me first you brainless twat. If you don't want to be spoken to, mind your own fucking business. That's the good thing about the internet, brainwashed christians can be called out for what they are. Liars, deceivers, conmen etc.
jimmyjazz240 2 days ago
@jimmyjazz240
What, just because you reject the belief of Christianity, you can't be called out? Guess what genius, unless all you have to go by is your little meaningless insults (like most atheist often do), maybe you have some alternative from what the 'brainwashed christians' have to offer to people. Mind you, past atheists have had a pretty lousy track record.
iluvideos 1 day ago
@iluvideos Blah blah blah blah. I hear a lot about belief and faith and nothing about proof. It's good to know that it's only a matter of time now before your nasty little cult is gone. Bye.
jimmyjazz240 1 day ago
@jimmyjazz240
The entire world would sooner be turned inside out before my "little cult" is gone.
iluvideos 1 day ago
@jimmyjazz240 watch what say.
19t86 2 days ago
@19t86 No.
jimmyjazz240 2 days ago
I can admit that the earth is very old but life is sure not older than 10000 years old. Life is much younger than how evolutionists believe it is. In the bible it's written that God created the heavens and the earth. But I can believe that after that he took a break of a few billion years until he started to create life, meaning the vegetation, the animals and Adam and Eve.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 why do you believe Earth is old? what evidence are you basing this on?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Well I do not have an absolute solid evidence for that. It is something I admit I asumed it as a preassumption but I can't say I know for sure that the earth is 4,5 billion years old. What I said is that it is possible that after God created the earth, He took a break of a few billion years until He created life. The radio-active dating tests with Uranium may be right but I am not sure of that. It is just a preassumption I did.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 i asked cuz the same logic for dating fossils work the same way for dating the age of Earth. It would seem weird that you accept one but not the other. Not to mention the age of fossils match up well with the age of the geographical layer at which it is dated to be...your acceptance for one but not the other seems contradictory to me and i want to know why. Or is it purely just to fit the Bible, where accepting both will somehow shatter that your Biblical view?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr I already said that I do not trust the radio-active dating methods with uranium as being a proof of the real age of the Earth or of the fossils. I just said that it could be possible that the Earth could be old but not life. This is something I am sure that the "scientists" are wrong about. Life can't be that old as they say.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 actually you said "radio-active dating tests with Uranium may be right", so i'm asking you why this "may be right" can't be applied to life too? Why can't life be old? I'm going to assume it's cuz of the Bible, and if yes, which passages say so.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Yes, I admit that it is because of my christian faith why I believe life is young but the Earth can be old. But you do not admit that the tests with uranium are not 100% trust worthy.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 Which passages from the Bible says life is young?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Well in the Genesis book it is written that God created life and the during those 7 days of creation. The word day litterally means a day of 24 hours. And after that if we go through the passages and examine the age of the patriarchs we can see that life is a few thousands years old. But why do you even care about what the Bible says if you are an atheist?
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 but you earlier said you would be ok if world is old. So lets assume this is indeed the case. If the world is old, then the word "day" in Genesis no longer is a 24-hour clock, cuz otherwise the world is only ~6000 years old, as demonstrated by Hovind. So if you follow that premise, why would you still think life forms is constrained to be young?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr But why do you even care what I believe? You won't accept what I say anyway. So what's the point? Well those seven days of creation in the Genesis book are literally 24 hour days, but before those 7 days I don't know how time was measured; and the Earth was created before those 7 days of 24 hours began.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 um, i care cuz it's interesting? isn't that the same reason why you post comments on youtube? to stimulate discussions? My point is i don't think the Bible contradicts a young life IF you assume an old earth, and I welcome you the chance to give me your view and prove me wrong. In Genesis day 1, God created heaven and the earth (correct?). If Earth is indeed billions of years old, then this "day 1" is not a 24-hour clock.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 typo, should be "contradicts an old life".
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr I am sorry but I do not try to stimulate debates or or discussions or arguing. I just said what I believe but it wasn't my intention to chalenge others to useless debates. Any debate is useless if noone wants to accept the truth given by the facts we have.
chris241289 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 uh lol fine if you don't want to talk about this, sure. But FYI looking at your past comments, you seem to have no problem challenging others to defend their view (i.e. starting debates).
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@chris241289 "But you do not admit that the tests with uranium are not 100% trust worthy." => nobody denies that radiometric testing may be inaccurate, but until a better non-religious evidence comes along, this is the best tool we have. Note the emphasis on non-religious.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
atheists will learn alot from Hovind.
ikawpipa 2 weeks ago
What the fuck is "Tired Light"?????
chookization 2 weeks ago
the big bang theory doesn't require a transcendent being in the first place to make it occur. the big bang theory doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe. all it says is what happened AFTER the universe was created. the origin is another completely seperate topic, which is being explored through string theory and branes.
Hinduspy 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Hinduspy 2 weeks ago
Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God....Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law....There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy." James 4:1-11
MrAliyak 3 weeks ago
CHRISTIANS MUST BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS ISSUE
" I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:10-31
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." Hebrew 11:3
MrAliyak 3 weeks ago
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, please be aware that condemning our non-believing brothers and sisters in Adam is a greater sin than their dis-belief. Their ignorance may save them as our knowledge and judgment will be our own judgment before the Lord. We are not being the light and showing the love to which Christ calls us. Peace and God Bless all here in this forum. I hope and pray for your Spiritual Journey and that your life experience here leads you to Heaven, believer and non.
burntownhall 3 weeks ago
With regard to religion, God made man, man uses religion in order to practice faith. God is infallible and man is fallible. Due to man's fallibility that does not nullify God. Religion has been abused in order for men to gain and thus those who do wrong in the name of God have not worked in accordance to the Word of God. His Word is Love and He is a person, Jesus Christ our Lord and savior who dwelt among us.
burntownhall 3 weeks ago
People prefer not to be on the path for the love of the truth and step out on the personal spiritual search for the Creator. Plato stated that philosophy is the pursuit of the truth and to pursue the single Creator of all things is that pursuit and to learn what it is the Creator wants of us. That can be characterized in a single word, Love. To the professed atheists I ask when did you come to the knowledge of God? There must be a God in order for there to be an atheism.
burntownhall 3 weeks ago
What is lacking here is Plato's acknowledgement of an all powerful single creator of life. He deduced this through faith in logic and reason. Plato is considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he uses sound deductive reasoning for our creation. To me the greatest teaching of the Bible that people believe a falsehood rather than the love of the Truth that they are saved. This is the most self evident truth in the Bible.
burntownhall 3 weeks ago
First I want to suggest that the caption Kent Hovind is a felon is subjective. He maybe by writ of the law but not spirit. He is in prison for a complicated tax evasion. To which I say he is a hero as in light of recent governmental abuse of our money he is only engaging in a behavior that is American at its core. To which I suggest people read the Founding Fathers on that matter. It was their warning not to engage in direct taxation such as income or property taxes.
burntownhall 3 weeks ago
@burntownhall Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's...
PLURIC 2 weeks ago
i also didnt know einstein discover the big bang moauhahaa, is that idiot debate or are those guys genuinly so ignorant?
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
hovind is not even a doctor, his doctorate his bogus he orderded it from the patriot bogus university , trought mail, !!! moauhaha
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
Everything that comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth is so monumentally stupid that I'm really amazed that anyone would bother debating him. I applaud this man's patience.
fredmalone104 1 month ago
I was an atheist, now im christian and youn earth creationist... thanks kent hovind. Grand canyon was made by a giant flood!
quezcatol 1 month ago
hmmm but i like kent hovinds point of view too... very simple..
dionstrezlecki 1 month ago
hmm i like kurt weiler, stephen c meyer and now hugh ross
dionstrezlecki 1 month ago
Who created the big bang?
Is it that much of the stretch of the imagination to say God did?
H0tkebab 1 month ago
@H0tkebab not at all. It is perfectly ok to merge God with science. But it is NOT ok to put God over science, like what the creationists do. You want to say evolution is started by God? Abiogenesis is started by God? No problem, Einstein himself sorta believed in that too. But don't put God over science, because you don't have solid evidence that your holy book (ex. Bible) is indeed the word of God that outweighs science.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
I agree, though God for the Christian is more important than science, its important not to reject science purely on the basis of one interpretation of theology.
H0tkebab 1 month ago
@H0tkebab I don't know any Christians that reject science. God is the creator of science, so it would be stupid for any Christian to reject it.
TheGreekMan1981 1 month ago
@TheGreekMan1981 how can you don't know any? Just browse around youtube, look up evolution vs creation. A LOT of these fundies reject science and instead turn to the non-peer reviewed non-credited creation "science".
Casshyr 1 month ago
@TheGreekMan1981 i dont see too many christian following this matthew 19:21, funny, christian really seem to be cherry picking what they think is the words of god but when it tells them to sell evrething, close your bank account, sell your house, give your car and go in a missionary mission, i dont beleive iv ever meet one,!! if id beleive that shit id be scare to go to hell, and i would do what is the word of god, but strangly you dont see that happening to often,!,
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@H0tkebab no it isnt, but it is exactly what we must avoid in order to push further the research, god is teh equivalent of saying magic did it, it is stupid primitive, imagine we would have stick with the god explanation about the rain, thunder, fire, earthquake, illness, theyve all been explain by god or gods, before science rule it all, latest news, the big bang is just probably something that happend all the time since we are probably living in a multiverse, look it up
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@lapmarty
Yes, I've heard this before, its called the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. However thats not what I am implying. However for you to say that this is a multiverse, you are running into the error of creating an eternal regress, infinity does not exist in nature (not within the law of cause and effect). I'm implying that God is the causal agent of not just our universe but all possible multiverses through the big bang theory and gravity. Kalam cosmological argument, look it up.
H0tkebab 3 weeks ago
@H0tkebab as oppose to the magic creation fallacy?, listen, evrething pointed out at a mutiverse, first god put the earth at the center of the creation, okay wrong religion says, oh,, we knew that all along, then there is many solar system, again, religion says yeah yeah we knew that, then many galaxy, then god is put behind that again, retrospectivly, now, the big bang, off course now, you put god behind that, and then the multiverse,,,,well,,, seem a good place to displace god once more,
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@H0tkebab whatver science come up with, let suppose we find a total explanation of how thing happend, a theory of evrething, and then it suppose there is no god, well christian are gonne come up with , well god design this so he is unpprovable, but still he started evrething, there is no end to this, this is the fallacy, this logic is wrong,
evrething pointed out that your a animal, if your brain is destruct in part or completly, you lose fonction, when your gonna die your not gonna go anywhere
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
Did you bother to check up what I suggested in my last post?
H0tkebab 3 weeks ago
@H0tkebab i did, and by the way the kalam cosmological argument isnt really strong at all, quantum mecanics, and the latest discovery point at a probabilistic universe, that as always been, and always be, and if there is no begining, then like hawking said, what place is there for a creator? and anyway, why would you want to live under celestial dictatorship, and what kind of eternity is it to worship a king and his son, ?? the whole thing is stupid to begin with. look at north korea,
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@lapmarty god in the kalam consmological evidence, is really just a unkonwn,
we could replace god, by what we dont know yet, it as always been the case, probably always be the case, the mistake is to be satisfied with the answer god did it, it is wrong, it is a stupid process, it is rooted in wishful thinking, and serve no other purposes that to comfort people, there is no reason outside a anthropomorphic concept that justify this way of thinking, sorry but it seem so obvious it is a pity
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@lapmarty What is more stupid is the fact that idiots like you don't know the difference between Micro and Macroevolution. God is very much REAL. God is VERY MUCH IN CHARGE. Jesus is THE KING! Try to read something and understand something before you put it down. As a Christian I at least had the decency to study biology for years to understand evolution which is total bull. The only part of evolution that is a fact is microevolution. However, that doesn't do anything but prove God!
TheGreekMan1981 3 weeks ago
@TheGreekMan1981 "As a Christian I at least had the decency to study biology for years to understand evolution which is total bull" => cool, finally an educated Christian. Lets test if this claim is indeed true. Please define evolution theory and find support for that definition based on peer-reviewed article(s).
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@TheGreekMan1981 first a insult, yes you really follow the bible, second, you debating here and being convince of your BELEIF dont change the fact that evolution happend, macroevolution is a reality, Chromosome 2, bare the mark that we did in fact fusion a chromosome from ours common ancestor with apes, the evidence is overwhelming, no university departement around the planet agree with your creationism stupidity, You refuse to see thruth cause of emotional reason, so be it, but you loose,FACT!!
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@TheGreekMan1981 in fact you so much loose the only place you can debate this, is here on youtube where it bare no weight at all!!! that is really funny, and finally religion get it in the teeths, after hundread of years ruling, killing girls, raping, and other abomination that only FAITh can produce, you now are the laught of the planet, Macroevolution, you isiots, look at the hippopotam and whales genetic, the proof are evrywhere, only idiots like you dont see it, cause it contredict a book!
lapmarty 3 weeks ago
@lapmarty
No beginning or end, then time is an illusion and so is everything that begins and ends in our lifetime if we are bound to a finite system, what that means is that tomorrow, yesterday, the past, the present and the future do not exist. I don't find this idea logically compatible, especially in a universe that is bound by the laws of cause and effect where our perceptions and observations state otherwise.
H0tkebab 3 weeks ago
Yes, I do agree that as humans, as species, there are so many things we do not understand, but, it does not mean that a certain group of fanatics have all the answers just because the have such thing called "faith" which is a believe that requires no logic or explanation. I'm sorry I do not have that innocence. I am a grown up in 2012 almost!
ninosl2001 1 month ago
@snow4life9 My bad.
ninjacolt15 1 month ago
8:58 is far too funny. His explanation that is.
DistortedV12 1 month ago
Hm.... is this a show for kids, on basic scientific knowledge? If not, those debate topics are jokes!
KamasutraButterfly 1 month ago
donal ur the fool if u dont like these vids dont watch them
lolol2211 1 month ago
Two fools.
Donal277 1 month ago
@Donal277 How do you know they are fools?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
If they believe that the universe must have a creator and that is God, then God must have a creator too, and so on and so forth. B S.
ninosl2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninosl2001 You must know that this statement summons the death knell for science. Because if you need an explanation for an explanation, and an explanation for an explanation for an explanation and so on infinitely then science could never come to any conclusions. This is known as infinite regress and is a logical fallacy. On this basis the Kalam Cosmological Argument summons the need for a cause of the universe that has no beginning.
MrItchyElbow 1 month ago
@ninosl2001,
answers to what you are saying:
watch?v=C3rjboY2MVw
watch?v=440uw540idM
flotopo 1 month ago
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A BEING THAT EXISTED BEFORE NOTHING EXISTED !!! THATS JUST AS CRAZY IF NOT MORE SO THAN THE BIG BANG !!!!! AND IF THIS BEING IS AS PERFECT AS CHRISTIANS CLAIM WHY IS THE UNIVERSE SO NOT PERFECT !!!! WHY IS ONE HAND SHORTER THAN THE OTHER ???? WHY IS THEIR THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT !!!! I COULD GO ON FOR HOURS !!!! RELIGION HAS NO PLACE WITH SCIENCE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IDEALS !!! THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ARGUED OVER
RedBeretXXX 1 month ago
And this is it, Hodbrook finally quits, defeated. But he couldn't go without saying that Jesus broke into a penitenciary and freed his uncle ''Prison break'' style!
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
I'm Hodbrook and I think evolution is about a cat giving birth to a dolphin derpie derp!
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
@Reasonwillwin
LOL!! Seriously, now he's talking about astrology and assuming that has to do with evolution.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV It's typical from creationists, they just don't know what evolution is, they taalk about the big bang theory, animals giving birth to other species of animals and many more idiotic nonsense. Hodbrook is the most uneducated man I've ever met.
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
Lets take a look at your "FACT" of evolution and see how much more superior it sounds: billions of years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very hot very dense region much smaller than the period on a page - even that sounds more ridiculous than all of the so called "fairy tales" of the Bible and the folklore of every culture throughout the ages including the Brothers Grim, combined - try just getting a hill of dirt and sqeaze it into a dot
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook then it spun faster and faster and then exploded to form all of the stars and galaxies of the universe - firstly it could not have happened this way because the law of the conservation of angular momentum states that if a spinning object were to break apart in a frictionless environment (which the big bang was since it was ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE) that all objects would be spinning in the same direction - but venus, uranus and possibly pluto are all spinning backwards
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook Not only that but some whole galaxies are spinning backwards: how did this happen. Then the theory states that the earth's surface was like the moon's with large pools of bubbling lava - this too is impossible since pulonium halos cannot stay fixed in rock that isn't already solid - and then the earth cooled down and it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years and turned them into soup and the soup came alive so and so number of years ago (you do believe we came from a rock
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook Spontaneous generation was proven wrong by Louis Pasteur approximately 150 years ago and it still couldn't be done by Miller's experiments today which didn't simulate real life conditions and still didn't succeed (and it would only prove that it makes intelligence to make life even if he succeeded) - if you want more information on why I'll be happy to REPEAT it for you. Ammonia was one of the gases he used to create his two amino acids, but ammonia is destroyed by UV light.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook And UV light can only be blocked by ozone which is made by oxygen; but evolutionists claim there was no oxygen in the earth's atmosphere when life arose because oxygen would also make it impossible to create life since the chemicals would oxidize: either way it is impossible. So he couldn't have even created the amino acids that he did if he would have simulated the evolutionist scenario: and in the end there are twenty other amino acids that he needed to make and the...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook difference between making an amino acid and a cell is like making a letter and saying that by chance these letters will produce webster's dictionary: that is the difference between aminos and life: just study cells of the human body and you will see that they are unbelievably complex: my studies in Health Science took hours to cover these concepts and I cannot be convinced that anything living is a "simple" life form - to say that is simply a LIE - and evolution is a BIG LIE.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook Then - so the theory goes - this early life form found something to mary and something to eat and slowly evolved into all the life we see today. To claim that we see humans become resistant to AIDS and bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is a case of microevolution and is not a change that is major enough to make it recognizably different. It's as stupid as saying that just because we see variations like white cats having black kittens that we must have all come from..
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook a rock: and I showed you earlier that that is exactly what you believe no matter however you want to say it. Now lets go into all of the other problems with evolutionary theory. In this environment that we have today it is assumed that everything just came into being by the process of evolution in spite of the complexity of the universe and all of it's laws. Evolutionists say that creation is in conflict with science: well no it isn't but let me tell you about evolution's...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook conflict: not just with science: but also with common sense: the sun for example, is burning several feet per hour (or whatever the number is) and is losing mass: this is a fact because as much as evolutionists like to say that it is by nuclear fusion (or whatever their explanation is called) the sun has been observed over the past 300 years to be losing diameter: if we calculate backwards we will find that just under a billion years ago the sun was so close that it would..
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook have touched the earth: and it doesn't have to come nearly that close in order to fry everything on the planet: even Venus is uninhabitable just by heat alone and it's not even as close to the sun as Mercury: whether you calculate backwards with linear or logarithmic curves you will find that the earth's age is limited to far less than a billion years: and they say life came here about three billion years ago: that is dreaming and is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook The moon also goes around the earth and is getting further away from the earth by a couple of inches per year: whether it moves away at a logarithmic curve or linear line on a calculator you will still see that if you calculate backwards just a few million years that it would be close enough to cause the tides to drown everything on planet earth. The earth's speed is also slowing down and it is roughly slowing down at about a second per 1 and a half years or so approx...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook calculate back just a billion years (which is two billion years after life got started according to you) and the earth would have been spinning so fast that the winds would have been enormously strong from the coriolis effect and life couldn't possibly have survived and that's just a billion years. Comets also defy evolution because they would have deteriorated in ten thousand years or less but are still around: the Oort cloud theory was proposed to counter this problem...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook and it states that all comets come from a cloud that is 50,000 astronomical units away: the problem with that is that it cannot be observed and therefore it cannot be proven: the reason for this is because we can just barely see Pluto with a powerful telescope and it's only 39 AUs away: you can't even see a comet at that distance; but even if you can you certainly won't see it coming from more than a thousand times that distance: you see, there is no Oort cloud: it doesn't..
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook exist: Oort never saw the Oort cloud: it was made up like everything else in evolution: and they say that the coal deposits of the earth were laid before man ever got here: when in fact human artifacts were found in coal mines - such as a golden chain and a golden bell - these are definitely human artifacts. Oil also disproves evolution because the pressure of the oil down in the ground is 20,000 psi and it is coming up through the ground all the time now days because of...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook this enormous pressure: but it should have all splashed out from the pressure millions of years ago: but it's still down there. I could go on and on. There is plenty more to choose from: take your pick and prove any of them wrong: but you'd actually have to be able to disprove all of them wrong if your theory be true: so do it: it can't be done: the only way it can be done is if you make up shit and twist the laws of the universe. You're theory really sounds better lol
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
I already have lol!
TheAntiV 1 month ago
As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.
The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddly-squat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth...
TheAntiV 1 month ago
and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
"The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans;a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii."
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!
It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
(Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart).....
TheAntiV 1 month ago
and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.
So all scientists are part of this huge conspiracy against you poor little creationists? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV I just can't wait for Hodbrook to read all this and be like: I ain't understanding those big biggie words so they all madness derpie derp! You have to insert the word ''Magic'' every now and then to get that doofus to understand.
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
@Reasonwillwin
Shit, I also forgot that words with more than four letters automatically confuses him. Seriously though I have no idea what school he goes to but if he did a paper on this to the university I went to he'd get an automatic "F."
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Anyways: I don't care it's like two people in high school arguing which one is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan: Jordan wouldn't care and neither do I: I'll be going now but I hope that even though I haven't given you something to think about then at least someone else will see the light: thank you for your time: and don't bother replying because I won't be reading this page anymore since I've said all that needs to be said: the messages don't go to my email.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.
It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere -- for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (Tian et al. 2005).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
here is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).
Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).
The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003).
The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial (Wakefield 1998).
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Again you're mixing abiogenesis with evolution which is a big flaw.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.
Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
The claim is based on so much ignorance and so many misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin.
The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).
The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos. Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, ....
TheAntiV 1 month ago
which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions. Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations. Solar systems within galaxies have still different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook The big bang theory is not evolution you freaking twat XD Also you just quoted Kent Hovind, a man with no scientific credentials, congradulations for your non-stop stupidity.
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hodbrook 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook He had his PhD in a non-credited diploma mill, OOPSIE DOOPSIE.
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Reasonwillwin And despite what you say you haven't proven any of my facts wrong: try thinking sometime and you'll see I'm right: but once a retard always one I guess: just like TheAntiV idiot below: retards can't be convinced of sanity because to them it is sanity: well keep dreaming pal and go back to your delusion: or else shut up with the bullshit and reply to my arguments with facts and not with ad hominem attacks on Kent Hovind: who does in fact have a PhD in education
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
That's not evolution you fucking retard, that's astrology. You got your sciences mixed up. Also almost all of your comments have been marked as spam.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Evolution=Silly.
Talking snakes, invisible sky magicians, magical trees, giant boats able to hold millions of animals AND there respective food provision for the year, a man surviving being eaten by a giant fish, a shield made of ice surrounding the earth and aa jewish zombie=TOTALLY REAL DERPIE DERP
Creationists, always there to make themselves look atrociously stupid.
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
Before you do that wait until the day is done and I've finished replying to all of your comments: then you can send this debate to your professor: if you truly want to know the truth waith just a few hours and I'll give it to you.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
No one knows the truth. Not a single individual. We can only make logical guesses based on facts. Scientists have never said they knew all the facts. But if we automatically responded with "God did it" to every question to why life came about then all the scientific discoveries that have lead to improvements to human health would have never existed.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Sorry but I'm tired of arguing. Let's just agree to disagree. It's beginning to turn ugly anyway. I can't see you in my inbox anyhow. Unless you want to switch this into personal messaging rather than spamming the shit out of this comment section.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
If you're going to reply do it through personal messaging. I'm tired of scrolling through this comment section and I got to study for finals.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Plus I already sent them a screen shot of the comment section to my professors at CSUN.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Sure: that is what all of you evolutionists do: edit then brag: my God you are one gutless motherfucker and I am ashamed of the human race big time right now
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook didn't edit a single thing. No cut and paste. That's okay though. I think humanity is overrated. :)
TheAntiV 1 month ago
This is why I'm done. You did such a tremendous job at proving me right how incredibly ignorant you are of the facts surrounding evolution. In fact I plan on using this exchange as a perfect example of the flaws in creationist thinking and sending it to known biology professors. As for that claim you made about embarrassing your biology teacher, I'm betting the exchange when something like this:
foo(dot)ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/whos-your-daddy/
TheAntiV 1 month ago
This is me walking away like a fucking boss.....
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV No this is a loser having delusions of grandeur and if you need further proof of your stupidity all you have to do is merely scroll down.
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Why don't we meet and have a cup of tea?
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Good idea: I thought you'd never ask: where do you live?
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Who said we'll have tea at my place? I know an excellent place.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Where you joker: I know this is going to turn out to be some huge joke and you're going to have a huge laugh because I know we can't meet: I'm in Australia currently and you're on the other side of the world: unless you want to fly over or something
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook They have retarded creationists in Australia too? Poor them...
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
@TheAntiV You are the perfect example of delusion. Do you know what really happened: I'll show you.
Teacher: "Judging from what we've observed our ape like ancestors do we can then..."
Me: "Excuse me teacher. Is this something we know for sure or do you just believe it. I understand that I've never seen lots of events take place but we do have historical evidence for such events. Evolution has neither historical evidence or scientific evidence to back it up."
Teacher: "Well, fair enough...
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook I'll use another example for the analogy then."
This is what happens in real life. You evolutionists talk a good fight but in reality the Creationists have a superior number of facts on there side and evolutionists have to invent scenarios where they win like the link you showed above to make them feel superior: the truth is they feel insecure: and so do you. Watch Kent Hovind's debates and tell me one time when evolutionists win the debate: or an example of a single fact they use
Hodbrook 1 month ago
@Hodbrook
Also, as i said use personal messaging but make it a little small or not to long.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
No the only type of evolution isn't microevolution. That is a lie that you just pulled out of your ass. Please provide me an example of a scientist saying that. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Macroevolution is the change of one species into another plain and simple. That's evolution whether you like it or not.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Yeah it's microevolution whether you like it or not and I challenge you to get a cat or any other kind of animal and breed a dog or a fish or a frog or a human from it: just give it a try: and you'll say that's impossible: THAT"S MY FUCKING POINT YOU FUCKING RETARD
Hodbrook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hodbrook ''Yeah it's microevolution whether you like it or not and I challenge you to get a cat or any other kind of animal and breed a dog or a fish or a frog or a human from it: just give it a try'' Evolution is not about a Dog giving birth to a fish or a cat, what the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever been to school? Oh and by the way, with all your swearing and attacking, you ain't acting really christian, just sayin
Reasonwillwin 1 month ago
Nope sorry. It's macroevolution. You just need to accept it. No matter what the Bible says macroevolution has been repeatedly observed. Accept it and stop fighting it.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution....
TheAntiV 1 month ago
but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).
There are various views of the dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated Equilibria are patterns of change that indicate stasis, or long