@odinata aka dumbitchlake02 "Evolution doesn't require an explanation fo the origin of life" HAR HAR HAR Without Abiogenesis there can be NO evolution. So thanks for proving there is no evolution.
@CiscoWes not nothing. chemicals are not nothing. What happens in your cells? Chemistry on a wild crazy level. Still chemistry. Chemicals interacting in strange and mysterious ways. Not something from nothing. Something new and unique from something else.
@ShellySummers There's a difference between a lump of chemicals and something living. That's why we can't get something from nothing. It takes specifically certain things before life can form. And that is something that just doesn't happen on its own. Something living from non living matter just doesn't happen. That's a belief that predates Darwinism. People used to think mosquitoes actually were generated from stagnant water. Tadpoles formed from rocks in a stream.
@ShellySummers You said "evolution is not about origins"
"SCIENTISTS CUT RIBBON ON THE CENTER FOR CHEMICAL EVOLUTION
Posted August 3, 2010 Atlanta, GA
Researchers engaged in studying the origins of life celebrated a new $20 million grant from the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration yesterday at a gala presided over by Provost Gary Schuster."
1. Professor Klaus Dose, president of Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
2. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory."
3. The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?" - Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40
4. "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -- Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist
I guess you didn't know as much about evolution as you thought you did.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be either created or destroyed; that they can only be changed from one form to another. IF energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed -by us, that is- that makes them eternal …forever existing …always having existed …just like the Creator God. Imagine that! GB you Ian!
How is it some just can't see past the trees to the forest? You must have either abiogenesis or biogenesis first and foremost -i.e., "first cause"- for evo to take place to begin with in the second place! Were you have nothing, you have nothing to “evolve.” So much for your foundation. It's that simple! …but then, perhaps that's the problem ...it's too simple a concept for the average evotard to comprehend. GB you Ian!
He stars out admitting that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Then he says "evolutionists" want to say life started from non life. No they don't necessarily. You can accept the theory of biological evolution ant still invoke God or fairies or aliens for having started it. Complete non sequitur.
@foxlake02 It depends on who you ask. The evolution belief is split into several different 'denominations'. Some believe literal molecules to man evolution, while others only believe some life evolved from other life just recently. And everything in between. It's easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition of just what evolution is from evolutionists. You corner them on one issue and they simply move the goalposts.
@CiscoWes No it does not depend on who you ask. The theory of evolution is one theory that simply describes the diversity of life on earth by descent with modification. Period. Now you can go on to ask about other theories that describe other facts like the expanding universe or the fact that all life uses the same four nucleotides in DNA and develop theories like the big bang theory or abiogenesis but that would NOT be the well established theory of evolution. That's just word games.
@foxlake02 I'm telling you what I witness online with debates (or arguments) dealing with evolutionism. They don't often think exactly the same. One will tell you evolution is just an explanation of minute changes within a species (which doesn't violate science) but another will try to say that minute changes pile up into totally different animals forming over x billion years. It's like a shell game when you're trying to get a consistent definition from these people.
@CiscoWes I really don't care what you witness online. Try cracking open a biology book. Go to a natural history museum. There are some very good videos here by qualified biologists but Juby is not one of them. A great paleontologist once said that creationists are only good at distorting what science really says to make black look white. That's all this guy is doing here.
@foxlake02 My point is, the evolutionists can't seem to get together on just what evolution is. It appears that evolutionists move the goalposts and have so many different views that it is intentionally deceptive, since the emperor has no clothes. Creationists simply explain what is OBSERVED, while evolutionists concoct embarassing 'just-so' stories that one animal evolved into something else over x-billion years.
@Ciscoes Again, you are not looking for the right sources. Science is not pop culture and it certainly is not what people like July or Hovind or Ham say it is. Try looking for sources backed up by peer review in science. Not people who make an art of twisting what other people are saying. watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM Don't tell me creationists "observed" magic man poofing everything here in a few days.
@dumbitchlake02 "watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM" HAR HAR HAR What horseshit! You are really stupid if you recommend that dumb vid. That sissy narrating it took everything right out of a known biased erroneous site--Talk Origins.
You calling upon the Law of Biogenesis is a classic and stupid argument. The Law of Biogenesis was created in the 19th century to address claims that if you leave a steak out for a couple days, maggots will spontaneously appear. Pasteur had proof that the maggots came from eggs laid by flies attracted to the decaying meat. Thus, with his data, he concluded that no life sprang spontaneously from nonliving material. But an environment containing all the chemicals needed for life could, eventually.
And of course, it's okay for God's life to arise from non-life...or to just be eternal. What scientists do is not create a "god of the gaps", they just humbly admit that there's no knowledge yet. This is the preferable position because it leaves the doorway open for future research and discovery, whereas "god did it" is the end of the road with Creationism. Also, since you have a "personal relationship" with your god, why not ask him how he caused life on this earth and then publish this.
Ummm, even if you want to call "unknowns" scientists' god of the gaps, isn't that a better answer than certainty about something for which there is no proof? You said yourself that "we creationists argue from what we DO know". Are you saying that you KNOW that Yaweh created life on this earth? How so?
Here's a video you should watch, Ian Juby. It's called "Origin of Life Made Easy" by Potholer54. He should give you a decent understanding about how life emerged.
No, evolution only happens to pre-existing life. Evolution is not the unifying theory of science. It has nothing to do with how the universe got here, how life got here or it's purpose. "God of the gaps" has been here forever. Anything unexplained has been attibuted to God(s) since the first thought popped into the first mind. But, have you noticed that the gaps get smaller every year? The gaps get smaller, but God gets bigger, for some reason.
evidence of any kind. Again this is unimpressive. I've seen your other rants and they all state that life can't arise from non life, yet they only show evidence of life not arising in dvd players or legos. Where is your evidence for God? The Bible? Where is your evidence for that? If you take the Josh McDowell approach you have evidence that the writers knew the names of cities and kings but not much else. What about the other Holy Books? Isn't Vishnu JUST as plausible as God?
Evolution says nothing about life rising from non-life. That's abiogenesis, a hypothesis that is gaining credence but is not yet a fully formed theory. The fact that you can poke holes in something that hasn't yet been proven is utterly unimpressive. No scientist will allow a supernatural explanation for the explanation of anything, UNLESS there is evidence FOR it. Not evidence against something else. Saying we don't know is leaving the gap empty. Saying "God did it" is filling the gap with no
Why can't people see the silliness of the argument that because science can explain something, God didn't do it. If God exists, He created everything to exist within physical laws. He created those physical laws. Science is merely the discoverer of what God is able to do in our natural world using the laws He created. Thus, God of Gaps is a non-issue. God DOES do everything - both natural and supernatural.
Evolutionists pathetically dodge the question of abiogenesis by saying, evolution is only interested in what happened after that. Yet at the same time they jump up and down when they have anything to support the posibility of abiogenesis. So on one hand if abiogeneses was true their theory would be justified, but on the other hand if abiogenesis is not true, then that has no bearing at all on their theory.... hmmm interesting way to argue.
2:21. What? Since when does a god (which would not be considered alive based on the definition of life) creating life from dust and a rib count as biogenesis. That sounds a lot like life coming from non-life. Again, we both accept abiogenesis; you simply wish it to be your creation story.
2:44. I just thought of this, but since your god could not be alive (based on the definition of life) how can he die?
1:41: First off, by evolutionists I assume you mean scientists. Second, no, scientists do not argue that. Scientists freely admit that they do not know, but they are working on it.
1:54. I already covered this, see my response to 0:44.
2:09. Again see my response to 0:44 to see why this is wrong.
1:04. Impossible? Well you need to hurry up and submit your findings to peer-review before some other hot shot creationists comes along and scoops you.
1:25. Looks like some projecting going on there. Evolution is testable and observable in both the lab and the field. It does not take any faith to accept evolution.
1:34. You are not arguing from what you DO know, you are arguing from what you think you know based on the bible. Simply saying allah did it, is not saying much.
Evolution is testable? I think you mean "natural selection" is testable. Even the Pope believes in natural selection. Sorry pal, evolution, in the sense of gas became Gus, or even one phyla becoming another is pure god of the gaps science fiction, which silly scientists deemed ready for textbooks to teach all our kids with.
Now that I am done laughing, it seems obvious that you do not know the first thing about evolution. Evolution makes no claim of gas becoming “Gus” or of “phyla becoming another”. Something that I have observed is that the people who argue the hardest against evolution know the least about it.
Nevertheless, please prove me wrong. Define evolution in a biological context.
Don't tell me you're one of those who believes there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution? The problems are manifold when trying to make this god-of-the-gaps leap over the chasm of missing evidence.
No, I am not one of those that believe there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species and macroevolution is change between a species. There is a difference, and the difference is time. Both have been observed in both the lab and the field.
Now, how about proving me wrong and telling me what the biological definition of evolution is?
And, sorry, there's no escaping the question of abiogenesis. Deal with that first, then let's talk about evolution. That's one huge god-of-gaps assumption to let abiogenesis take care of itself while you reap the imaginary fruits of it in your beloved theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis and evolution belong to two different fields of science. One is biology and the other is chemistry. Again, you show your ignorance of this subject, if you knew the biological definition of evolution, you would understand why this comment is foolish.
Furthermore, we both agree with abiogenesis, you simply think a god(s) started life. Whereas I believe, life came about through naturalistic processes. However it does not matter which one of us is right.
Nifty sidestep. But, God is not "nothing" as abiog claims is our origin. And there’s still not a single undisputed link clearly connecting 2 of the hundreds of major family groups. And, you're effectively admitting the silliness of dismissing theism so readily. Debates have already arisen from this – e.g. William Lane Craig debates, with such titles as "Is it more rational to believe that God created the universe than not". Guess who usually wins. It's you who needs to do the proving, not me.
It is not a side step. That is the simple fact of the matter.
First off, abiogenesis does not claim nothing is our origins, abiogenesis simply means life coming from non-life. That is why we both accept it. A god(s) creating life would fall within the definition of abiogenesis since a god(s) would not be alive (at least not in a biological sense). Second, whoever told you abiogenesis claims nothing started life lied to you.
You think there are no transitional fossils between the order family in the fossil record? Clearly, you have never looked into this subject. Look up Aegyptopithecus.
Furthermore, I never dismissed theism. Where in any part of my post did I dismiss theism? I even stated that a god(s) could have started life.
@jebus6kryst Hi jebus. How on earth can anyone claim that Aegyptopithecus is a "transitional" fossil? Calling it transitional is not enough. Naming similarities to other primates is not enough. Where is the actual transition?
If you want to talk about what is "scientific" then you too should be fair by not using words as transitional.
I do not care what a philosopher (Dr. Craig) says on this subject. This is a scientific subject. Furthermore, debates are usually won by who has the most charisma, not because of the facts. In addition, when did I ask you to prove anything? I simply asked you to define evolution in a biological context. I see you still have not done this. Why is that so hard?
A god(s) could have started life on earth and it would do nothing to the theory of evolution (ToE). The ToE stands on its own evidence and is independent from other sciences.
However, I will answer you question (can you do me the same?). I do not know how life started. No one does.
So, why readily dismiss theism if you don't know. Theists believe as a first premise that God created everything, including natural laws and everything in nature, and it is his prerogative to let everything on earth follow these laws he created. No such thing as god of gaps. The things science knows doesn't rebuke God, it merely REVEALS God.
I never dismissed theism, now did I? Why do you assume that I am dismissing theism?
Okay, nothing within that first premise shows that evolution is wrong.
I never stated that anything in science rebukes a god(s). I think you might have me confused with someone else. Evolution is science, science deals with the natural world. A god(s) would be supernatural, science does not comment on the supernatural. Therefore, evolution cannot comment on a god(s).
0:38. Wrong. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life that is abiogenesis.
0:44. We both accept abiogenesis, because if we did not than we would have an infinite regress. The only difference is that I believe there is a naturalistic explanation to abiogenesis and you believe that a god did it. Short answer, we both do not know which is right, but even if a god(s) did start life, it would do nothing to disprove evolution.
Actually the God of the gaps is not an argument but an observation . As science progresses it explains more and more and God is then used to explain what science cannot explain .
Furthermore, almost every single amino acid essential to life has been observed somewhere in the galaxy, besides Earth. These reactions are actually quite common.
You mock Louis Pasteur by misusing his law. He came up with "Law of Biogenesis" in 1864. That's just the name he picked, there is no such thing as scientific law. He made no mention of the origins of life, just that higher life forms (bacteria and up) don't arise from nothing. That's 89 years before the we knew the structure of DNA.
This is just naive. We have observed amino acids formed in very common occurrence. Nitrogen is %78 of our atmosphere. Water is %70 of the Earth's surface and our body. Carbon would seem rare by comparison, but it's everywhere, in the atmosphere even spewing out of volcanoes. Mars and Venus have atmosphere's of over %95 carbon dioxide. Is it so hard to imagine that in a billion years these three were all next to each other right when lightning struck or there was a lot of ultraviolet light?
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing, however, about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.
It is often cited by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents as evidence for the need of an intelligent Creator or Designer. They describe the law of biogenesis as stating that life cannot come from non-life, it can only come from other life.
There is no believing in evolution, there is understanding evolution. No, creationists only argue from personal incredulity, which is an argument from ignorance. Actually, for life to come from something to the effect of micelle membranes, you're now down to projecting and arguments from ridicule. If you knew ANYTHING about laws, you would know they're descriptive not prescriptive, meaning they describe what does happen, not attempt to prescribe what must happen.
You're right, there is no believe in evolution. Because it isn't true. It's baloney. Whoo-ha, poppycock, makebelieve, adult fairytale. I believe even evolutionists don't understand evolution. The video makes a good point about your evolutionists 'god of the gaps'. You adhere to some unknown producing living things and chide Creationists for the very same belief. It takes faith to believe in evolutionism and there isn't any way around this fact.
The tired evolution and gravity argument is a common tactic. You are trying to give credibility to evolutionism by associating it with something that is actually true. Gravity is a natural law. Evolutionism is a theory. For example, you take a counterfeit $20 bill and put it in with a stack of real $20 bills. You are saying that the counterfeit is real because it's mixed in there with a bunch of real bills. Therefore, evolution is true. Noooo, evolution is still false.
Evolution is actually better evidenced than gravity. We don't even know what actually causes gravity. A law is pretty much the same as a theory that can be expressed mathematically, in the hierarchy of science theory is as high as you go, and a scientific theory has nothing to do with a common use theory. A scientific theory is a model of explanation which must be supported by all evidence and contradicted by none.
That 's a new one. Now evolution is better than gravity! Wow, I can honestly say I haven't heard that one. Now you're saying the counterfeit is actually better than the real thing. Gravity is a physical law, evolutionism is simply a theory, a dead rotting corpse of a theory desparately hunting for life - something even remotely resembling evidence to give it some validity. But it stands a rotting corpse drawing flies.
If it's new to you, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past 150 years. Once again, in science if you were to construct a hierarchy, theories are higher than laws. Luckily for science, your understanding of biology, or lack thereof, is completely meaningless.
You're upside down. You're putting more credibility on a theory than a natural law of the universe. A natural physical law of the universe is unmoved by anyones opinion or theory, existed long before anyone even discovered or understood it, while a theory can be anything from evolution to alien life forms. You're completely upside down.
You don't even understand what a scientific law is, a scientific law is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive, it's a model of explanation of some working of reality. IE relativity DEscribes the behavior of gravity, nowhere does any scientific law insist or impose any rules anywhere.
Science is simply knowledge gained by observation. Our observation of the law of gravity has no bearing on it. While the physical law of gravity has remained unchanged, our understanding of science changes all the time. For example, while it was penned in scripture that the earth "hung upon nothing", some believed that the earth was on the back of a huge turtle, or carried by a man.
We don't observe the law of gravity, we observe gravity the 'law' attached to it is a human construct of understanding and explanation.
The bible also says the earth sat on pillars, if you say 'the earth hung on nothing' AND 'the earth sat on something' one of them is bound to be right, fallacy of confirmation bias.
We can observe predictable effects of the law of gravity. The law of gravity isn't a human construct. That is what I was trying to say earlier. The law of gavity isn't subject to opinion or whatever labels we give it. It's still a law. You are trying to argue semantics. If you pay attention to context (which is so elusive to Bible scoffers, for some reason) the verse describing pillars of the earth is alluding to its foundations, not a physical attrubute. Level this with several other...
Let's just remember that it's a "Law" because the guy who discovered it wanted to call it that. Newton has laws of motion and gravitation. Joule the law of the conservation of energy. Lavoisier the law of the conservation of energy. But even all of these laws have exceptions.
I can't believe you believe metaphor(pillars) over research. People poured their entire lives into discoveries, but you read a mistranslated, edited, abused, library of stories collected from bronze-aged nomads.
We do know more about evolution than we do about gravity.
All we know about gravity is what we observe and we no idea what actually causes the attraction or whether it is always applicable. Where as with evolution we know how it happens, why it happens and what actually happens.
It is foolish to draw any co-relation between a theory of evolution and a law of gravity. Evolutionism is a foolish theory in a rabid search of evidence. Gravity on the other hand is a physical law. There is NO co-relation between evolutionism and gravity. Yet it is still a popular defense of the evolutionism theory.
Scientists still can't produce a "fact" of evolutionism, nor can explain the mechanism of evolution, nor demonstrate tangible proof that such a hokey belief even happens.
@CiscoWes what facts has it not produced or better yet how is the mechanism of evolution unexplained? evolution through natural selection (Modern evolutionary synthesis) its hard to give a tangible experiment for evolution because its through micro and macro evolution, its small changes from generation to generation (micro) to looking at it over a larger span (macro or speciation) the point wasn't there was a relation between gravity and evolution but the differences in evidence for both.
@redwaker You are giving us a "just-so" story, particularly with the microevolution to macroevolution. There IS NO EVIDENCE for macroevolution. Just doesn't happen. The only thing that we can observe is things adapting to their environment - small changes WITHIN a kind. To say all those little changes pile up to some different animal happening is a just-so story.
@CiscoWes ts hard for us to observe macro evolution because it takes so long, its been going on way past since the theory of evolution was presented, its not like it happens in 4 years it takes millions. and since you can agree to small changes in a species whats to say over a long trial those changes build up in a species at some location over thousands of generations resulting in a change.
@redwaker It takes so long that it doesn't happen. There isn't any evidence for macroevolution. So when you state such a thing happens as a 'matter of fact', it becomes what is called a 'just-so-story'. It is as valid as me saying billions of years ago aliens deposited life on this planet. I'm stating it as if it is true when I don't know if it happened and there isn't any evidence.
@CiscoWes The theory for macro evolution is extremely strong and you cant have micro evolution without macro, so to say that micro happens but since we don't see macro just because it takes so much time is foolish. the alien spiel is your attempt to just play it off, because there's no evidence for it anything could be said but since there is evidence for abiogensis its obviously more plausible.
"there isn't any evidence." there's a lot of evidence for the bible though...
@CiscoWes i also find it funny how this guy attempts to say that evolutionists try to explain were life came from, the theory of evolution only presents it self in how life could have developed from a undetermined starting point not the starting point itself. Abiogensis is one of the leading theory on how life could have started.
if this guy makes a mistake that simple on the theory, he's barley looked at it
@redwaker Abiogenesis would require a supernatural intervention. Life can't come from non-life. This is another 'just-so' story. Evolutionists are relying on a 'god-of-the-gaps' when it is stated that abiogenesis happens.
Additionally, it depends on who you ask. I have a theory that evolutionism is divided into several different 'denominations'. Some believe in literal molecules to man evolution while others say evolution only deals with minute changes.
@CiscoWes Abiogensis doesn't require a "supernatural" intervention
even though through Pasteur shows spontaneous COMPLEX organisms don't just appear, simple amino acids can organize into proteins and so on. once again Evolutionists have nothing to do with abiogensis as you state. as for the different "denominations" regarding evolution that's other people developing diffrent ideas regarding the theory, in essence that's what science is.
It is foolish to draw any co-relation between a theory of evolution and a law of gravity. Evolutionism is a foolish theory in a rabid search of evidence. Gravity on the other hand is a physical law. There is NO co-relation between evolutionism and gravity. Yet it is still a popular defense of the evolutionism theory.
Scientists still can't produce a 'fact' of evolutionism, nor can explain the mechanism of evolution, nor demonstrate tangible proof that such a hokey belief even happens.
...scriptures such in Job or Isaiah where the earth hangs upon nothing and in Matthew where it talks about several different events happening at the same time that would happen at different times during the day and night - something only possible with a spherical earth having daytime on one side and night on the other. The fallacy here again, is "operator error". Bible scoffers in search of an error unwittingly fall into a snare and reaveal their true motive.
Now is that your interpretation that pillars doesn't mean actual foundations? It's funny how so many parts of the bible that conflict with modern science are now open to interpretation.
"evolution has life arising from non life" no, thats abiogenesis "violates natural laws" no, the law of biogenesis only elaborates on modern life. "First life came from god" thats only an answer in the same sense that invisible leprechauns with strings is an answer as to what causes gravity. Science isn't about just any answer, it's about demonstrably accurate answers. "Supernatural process" a supernatural process is by definition meaningless in any way that matters to science.
invisible leprechauns, santa claus, tooth fairy, etc... are overused tired cliche straw man atheist arguments. Admitting that life came from God is simply a realization of what can be seen in observation. We see intelligent design in living things. Creation follows common logic - paintings have a painter, buildings have a builder, creation has a Creator. Contrast this with evolutionism that has some 'unknown' to come up with life, then evolutionism takes over from there. All baloney.
A strawman is a misrepresentation, do you have objective evidence that your proclaimed god isn't a leprechaun? No, that's circular logic, you're assuming its a creation to assume there was a creator, when it being a creation is what you were trying to prove in the first place. Why would the universe be any different than it is now if only natural forces were at work?
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you many times already, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life
Some of you evolutionist buddies say evolution does have something to do with the origin of life (i.e. darwins book ORIGIN of species). Your misrepresentation is when you use the tired worn out cliches about leprechauns, santa claus, etc... They have no bearing on reality when on the other hand, we can read scripture and understand about God the Creator of the universe. This isn't circular logic, creation follows a pattern established in observation.
Evolutionists give the misrepresentation. It's been said that it is easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition fo just what the heck evolution is. That is by design (pardon the pun). By constantly moving the goalposts, evolution will always be some vague entity that can't be explained (since it can't be evidenced). Some say evolution only deals with living things that already somehow got here, but others say it explains how life came from a single celled organism.
Evolution: The change in heritable traits in populations over time.
Your not understanding evidence, IE ERV's, is not the same as evidence not existing. Anyone who still says evolution explains the origin of life knows less about it than a creationist.
And you will project simple "change" into something coming up with new kinds over the proverbial "billions of years". Again we see you are trying to give it validity by association. No one can deny change, we can actually observe that. BUT where you run into trouble, and where you depart from science and enter into a "just-so" story is when you say that "change" stacked up over billions of years comes up with new living things. That isn't science.
No projecting, small change over short time = large change over long time. This is not just a matter of extrapolation, either, everything supports it, fossils, anatomy, and the genetic record especially.
We've witnessed the change in heritable traits, have you ever witnessed supernatural creation, on any level?
Yes it is projecting because we have zero evidence of those little changes piling up into big ones. Microevolution vs macroevolution. Microevolution - minute changes or more accurately adaptations within a kind is observable and doesn't violate science while the belief of macroevolution violates science and isn't observable.
Also it is interesting to note that what is found in 99% the fossil record is complex inverebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No "transitional fossils" In the remaining less than 1% is where those alleged "transitionals" are found, by imagination and large amounts of plaster of paris. NOTHING supports the belief of macroevolution. It isn't found in the fossil record, or anatomy, or a genetic record.
Of course most fossils are going to be organisms with bones, bones fossilize more readily, we do however find invertebrate fossils, see: Mistaken Point
You still seem to be under the impression that not understanding genetics or anatomy is an argument against it, it's not. endogenous retroviruses prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
evilnessangerandRAWR - Your type makes me laugh, each evolutionary scientist is probably more educated than any one character in your bible and probably all characters combined. Yet you dismiss casually the work of hundreds of thousands of these people, you dismiss anyone that will go against what your bible says from your armchair without even knowing a single thing about what you are arguing against. You just make yourself look stupid, a relic of ignorance. The world cares not for your opinion
P.S. Some young earth creationists have an IQ on over 200. Let's see you beat that" - And your point would be? You just said you are not going to bother arguing with me. Now what are you saying? That these people can't be wrong because they have a high IQ?`lolol. And you wonder why your opinion is not required or wanted. You and your kind are relics. Watch the world run past you so fast you won't be able to keep up.h puppy. Like i said, your ignorant, dogmatic opinion is not required.
Are there any other creationists that want to claim "evolution" is "dead" without even understanding what it is that they claim is dead? Are there any other creationists that want to take it upon themselves to tell me i am not "classy" enough? I must apologise if i forgot that famous space daddy commandment "Thou shalt be classy". Or i tell you what, instead of showing how uneducated and dogmatic you are, why not go to school for one night a week and actualyl learn something.
evolution is dead im happy to tell you!"go to school" do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock?
"do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock" - Nope, they take classes and leave creationists in the dirt. I think that is the problem with creationist, they are daunted by such knowledge in the world. It's ok puppy, i don't care, nor do most, but it's you that ultimately has to reconcile your idiocies with the world. It is just a shame that you have to invent space daddy characters in your mind to do it.
"The universe created itself from nothing! You're a deep thinker. You keep reading those books boy genius. " - Only creationists say that. No deep thinker ;-) But since creationists have never been known to be great thinkers, you are forgiven.
17DEMONHUNTER - Shhh. Don't tell me what evolution is based on. For a start you can't seperate the big bang from abiogenesis from the the theory of evolution. When you can, speak. If not, shut your mouth. Stops the flies getting in.
evolution might as well b swiss cheese it has so many holes in it
ur gonna tell me that we came from 1 cell that was formed when there was no other life around to form this cell and then that single cell came all diffrent kinds and variations of plants, all diffrent kinds and variations of animals and diffrent variations of humans (skin color) came from 1 microscopic single celled life form? no stop and read this out loud everyone and see how stupid evolution sounds C=
17DEMONHUNTER - "just face the facts dude" You mean the same kind of talking snakes kind of fact? or the hundreds of thousands of supporting data that confirms what is one of the most sound scientific theories of all time kind of fact? How life started has nothing to do with evolution, go study a bit before you even attempt to comment on evolution. Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. You know this and have no argument, so you invent your own version of evolution. Dishonest. Liar. Child.
"um yeah actually how life started has a lot to do with evolution and creation" - When you say "evolution" this pretty much can mean anything as you haven't really defined what you mean as "evolution", given creationists tendency to be poorly educated i think i should clarify AGAIN, that "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" has nothing to do with how life started, your childish DEMANDS for an answer from something that has NOTHING to say on the matter is foolish. Not just foolish, but bordering on ignorant
So basically you are saying that there were organisms here on earth without evolution? HOW DID THEY GET THERE? There must be a creator or else there would be no intellegent design in all the creatures we see today. Obviously the Creator created you with something missing.
"So basically you are saying that there were organisms here on earth without evolution?" -Nope and your question does not even make sense. Try and construct a proper question before you talk to me in future. "There must be a creator or else there would be no intellegent design in all the creatures we see today." There must be a creator right? Pardon me for now being as rude as i can possibly be to you, but you are stupid. It's fine to make these claims, now go find some evidence.
evilnessangerandRAWR - So let's end this with some more truths shall we. The truth is you yelp like a little puppy, over and over again. No matter what you say the world keeps turning and the theory of evolution remains the best explanation within the scientific community for divergence of life. Nothing you have to say on the matter will change that, your opinion is not required or wanted and i think that makes you feel upset. So you rant on youtube. Nothing you say matters. Suck on it. ;-)
I won't even bother arguing with you. You know I'm right. That's why you're being so defensive about evolution - it's wrong -. G'luck in life. BTW, real mature. I do believe it is STICK IT IN YOUR JUICE BOX AND SUCK ON IT.. It suits you and your maturity level.
evilnessangerandRAWR - "I won't even bother arguing with you. You know I'm right. That's why you're being so defensive about evolution - it's wrong -. G'luck in life." My point entirely, you haven't anything to argue with if you could. You would be the richest man alive if you could prove otherwise. But you can't. Now you look so fucking stupid about it, you pretend to take some kind of moral highground. Shh puppy. Like i said, your ignorant, dogmatic opinion is not required.
evilnessangerandRAWR - A little lesson in arguing. If you want to argue a particular view. Get some evidence to back your position. Not attack someone elses and hope people won't notice the absurdity of your position. Your ignorance is your own personal problem, not that of science or facts. You currently are arguing against millions of scientists globally armed with the most sophisticated machines to ever grace this planet that all come to a single conclusion. Evolution happens.
17DEMONHUNTER - Do you really believe that by ignoring all possible facts and inventing your own personal version of what evolution is before you then decide to argue your own said construct with a parody of explanation that somehow you make your position even more clear? Shh. Really. Strawman arguments seem to be abundant with creationists...
"do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock?" - firstly i doubt you "know" much about anything, secondly your opinion on the matter doesn't count for anything as evolution still remains the answer that you so very much don't like to hear. Lastly, simply claiming something is dead, doesn't make it so. Offer something to back up your claims, otherwise it get's ignored. Just like every other piece of creationist nonsense.
9pt9 - Shhh puppy, i have eaten bigger minds than you for breakfast. Kindly say something of some real substance or keep your rhetoric to yourself. Now, care to show me just how stupid you are again or shall i take it as "gospel" that you are just plain retarded?
wow. you can't even think straight enough to make a comment that is true. your mind has been deluted by evolution too, i take it? Ian spoke at the camp i attended and he gave plenty of facts and reasons behind his arguements. You are the misguided one. Get some help. thnx.
If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the law of biogenesis is about modern life not arising spontaneously, one of Pasteurs biggest examples was maggots not arising from meat. Then again if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be a creationist.
Is this guy having a rant while walking with a camera on a train track? Is this because his wife won't tolerate his idiocies in the house or because he lives in a trailor park and too ashamed to film it there? Ignoring the creationist crap....... oops, sorry, you are still left with crap hehe.
my oh my you sure are a classy and kind fellow. perhaps you feel violated that your precious religion of evolution is dying. well any boat with as many holes in it as evolutuion has is doomed to a titanic failure. thats ok just drill some holes in the bottom of your boat and let the water out. that'll stop your boat from sinking. ehh? I still would like to know how you explain away what happened 1 second before the big bang. what was there. tell me if you can. how can order come from chaos
"perhaps you feel violated that your precious religion of evolution is dying" - Is that my religion is it? Care to tell me where i find the worship and dogma? Ahh, there isn't any. Truth is, you need evolution to be a religion because you can't argue against it any other way. You do make me laugh when you claim "evolution" is sinking. Would that be the "theory of evolution"? The most supported MATTER OF FACT in the entire scientific realm? Shhh puppy..
FAATSO20 - Why do you need me to make a comment on what happened before the big bang? Are you playing a traditional creationist game on me eh? You know the one, you will claim to win an argument simply because i don't have an answer? As if God, could suddenly fill your gap in knowledge? Shh puppy. Real adults find the answers to these questions, not sit there like two year old children and say daddy did it, daddy did it, those "answers" are the kind of answers that gave us computing! now ssh
Yet another creationist spreading propaganda too mindless people who lack the ability too research them selfs. Funny how you find it hard too beileve that we came from rocks which is wrong by the way ,yet you believe God made us from clay and you believe in talking snakes and bushes and yet you call Evolution fantasy. I have no problems with christanity but the circular argument is geting old.
You have no understanding of the concepts involved. Life did not snap into existence from non-life - the point at which self-replicating chemical engines could be classified as "life" is woolly in the extreme. No, you just haven't researched - or have and hated what you found.
Go and research abiogenesis, in full. It's in no way a violation of natural laws, any more than sodium and chlorine naturally forming sodium chloride is a violation.
Let's for a moment jump over the "woolly" part. At what point would you classify something as life? How do you define life, do you consider it to be something qualitatively different in nature from non-life, or is it merely an elaborate form of chemical substances?
As I said, it's woolly. Which by no means makes it less likely, because people like wazooloo don't actually understand what it is that abiogenesis even means and think that it is as clear cut as a living organism arising from inorganic sludge.
Which is completely isn't.
DNA is the core of life, and DNA is just four chemical bases - made from chemicals that were naturally abundant billions of years ago and have been shown, in two cases so far, to naturally synthesise.
I'm think I'm pretty much in alignment with wazoolo with regards to abiogenesis. In fact I'm entangled in a discussion touching that subject in another thread, so I'm going to pass up on that here. :)
You say DNA is the core of life, made of four chemical bases. Does that mean that you define life as a "chemical machine", not essentially different from non-organic material (like for example a rock), only more complex? Or do you consider life to be a "superposed dimension" onto the machine, produced by it, but essentially different from the machine itself? (Inasmuch as its existence, or nature, is more than the sum of its individual components.)
Life IS a chemical machine, in essence. It's different from inorganic material both in terms of arrangement and activity - on the simplest level, living matter would possess the ability to self-replicate. However, I doubt that wazooloo considers fine gradations. The jump from a mix of chemicals to a self-replicating compound is far shorter than the jump to, say, a footballer - but wazooloo, like many who argue against abio, has no concept of subtlety. contd . . .
As a creationist I do of course disagree with many of your statements. But I appreciate that you took time to answer my question. It gives me a better understanding of your point of view. I'll leave this thread now. I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunities to get in a scramble over this subject in the future also. :) (btw: you play a mean guitar!)
As a scientific pantheist I do of course disagree with many of your statements ;). But I appreciate you being reasonable, a quality many creationists don't seem to have.
We can continue this in a private capacity over PM, if you like. And thanks for the guitar comment. I respond well to unfounded flattery.
@ foxlake2, odinata, 1paf
Get out of here. Your hypocrisy and constant fallacies have been exposed all over youtube.
jlroberts9914 4 days ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
Evolution doesn't require an explanation fo the origin of life.
odinata 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata aka dumbitchlake02 "Evolution doesn't require an explanation fo the origin of life" HAR HAR HAR Without Abiogenesis there can be NO evolution. So thanks for proving there is no evolution.
PWNED DUMMASS
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
Actually beginning of life is abiogenesis. That is the branch of science that studies that area of study. NOT EVOLUTION!!!
ShellySummers 4 months ago
@ShellySummers Abiogenesis is literally something from nothing. All life starts with something. Nothing just spontaneously generates out of nothing.
CiscoWes 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@CiscoWes not nothing. chemicals are not nothing. What happens in your cells? Chemistry on a wild crazy level. Still chemistry. Chemicals interacting in strange and mysterious ways. Not something from nothing. Something new and unique from something else.
ShellySummers 1 month ago
@ShellySummers There's a difference between a lump of chemicals and something living. That's why we can't get something from nothing. It takes specifically certain things before life can form. And that is something that just doesn't happen on its own. Something living from non living matter just doesn't happen. That's a belief that predates Darwinism. People used to think mosquitoes actually were generated from stagnant water. Tadpoles formed from rocks in a stream.
CiscoWes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShellySummers You said "evolution is not about origins"
"SCIENTISTS CUT RIBBON ON THE CENTER FOR CHEMICAL EVOLUTION
Posted August 3, 2010 Atlanta, GA
Researchers engaged in studying the origins of life celebrated a new $20 million grant from the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration yesterday at a gala presided over by Provost Gary Schuster."
MaximusArurealius 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Professor Klaus Dose, president of Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory."
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?" - Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4. "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -- Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist
I guess you didn't know as much about evolution as you thought you did.
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be either created or destroyed; that they can only be changed from one form to another. IF energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed -by us, that is- that makes them eternal …forever existing …always having existed …just like the Creator God. Imagine that! GB you Ian!
sparky6025 5 months ago
How is it some just can't see past the trees to the forest? You must have either abiogenesis or biogenesis first and foremost -i.e., "first cause"- for evo to take place to begin with in the second place! Were you have nothing, you have nothing to “evolve.” So much for your foundation. It's that simple! …but then, perhaps that's the problem ...it's too simple a concept for the average evotard to comprehend. GB you Ian!
sparky6025 5 months ago
He stars out admitting that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Then he says "evolutionists" want to say life started from non life. No they don't necessarily. You can accept the theory of biological evolution ant still invoke God or fairies or aliens for having started it. Complete non sequitur.
foxlake02 7 months ago 2
@foxlake02 It depends on who you ask. The evolution belief is split into several different 'denominations'. Some believe literal molecules to man evolution, while others only believe some life evolved from other life just recently. And everything in between. It's easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition of just what evolution is from evolutionists. You corner them on one issue and they simply move the goalposts.
CiscoWes 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@CiscoWes No it does not depend on who you ask. The theory of evolution is one theory that simply describes the diversity of life on earth by descent with modification. Period. Now you can go on to ask about other theories that describe other facts like the expanding universe or the fact that all life uses the same four nucleotides in DNA and develop theories like the big bang theory or abiogenesis but that would NOT be the well established theory of evolution. That's just word games.
foxlake02 1 month ago
@foxlake02 I'm telling you what I witness online with debates (or arguments) dealing with evolutionism. They don't often think exactly the same. One will tell you evolution is just an explanation of minute changes within a species (which doesn't violate science) but another will try to say that minute changes pile up into totally different animals forming over x billion years. It's like a shell game when you're trying to get a consistent definition from these people.
CiscoWes 1 month ago
@CiscoWes I really don't care what you witness online. Try cracking open a biology book. Go to a natural history museum. There are some very good videos here by qualified biologists but Juby is not one of them. A great paleontologist once said that creationists are only good at distorting what science really says to make black look white. That's all this guy is doing here.
foxlake02 1 month ago
@foxlake02 My point is, the evolutionists can't seem to get together on just what evolution is. It appears that evolutionists move the goalposts and have so many different views that it is intentionally deceptive, since the emperor has no clothes. Creationists simply explain what is OBSERVED, while evolutionists concoct embarassing 'just-so' stories that one animal evolved into something else over x-billion years.
CiscoWes 1 month ago
@Ciscoes Again, you are not looking for the right sources. Science is not pop culture and it certainly is not what people like July or Hovind or Ham say it is. Try looking for sources backed up by peer review in science. Not people who make an art of twisting what other people are saying. watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM Don't tell me creationists "observed" magic man poofing everything here in a few days.
foxlake02 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dumbitchlake02 "watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM" HAR HAR HAR What horseshit! You are really stupid if you recommend that dumb vid. That sissy narrating it took everything right out of a known biased erroneous site--Talk Origins.
FAIL FAIL FAIL
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
@foxlake02 Explain how this guy is distorting science.
CiscoWes 1 month ago
You calling upon the Law of Biogenesis is a classic and stupid argument. The Law of Biogenesis was created in the 19th century to address claims that if you leave a steak out for a couple days, maggots will spontaneously appear. Pasteur had proof that the maggots came from eggs laid by flies attracted to the decaying meat. Thus, with his data, he concluded that no life sprang spontaneously from nonliving material. But an environment containing all the chemicals needed for life could, eventually.
handsockpuppet 11 months ago
And of course, it's okay for God's life to arise from non-life...or to just be eternal. What scientists do is not create a "god of the gaps", they just humbly admit that there's no knowledge yet. This is the preferable position because it leaves the doorway open for future research and discovery, whereas "god did it" is the end of the road with Creationism. Also, since you have a "personal relationship" with your god, why not ask him how he caused life on this earth and then publish this.
billy936 1 year ago
Ummm, even if you want to call "unknowns" scientists' god of the gaps, isn't that a better answer than certainty about something for which there is no proof? You said yourself that "we creationists argue from what we DO know". Are you saying that you KNOW that Yaweh created life on this earth? How so?
billy936 1 year ago
Here's a video you should watch, Ian Juby. It's called "Origin of Life Made Easy" by Potholer54. He should give you a decent understanding about how life emerged.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
absolute nugget
guaflar 1 year ago
No, evolution only happens to pre-existing life. Evolution is not the unifying theory of science. It has nothing to do with how the universe got here, how life got here or it's purpose. "God of the gaps" has been here forever. Anything unexplained has been attibuted to God(s) since the first thought popped into the first mind. But, have you noticed that the gaps get smaller every year? The gaps get smaller, but God gets bigger, for some reason.
RadarKat73080 1 year ago 2
@RadarKat73080 #FAIL
Mamboi 8 months ago
evidence of any kind. Again this is unimpressive. I've seen your other rants and they all state that life can't arise from non life, yet they only show evidence of life not arising in dvd players or legos. Where is your evidence for God? The Bible? Where is your evidence for that? If you take the Josh McDowell approach you have evidence that the writers knew the names of cities and kings but not much else. What about the other Holy Books? Isn't Vishnu JUST as plausible as God?
shldflght 1 year ago
Evolution says nothing about life rising from non-life. That's abiogenesis, a hypothesis that is gaining credence but is not yet a fully formed theory. The fact that you can poke holes in something that hasn't yet been proven is utterly unimpressive. No scientist will allow a supernatural explanation for the explanation of anything, UNLESS there is evidence FOR it. Not evidence against something else. Saying we don't know is leaving the gap empty. Saying "God did it" is filling the gap with no
shldflght 1 year ago
God of gaps has now become science of the gaps whose flagship is nothing less than the theory of evolution (or for the less honest, abiogenesis)
pbaylis1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pbaylis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why can't people see the silliness of the argument that because science can explain something, God didn't do it. If God exists, He created everything to exist within physical laws. He created those physical laws. Science is merely the discoverer of what God is able to do in our natural world using the laws He created. Thus, God of Gaps is a non-issue. God DOES do everything - both natural and supernatural.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
Evolutionists pathetically dodge the question of abiogenesis by saying, evolution is only interested in what happened after that. Yet at the same time they jump up and down when they have anything to support the posibility of abiogenesis. So on one hand if abiogeneses was true their theory would be justified, but on the other hand if abiogenesis is not true, then that has no bearing at all on their theory.... hmmm interesting way to argue.
ian9toes 1 year ago
2:21. What? Since when does a god (which would not be considered alive based on the definition of life) creating life from dust and a rib count as biogenesis. That sounds a lot like life coming from non-life. Again, we both accept abiogenesis; you simply wish it to be your creation story.
2:44. I just thought of this, but since your god could not be alive (based on the definition of life) how can he die?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
1:41: First off, by evolutionists I assume you mean scientists. Second, no, scientists do not argue that. Scientists freely admit that they do not know, but they are working on it.
1:54. I already covered this, see my response to 0:44.
2:09. Again see my response to 0:44 to see why this is wrong.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
1:04. Impossible? Well you need to hurry up and submit your findings to peer-review before some other hot shot creationists comes along and scoops you.
1:25. Looks like some projecting going on there. Evolution is testable and observable in both the lab and the field. It does not take any faith to accept evolution.
1:34. You are not arguing from what you DO know, you are arguing from what you think you know based on the bible. Simply saying allah did it, is not saying much.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst
Evolution is testable? I think you mean "natural selection" is testable. Even the Pope believes in natural selection. Sorry pal, evolution, in the sense of gas became Gus, or even one phyla becoming another is pure god of the gaps science fiction, which silly scientists deemed ready for textbooks to teach all our kids with.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
Now that I am done laughing, it seems obvious that you do not know the first thing about evolution. Evolution makes no claim of gas becoming “Gus” or of “phyla becoming another”. Something that I have observed is that the people who argue the hardest against evolution know the least about it.
Nevertheless, please prove me wrong. Define evolution in a biological context.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst
Don't tell me you're one of those who believes there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution? The problems are manifold when trying to make this god-of-the-gaps leap over the chasm of missing evidence.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
No, I am not one of those that believe there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species and macroevolution is change between a species. There is a difference, and the difference is time. Both have been observed in both the lab and the field.
Now, how about proving me wrong and telling me what the biological definition of evolution is?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst
And, sorry, there's no escaping the question of abiogenesis. Deal with that first, then let's talk about evolution. That's one huge god-of-gaps assumption to let abiogenesis take care of itself while you reap the imaginary fruits of it in your beloved theory of evolution.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
Abiogenesis and evolution belong to two different fields of science. One is biology and the other is chemistry. Again, you show your ignorance of this subject, if you knew the biological definition of evolution, you would understand why this comment is foolish.
Furthermore, we both agree with abiogenesis, you simply think a god(s) started life. Whereas I believe, life came about through naturalistic processes. However it does not matter which one of us is right.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Nifty sidestep. But, God is not "nothing" as abiog claims is our origin. And there’s still not a single undisputed link clearly connecting 2 of the hundreds of major family groups. And, you're effectively admitting the silliness of dismissing theism so readily. Debates have already arisen from this – e.g. William Lane Craig debates, with such titles as "Is it more rational to believe that God created the universe than not". Guess who usually wins. It's you who needs to do the proving, not me.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
It is not a side step. That is the simple fact of the matter.
First off, abiogenesis does not claim nothing is our origins, abiogenesis simply means life coming from non-life. That is why we both accept it. A god(s) creating life would fall within the definition of abiogenesis since a god(s) would not be alive (at least not in a biological sense). Second, whoever told you abiogenesis claims nothing started life lied to you.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
You think there are no transitional fossils between the order family in the fossil record? Clearly, you have never looked into this subject. Look up Aegyptopithecus.
Furthermore, I never dismissed theism. Where in any part of my post did I dismiss theism? I even stated that a god(s) could have started life.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Hi jebus. How on earth can anyone claim that Aegyptopithecus is a "transitional" fossil? Calling it transitional is not enough. Naming similarities to other primates is not enough. Where is the actual transition?
If you want to talk about what is "scientific" then you too should be fair by not using words as transitional.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
I do not care what a philosopher (Dr. Craig) says on this subject. This is a scientific subject. Furthermore, debates are usually won by who has the most charisma, not because of the facts. In addition, when did I ask you to prove anything? I simply asked you to define evolution in a biological context. I see you still have not done this. Why is that so hard?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
A god(s) could have started life on earth and it would do nothing to the theory of evolution (ToE). The ToE stands on its own evidence and is independent from other sciences.
However, I will answer you question (can you do me the same?). I do not know how life started. No one does.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst
So, why readily dismiss theism if you don't know. Theists believe as a first premise that God created everything, including natural laws and everything in nature, and it is his prerogative to let everything on earth follow these laws he created. No such thing as god of gaps. The things science knows doesn't rebuke God, it merely REVEALS God.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
I never dismissed theism, now did I? Why do you assume that I am dismissing theism?
Okay, nothing within that first premise shows that evolution is wrong.
I never stated that anything in science rebukes a god(s). I think you might have me confused with someone else. Evolution is science, science deals with the natural world. A god(s) would be supernatural, science does not comment on the supernatural. Therefore, evolution cannot comment on a god(s).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
0:38. Wrong. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life that is abiogenesis.
0:44. We both accept abiogenesis, because if we did not than we would have an infinite regress. The only difference is that I believe there is a naturalistic explanation to abiogenesis and you believe that a god did it. Short answer, we both do not know which is right, but even if a god(s) did start life, it would do nothing to disprove evolution.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Actually the God of the gaps is not an argument but an observation . As science progresses it explains more and more and God is then used to explain what science cannot explain .
picassoui 1 year ago
Wow, creationists should really stop saying they know god personally.
You always sound like a complete cult.
norsef 2 years ago
Furthermore, almost every single amino acid essential to life has been observed somewhere in the galaxy, besides Earth. These reactions are actually quite common.
You mock Louis Pasteur by misusing his law. He came up with "Law of Biogenesis" in 1864. That's just the name he picked, there is no such thing as scientific law. He made no mention of the origins of life, just that higher life forms (bacteria and up) don't arise from nothing. That's 89 years before the we knew the structure of DNA.
albinoman13bt 2 years ago
This is just naive. We have observed amino acids formed in very common occurrence. Nitrogen is %78 of our atmosphere. Water is %70 of the Earth's surface and our body. Carbon would seem rare by comparison, but it's everywhere, in the atmosphere even spewing out of volcanoes. Mars and Venus have atmosphere's of over %95 carbon dioxide. Is it so hard to imagine that in a billion years these three were all next to each other right when lightning struck or there was a lot of ultraviolet light?
albinoman13bt 2 years ago
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing, however, about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.
It is often cited by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents as evidence for the need of an intelligent Creator or Designer. They describe the law of biogenesis as stating that life cannot come from non-life, it can only come from other life.
nemirn 2 years ago
(cont'd)
This is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the law.
nemirn 2 years ago
I'm making sure my kids stay far away from this creep.
nemirn 2 years ago
I think your god said something about not bearing false witness
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
There is no believing in evolution, there is understanding evolution. No, creationists only argue from personal incredulity, which is an argument from ignorance. Actually, for life to come from something to the effect of micelle membranes, you're now down to projecting and arguments from ridicule. If you knew ANYTHING about laws, you would know they're descriptive not prescriptive, meaning they describe what does happen, not attempt to prescribe what must happen.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You're right, there is no believe in evolution. Because it isn't true. It's baloney. Whoo-ha, poppycock, makebelieve, adult fairytale. I believe even evolutionists don't understand evolution. The video makes a good point about your evolutionists 'god of the gaps'. You adhere to some unknown producing living things and chide Creationists for the very same belief. It takes faith to believe in evolutionism and there isn't any way around this fact.
Haekel68 2 years ago
No, there is no believe in evolution for the same reason there is no believe in gravity, it's a demonstrable fact.
Your projecting/trolling is irrelevant here.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The tired evolution and gravity argument is a common tactic. You are trying to give credibility to evolutionism by associating it with something that is actually true. Gravity is a natural law. Evolutionism is a theory. For example, you take a counterfeit $20 bill and put it in with a stack of real $20 bills. You are saying that the counterfeit is real because it's mixed in there with a bunch of real bills. Therefore, evolution is true. Noooo, evolution is still false.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Evolution is actually better evidenced than gravity. We don't even know what actually causes gravity. A law is pretty much the same as a theory that can be expressed mathematically, in the hierarchy of science theory is as high as you go, and a scientific theory has nothing to do with a common use theory. A scientific theory is a model of explanation which must be supported by all evidence and contradicted by none.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
That 's a new one. Now evolution is better than gravity! Wow, I can honestly say I haven't heard that one. Now you're saying the counterfeit is actually better than the real thing. Gravity is a physical law, evolutionism is simply a theory, a dead rotting corpse of a theory desparately hunting for life - something even remotely resembling evidence to give it some validity. But it stands a rotting corpse drawing flies.
Haekel68 2 years ago
If it's new to you, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past 150 years. Once again, in science if you were to construct a hierarchy, theories are higher than laws. Luckily for science, your understanding of biology, or lack thereof, is completely meaningless.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You're upside down. You're putting more credibility on a theory than a natural law of the universe. A natural physical law of the universe is unmoved by anyones opinion or theory, existed long before anyone even discovered or understood it, while a theory can be anything from evolution to alien life forms. You're completely upside down.
Haekel68 2 years ago
You don't even understand what a scientific law is, a scientific law is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive, it's a model of explanation of some working of reality. IE relativity DEscribes the behavior of gravity, nowhere does any scientific law insist or impose any rules anywhere.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Science is simply knowledge gained by observation. Our observation of the law of gravity has no bearing on it. While the physical law of gravity has remained unchanged, our understanding of science changes all the time. For example, while it was penned in scripture that the earth "hung upon nothing", some believed that the earth was on the back of a huge turtle, or carried by a man.
Haekel68 2 years ago
We don't observe the law of gravity, we observe gravity the 'law' attached to it is a human construct of understanding and explanation.
The bible also says the earth sat on pillars, if you say 'the earth hung on nothing' AND 'the earth sat on something' one of them is bound to be right, fallacy of confirmation bias.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
We can observe predictable effects of the law of gravity. The law of gravity isn't a human construct. That is what I was trying to say earlier. The law of gavity isn't subject to opinion or whatever labels we give it. It's still a law. You are trying to argue semantics. If you pay attention to context (which is so elusive to Bible scoffers, for some reason) the verse describing pillars of the earth is alluding to its foundations, not a physical attrubute. Level this with several other...
Haekel68 2 years ago
No, we can observe the predictable effects of gravity, google 'what is a scientific law'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Let's just remember that it's a "Law" because the guy who discovered it wanted to call it that. Newton has laws of motion and gravitation. Joule the law of the conservation of energy. Lavoisier the law of the conservation of energy. But even all of these laws have exceptions.
I can't believe you believe metaphor(pillars) over research. People poured their entire lives into discoveries, but you read a mistranslated, edited, abused, library of stories collected from bronze-aged nomads.
albinoman13bt 2 years ago
We do know more about evolution than we do about gravity.
All we know about gravity is what we observe and we no idea what actually causes the attraction or whether it is always applicable. Where as with evolution we know how it happens, why it happens and what actually happens.
norsef 2 years ago
It is foolish to draw any co-relation between a theory of evolution and a law of gravity. Evolutionism is a foolish theory in a rabid search of evidence. Gravity on the other hand is a physical law. There is NO co-relation between evolutionism and gravity. Yet it is still a popular defense of the evolutionism theory.
Scientists still can't produce a "fact" of evolutionism, nor can explain the mechanism of evolution, nor demonstrate tangible proof that such a hokey belief even happens.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes Yes we can.
Just because you can't understand the explanation doesn't mean we haven't explained it.
norsef 1 year ago
@CiscoWes what facts has it not produced or better yet how is the mechanism of evolution unexplained? evolution through natural selection (Modern evolutionary synthesis) its hard to give a tangible experiment for evolution because its through micro and macro evolution, its small changes from generation to generation (micro) to looking at it over a larger span (macro or speciation) the point wasn't there was a relation between gravity and evolution but the differences in evidence for both.
redwaker 1 year ago
@redwaker You are giving us a "just-so" story, particularly with the microevolution to macroevolution. There IS NO EVIDENCE for macroevolution. Just doesn't happen. The only thing that we can observe is things adapting to their environment - small changes WITHIN a kind. To say all those little changes pile up to some different animal happening is a just-so story.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes ts hard for us to observe macro evolution because it takes so long, its been going on way past since the theory of evolution was presented, its not like it happens in 4 years it takes millions. and since you can agree to small changes in a species whats to say over a long trial those changes build up in a species at some location over thousands of generations resulting in a change.
redwaker 1 year ago
@redwaker It takes so long that it doesn't happen. There isn't any evidence for macroevolution. So when you state such a thing happens as a 'matter of fact', it becomes what is called a 'just-so-story'. It is as valid as me saying billions of years ago aliens deposited life on this planet. I'm stating it as if it is true when I don't know if it happened and there isn't any evidence.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes The theory for macro evolution is extremely strong and you cant have micro evolution without macro, so to say that micro happens but since we don't see macro just because it takes so much time is foolish. the alien spiel is your attempt to just play it off, because there's no evidence for it anything could be said but since there is evidence for abiogensis its obviously more plausible.
"there isn't any evidence." there's a lot of evidence for the bible though...
redwaker 1 year ago
@CiscoWes i also find it funny how this guy attempts to say that evolutionists try to explain were life came from, the theory of evolution only presents it self in how life could have developed from a undetermined starting point not the starting point itself. Abiogensis is one of the leading theory on how life could have started.
if this guy makes a mistake that simple on the theory, he's barley looked at it
redwaker 1 year ago
@redwaker Abiogenesis would require a supernatural intervention. Life can't come from non-life. This is another 'just-so' story. Evolutionists are relying on a 'god-of-the-gaps' when it is stated that abiogenesis happens.
Additionally, it depends on who you ask. I have a theory that evolutionism is divided into several different 'denominations'. Some believe in literal molecules to man evolution while others say evolution only deals with minute changes.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes Abiogensis doesn't require a "supernatural" intervention
even though through Pasteur shows spontaneous COMPLEX organisms don't just appear, simple amino acids can organize into proteins and so on. once again Evolutionists have nothing to do with abiogensis as you state. as for the different "denominations" regarding evolution that's other people developing diffrent ideas regarding the theory, in essence that's what science is.
redwaker 1 year ago
@CiscoWes "such a hokey belief even happens. " yep and the bible isn't hokey at all.
redwaker 1 year ago
@redwaker The Bible is "foolishness to those who are spiritually discerned".
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@redwaker The Bible is 'foolishness to the spiritually discerned'.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is foolish to draw any co-relation between a theory of evolution and a law of gravity. Evolutionism is a foolish theory in a rabid search of evidence. Gravity on the other hand is a physical law. There is NO co-relation between evolutionism and gravity. Yet it is still a popular defense of the evolutionism theory.
Scientists still can't produce a 'fact' of evolutionism, nor can explain the mechanism of evolution, nor demonstrate tangible proof that such a hokey belief even happens.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
...scriptures such in Job or Isaiah where the earth hangs upon nothing and in Matthew where it talks about several different events happening at the same time that would happen at different times during the day and night - something only possible with a spherical earth having daytime on one side and night on the other. The fallacy here again, is "operator error". Bible scoffers in search of an error unwittingly fall into a snare and reaveal their true motive.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Now is that your interpretation that pillars doesn't mean actual foundations? It's funny how so many parts of the bible that conflict with modern science are now open to interpretation.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
" It's funny how so many parts of the bible that conflict with modern science are now open to interpretation. "
Along with the commands to kill non believers, and those of other religions....
Funny how they brush over these aspects of their 'good book'
pray4somesense 2 years ago
Yeah, as soon as a part of the bible becomes utterly retarded socially or intellectually, it becomes metaphorical.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
It's not surprising Jesus hasn't come back, when all his follower ignore the majority of his teachings and cherry pick the bits they like ^^
pray4somesense 2 years ago
"evolution has life arising from non life" no, thats abiogenesis "violates natural laws" no, the law of biogenesis only elaborates on modern life. "First life came from god" thats only an answer in the same sense that invisible leprechauns with strings is an answer as to what causes gravity. Science isn't about just any answer, it's about demonstrably accurate answers. "Supernatural process" a supernatural process is by definition meaningless in any way that matters to science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
invisible leprechauns, santa claus, tooth fairy, etc... are overused tired cliche straw man atheist arguments. Admitting that life came from God is simply a realization of what can be seen in observation. We see intelligent design in living things. Creation follows common logic - paintings have a painter, buildings have a builder, creation has a Creator. Contrast this with evolutionism that has some 'unknown' to come up with life, then evolutionism takes over from there. All baloney.
Haekel68 2 years ago
A strawman is a misrepresentation, do you have objective evidence that your proclaimed god isn't a leprechaun? No, that's circular logic, you're assuming its a creation to assume there was a creator, when it being a creation is what you were trying to prove in the first place. Why would the universe be any different than it is now if only natural forces were at work?
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you many times already, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Some of you evolutionist buddies say evolution does have something to do with the origin of life (i.e. darwins book ORIGIN of species). Your misrepresentation is when you use the tired worn out cliches about leprechauns, santa claus, etc... They have no bearing on reality when on the other hand, we can read scripture and understand about God the Creator of the universe. This isn't circular logic, creation follows a pattern established in observation.
Haekel68 2 years ago
yeah, origin of species, not origin of life. You claim it's a misrepresentation but you offer no evidence for it.
Again, what pattern in the universe have you observed that wouldn't have resulted if only natural forces were at work?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Evolutionists give the misrepresentation. It's been said that it is easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition fo just what the heck evolution is. That is by design (pardon the pun). By constantly moving the goalposts, evolution will always be some vague entity that can't be explained (since it can't be evidenced). Some say evolution only deals with living things that already somehow got here, but others say it explains how life came from a single celled organism.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Well here it is for ya, pay attention
Evolution: The change in heritable traits in populations over time.
Your not understanding evidence, IE ERV's, is not the same as evidence not existing. Anyone who still says evolution explains the origin of life knows less about it than a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
And you will project simple "change" into something coming up with new kinds over the proverbial "billions of years". Again we see you are trying to give it validity by association. No one can deny change, we can actually observe that. BUT where you run into trouble, and where you depart from science and enter into a "just-so" story is when you say that "change" stacked up over billions of years comes up with new living things. That isn't science.
Haekel68 2 years ago
No projecting, small change over short time = large change over long time. This is not just a matter of extrapolation, either, everything supports it, fossils, anatomy, and the genetic record especially.
We've witnessed the change in heritable traits, have you ever witnessed supernatural creation, on any level?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Yes it is projecting because we have zero evidence of those little changes piling up into big ones. Microevolution vs macroevolution. Microevolution - minute changes or more accurately adaptations within a kind is observable and doesn't violate science while the belief of macroevolution violates science and isn't observable.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Let's forget the entirety of every field that can be even related to biology.
What would you, Haekel68, expect to find in any given field, if evolution had occurred?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Also it is interesting to note that what is found in 99% the fossil record is complex inverebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No "transitional fossils" In the remaining less than 1% is where those alleged "transitionals" are found, by imagination and large amounts of plaster of paris. NOTHING supports the belief of macroevolution. It isn't found in the fossil record, or anatomy, or a genetic record.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Of course most fossils are going to be organisms with bones, bones fossilize more readily, we do however find invertebrate fossils, see: Mistaken Point
You still seem to be under the impression that not understanding genetics or anatomy is an argument against it, it's not. endogenous retroviruses prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Where can I find rant #93 and 94 ?
MajSmJz 2 years ago
wow. false.
fyourcouchnigga 2 years ago
Comment removed
jdubbin78 2 years ago
Whoops, forgot to add.
Nicely made video. The picture quality is a bit iffy but it's presented very well.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Evolution doesn't attempt to describe the creation of life.
You have yet to provide any evidence for anything supernatural to have occurred.
You have yet to prove any supernatural entities were the exists and was the direct cause of the universe.
At least know about what you're arguing against before you argue it.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
evilnessangerandRAWR - Your type makes me laugh, each evolutionary scientist is probably more educated than any one character in your bible and probably all characters combined. Yet you dismiss casually the work of hundreds of thousands of these people, you dismiss anyone that will go against what your bible says from your armchair without even knowing a single thing about what you are arguing against. You just make yourself look stupid, a relic of ignorance. The world cares not for your opinion
mattyabsley 2 years ago
P.S. Some young earth creationists have an IQ on over 200. Let's see you beat that.
evilnessangerandRAWR 2 years ago
P.S. Some young earth creationists have an IQ on over 200. Let's see you beat that" - And your point would be? You just said you are not going to bother arguing with me. Now what are you saying? That these people can't be wrong because they have a high IQ?`lolol. And you wonder why your opinion is not required or wanted. You and your kind are relics. Watch the world run past you so fast you won't be able to keep up.h puppy. Like i said, your ignorant, dogmatic opinion is not required.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
Yep, there's a huge gap there, and it's one only Christ Himself can fill. Evolutionists are to be pitied not vilified.
jljmusic 2 years ago
I know God too, and he doesn't like you...
jk28416 2 years ago
Are there any other creationists that want to claim "evolution" is "dead" without even understanding what it is that they claim is dead? Are there any other creationists that want to take it upon themselves to tell me i am not "classy" enough? I must apologise if i forgot that famous space daddy commandment "Thou shalt be classy". Or i tell you what, instead of showing how uneducated and dogmatic you are, why not go to school for one night a week and actualyl learn something.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
evolution is dead im happy to tell you!"go to school" do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock?
9pt9 2 years ago
"do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock" - Nope, they take classes and leave creationists in the dirt. I think that is the problem with creationist, they are daunted by such knowledge in the world. It's ok puppy, i don't care, nor do most, but it's you that ultimately has to reconcile your idiocies with the world. It is just a shame that you have to invent space daddy characters in your mind to do it.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
The universe created itself from nothing! You're a deep thinker. You keep reading those books boy genius.
9pt9 2 years ago
"The universe created itself from nothing! You're a deep thinker. You keep reading those books boy genius. " - Only creationists say that. No deep thinker ;-) But since creationists have never been known to be great thinkers, you are forgiven.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
mattyabsley- no actually the universe being created from nothing is what evolution is based on
we came from nothing and now here we r today all evoled and stuff- thats evolution in a nutshell
17DEMONHUNTER 2 years ago
17DEMONHUNTER - Shhh. Don't tell me what evolution is based on. For a start you can't seperate the big bang from abiogenesis from the the theory of evolution. When you can, speak. If not, shut your mouth. Stops the flies getting in.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
just face the facts dude
evolution might as well b swiss cheese it has so many holes in it
ur gonna tell me that we came from 1 cell that was formed when there was no other life around to form this cell and then that single cell came all diffrent kinds and variations of plants, all diffrent kinds and variations of animals and diffrent variations of humans (skin color) came from 1 microscopic single celled life form? no stop and read this out loud everyone and see how stupid evolution sounds C=
17DEMONHUNTER 2 years ago
17DEMONHUNTER - "just face the facts dude" You mean the same kind of talking snakes kind of fact? or the hundreds of thousands of supporting data that confirms what is one of the most sound scientific theories of all time kind of fact? How life started has nothing to do with evolution, go study a bit before you even attempt to comment on evolution. Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. You know this and have no argument, so you invent your own version of evolution. Dishonest. Liar. Child.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
um yeah actually how life started has a lot to do with evolution and creation
if creation is the truth then we were made and stayed the way we were made
if evolution is real then how did we start out? how did the first life come about so we could evolve in the first place? answer me that mattyabsley
17DEMONHUNTER 2 years ago
"um yeah actually how life started has a lot to do with evolution and creation" - When you say "evolution" this pretty much can mean anything as you haven't really defined what you mean as "evolution", given creationists tendency to be poorly educated i think i should clarify AGAIN, that "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" has nothing to do with how life started, your childish DEMANDS for an answer from something that has NOTHING to say on the matter is foolish. Not just foolish, but bordering on ignorant
mattyabsley 2 years ago
alright
without life first coming about then there is no creation because life hasnt been created yet
without life first coming about then there is no evolution because there is nothing on earth to start to evolve
do u get that
WITHOUT LIFE EVOLUTION AND CREATION BOTH FAIL
17DEMONHUNTER 2 years ago
So basically you are saying that there were organisms here on earth without evolution? HOW DID THEY GET THERE? There must be a creator or else there would be no intellegent design in all the creatures we see today. Obviously the Creator created you with something missing.
evilnessangerandRAWR 2 years ago
"So basically you are saying that there were organisms here on earth without evolution?" -Nope and your question does not even make sense. Try and construct a proper question before you talk to me in future. "There must be a creator or else there would be no intellegent design in all the creatures we see today." There must be a creator right? Pardon me for now being as rude as i can possibly be to you, but you are stupid. It's fine to make these claims, now go find some evidence.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
I have all the evidence I need. You're just too blind to see it.
evilnessangerandRAWR 2 years ago
evilnessangerandRAWR - So let's end this with some more truths shall we. The truth is you yelp like a little puppy, over and over again. No matter what you say the world keeps turning and the theory of evolution remains the best explanation within the scientific community for divergence of life. Nothing you have to say on the matter will change that, your opinion is not required or wanted and i think that makes you feel upset. So you rant on youtube. Nothing you say matters. Suck on it. ;-)
mattyabsley 2 years ago
I won't even bother arguing with you. You know I'm right. That's why you're being so defensive about evolution - it's wrong -. G'luck in life. BTW, real mature. I do believe it is STICK IT IN YOUR JUICE BOX AND SUCK ON IT.. It suits you and your maturity level.
evilnessangerandRAWR 2 years ago 2
evilnessangerandRAWR - "I won't even bother arguing with you. You know I'm right. That's why you're being so defensive about evolution - it's wrong -. G'luck in life." My point entirely, you haven't anything to argue with if you could. You would be the richest man alive if you could prove otherwise. But you can't. Now you look so fucking stupid about it, you pretend to take some kind of moral highground. Shh puppy. Like i said, your ignorant, dogmatic opinion is not required.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
evilnessangerandRAWR - A little lesson in arguing. If you want to argue a particular view. Get some evidence to back your position. Not attack someone elses and hope people won't notice the absurdity of your position. Your ignorance is your own personal problem, not that of science or facts. You currently are arguing against millions of scientists globally armed with the most sophisticated machines to ever grace this planet that all come to a single conclusion. Evolution happens.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
17DEMONHUNTER - Do you really believe that by ignoring all possible facts and inventing your own personal version of what evolution is before you then decide to argue your own said construct with a parody of explanation that somehow you make your position even more clear? Shh. Really. Strawman arguments seem to be abundant with creationists...
mattyabsley 2 years ago
"do all evolutionists take a class on arrogant things to say to people who know evolution is a crock?" - firstly i doubt you "know" much about anything, secondly your opinion on the matter doesn't count for anything as evolution still remains the answer that you so very much don't like to hear. Lastly, simply claiming something is dead, doesn't make it so. Offer something to back up your claims, otherwise it get's ignored. Just like every other piece of creationist nonsense.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
Ur lost and your foolish heart is darkened.
9pt9 2 years ago
9pt9 - Shhh puppy, i have eaten bigger minds than you for breakfast. Kindly say something of some real substance or keep your rhetoric to yourself. Now, care to show me just how stupid you are again or shall i take it as "gospel" that you are just plain retarded?
mattyabsley 2 years ago
wow. you can't even think straight enough to make a comment that is true. your mind has been deluted by evolution too, i take it? Ian spoke at the camp i attended and he gave plenty of facts and reasons behind his arguements. You are the misguided one. Get some help. thnx.
evilnessangerandRAWR 2 years ago
If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the law of biogenesis is about modern life not arising spontaneously, one of Pasteurs biggest examples was maggots not arising from meat. Then again if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
Science Foundation,
Why does this only apply to modern life? Isn't the present the key to the past?
HeMadeYouSpecial 2 years ago
Because Pasteur had no idea what went on at the organic chemical level, and noone is claiming that modern life arose spontaneously.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Is this guy having a rant while walking with a camera on a train track? Is this because his wife won't tolerate his idiocies in the house or because he lives in a trailor park and too ashamed to film it there? Ignoring the creationist crap....... oops, sorry, you are still left with crap hehe.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
my oh my you sure are a classy and kind fellow. perhaps you feel violated that your precious religion of evolution is dying. well any boat with as many holes in it as evolutuion has is doomed to a titanic failure. thats ok just drill some holes in the bottom of your boat and let the water out. that'll stop your boat from sinking. ehh? I still would like to know how you explain away what happened 1 second before the big bang. what was there. tell me if you can. how can order come from chaos
FAATSO20 2 years ago
"perhaps you feel violated that your precious religion of evolution is dying" - Is that my religion is it? Care to tell me where i find the worship and dogma? Ahh, there isn't any. Truth is, you need evolution to be a religion because you can't argue against it any other way. You do make me laugh when you claim "evolution" is sinking. Would that be the "theory of evolution"? The most supported MATTER OF FACT in the entire scientific realm? Shhh puppy..
mattyabsley 2 years ago
FAATSO20 - Why do you need me to make a comment on what happened before the big bang? Are you playing a traditional creationist game on me eh? You know the one, you will claim to win an argument simply because i don't have an answer? As if God, could suddenly fill your gap in knowledge? Shh puppy. Real adults find the answers to these questions, not sit there like two year old children and say daddy did it, daddy did it, those "answers" are the kind of answers that gave us computing! now ssh
mattyabsley 2 years ago
Yet another creationist spreading propaganda too mindless people who lack the ability too research them selfs. Funny how you find it hard too beileve that we came from rocks which is wrong by the way ,yet you believe God made us from clay and you believe in talking snakes and bushes and yet you call Evolution fantasy. I have no problems with christanity but the circular argument is geting old.
wertssss1234 2 years ago
Why on earth is this man suddenly comparing evolution to creation of the first living organism?? They are 2 completely separate fields of study
RationalTheism 2 years ago
Funny funny stuff.
A Creationist trying SOOOOO desperately to understand the "God of the Gaps" argument and turn it around on his opponents.
FAIL
mookiewak 2 years ago
You have no understanding of the concepts involved. Life did not snap into existence from non-life - the point at which self-replicating chemical engines could be classified as "life" is woolly in the extreme. No, you just haven't researched - or have and hated what you found.
Go and research abiogenesis, in full. It's in no way a violation of natural laws, any more than sodium and chlorine naturally forming sodium chloride is a violation.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Let's for a moment jump over the "woolly" part. At what point would you classify something as life? How do you define life, do you consider it to be something qualitatively different in nature from non-life, or is it merely an elaborate form of chemical substances?
agila64 2 years ago
As I said, it's woolly. Which by no means makes it less likely, because people like wazooloo don't actually understand what it is that abiogenesis even means and think that it is as clear cut as a living organism arising from inorganic sludge.
Which is completely isn't.
DNA is the core of life, and DNA is just four chemical bases - made from chemicals that were naturally abundant billions of years ago and have been shown, in two cases so far, to naturally synthesise.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
I'm think I'm pretty much in alignment with wazoolo with regards to abiogenesis. In fact I'm entangled in a discussion touching that subject in another thread, so I'm going to pass up on that here. :)
agila64 2 years ago
You say DNA is the core of life, made of four chemical bases. Does that mean that you define life as a "chemical machine", not essentially different from non-organic material (like for example a rock), only more complex? Or do you consider life to be a "superposed dimension" onto the machine, produced by it, but essentially different from the machine itself? (Inasmuch as its existence, or nature, is more than the sum of its individual components.)
agila64 2 years ago
Life IS a chemical machine, in essence. It's different from inorganic material both in terms of arrangement and activity - on the simplest level, living matter would possess the ability to self-replicate. However, I doubt that wazooloo considers fine gradations. The jump from a mix of chemicals to a self-replicating compound is far shorter than the jump to, say, a footballer - but wazooloo, like many who argue against abio, has no concept of subtlety. contd . . .
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
As a creationist I do of course disagree with many of your statements. But I appreciate that you took time to answer my question. It gives me a better understanding of your point of view. I'll leave this thread now. I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunities to get in a scramble over this subject in the future also. :) (btw: you play a mean guitar!)
agila64 2 years ago
As a scientific pantheist I do of course disagree with many of your statements ;). But I appreciate you being reasonable, a quality many creationists don't seem to have.
We can continue this in a private capacity over PM, if you like. And thanks for the guitar comment. I respond well to unfounded flattery.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago