Neither creationists nor macro evolutionists can offer you conclusive proof that their view is correct; but I feel that if you weigh the evidences on both sides, the preponderance of the evidence points away from macro evolution and towards a God created universe. That is my take on it, and I don't intend to be antagonistic.
Infinity(Space and Time)are limitless.If you want to know the origin of man,universe etc. you may want to look there.If infinity exists in itself is it so hard to think maybe a God could be infinite too.The Universe was created from nothing ,but,that nothing is actually something science is too young to fathom yet.
People dont do proper research today. If they did they would realise that modern science and FACT often do not agree. But don't let the complete lack of evidence for darwinist theory stop you. Bad theory dies hard, especially when there are too many oversized ego's and reputations to safeguard. It was not long ago that respected doctors encouraged pregnant women to smoke, then sent them away with some opium and a handful of bennys for good measure. Was when the Komodo Dragon didn't exist right?
Ah, but modern science says that smoking while pregnant can cause birth defects... perhaps modern science, as you say, is wrong? Science makes claims on all current evidence, when new evidence comes up, it changes it. That's actually the most sensible way... unless you have a better one?
how can you get a logical response from people who believe in superstitions ??? Its a failed argument right out of the gate. The Easter bunny will win all arguments on "faith" alone.
I'm getting a bit weary of this (I'm sorry, but convincing one guy is just not motivating enough for me), so I'll leave you with this thought.
Do you know that there is no true "skeptic?" Those whoa re skeptical about the existence of God certainly are not skeptical of atheism, neither are they skeptical of their skepticism.
It take faith to be an atheist--tons of faith, when you consider the lack of small-increment-transitional forms in fossils, lack of understanding of the first life...etc.
You can't be skeptical of denial. Skepticism is refusing to believe something until you see evidence for it. You can't refuse to not believe something because there is no evidence for disbelief. Disbelief is the absence of belief.
I refuse to deny the existence of fairies in my garden, simply because there is no evidence to show that they DON'T exist, and I am skeptical of their non existence.
You cannot believe in atheism, you can just NOT believe in theism.
youtube doesn't seem to handle the reply function well, so I'm just going to do an individual post.
Provita, when you see the painting of a beautiful woman on a wall, you assume it had an intelligent cause, someone, or some "thing" did it and not some random processes over millions of years.
Layman often fail to realize the intricacies of life but as a bio sci. grad. from UC Irvine, I can tell you, a cell is more complex than a space shuttle, let alone a painting.
Dr. Gentry, whom even the evolutionists describe as a "careful and competent researcher" have found conclusive evidence for the instant formation of the earth's granite crust. He found radioactive halos for 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, whose half-lives are 3 min, 164 microsec, and 138 days). These halos (esp. 214 Po) could never have formed in granite if the earth was not formed instantly by either some kind of unfathomable technology--or supernatural means. This points to a creator.
Wrong on all levels of possibility. You presume a creator out of thin air. Just for our own fun, let us presume there somehow is a creator... how does this creator exist? Provide evidence.
People used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God because there was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so they attributed the effect to God--and I believe this is what you are accusing of me doing.
But first, we attribute the design to intelligent cause not because we lack evidence of a natural explanation, but because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause.
Designs unattainable by natural means (i.e. a cell) calls for a designer.
People used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God because there was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so they attributed the effect to God--and I believe this is what you are accusing of me doing.
But first, we attribute the design to intelligent cause not because we lack evidence of a natural explanation, but because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause.
Designs unattainable by natural means (i.e. a cell) calls for a designer.
You are ignoring almost all evidence for the Theory of Evolution in hopes that the fleeting arguments made by Creationists are correct. And actually, it is a theory. Not a hypothesis. It is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community (you know... those who actually do research, unlike us average joe's) and has not been disproven yet.
Boy, a lot of fragmented comments, let me give you some info:
1. On May 17th, 1985, The popular megazine Science sent a letter to Dr. Humphrey of the Sandia National Laboratories stating: "...It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism."
Interestingly enough that's what evolutionists often demand Creationists do, to publish their findings in scientific journals.
Here you can see evolution is defended with religious zeal.
Research on the origin is a type of forensic science that searches for the cause--intelligent or nonintelligent.
Darwinists claim that creationism is not science based on their biased definition of science, but that's arguing in a circle! If your def. of science rules out intelligent cause beforehand, you'll never consider intelligent design science.
Also, do you know how many professors/teachers have been fired because they (not necessarily teach) believe in creation science?
In fact.. I tell you what. Since you are so thrilled to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory... quite simply publish a scientific journal to the scientific community and let the experiments begin. If you are, indeed, correct... eventually scientists will see this and will embrace the new theory. Until then, you don't really have much backing.
The law of causality (that is the foundation of science, which is a commitment to understand the cause of phenomenon) requires a designer for a design that could not possibly have arisen from random processes. In this case, a protein to form in the primordial earth.
The proability of a protein forming by random chances. 10 to the -191 power.
2. a cell occuring: 10 to the - 40,000 power.
Just so you know, when the chance for an event is less than 10 to the -70, it is statistically impossible.
When you see design that cannot arise by natural means, the law of causality, which is the foundation of logic and science as an attempt to explain the cause of all things, requires a Designer.
One may ask, are you sure the design we see cannot be inspired by natural means? Know this, the probability of even a protein forming in primordial earth by random chances: 10 to the -191 power. (btw, 10 to the -70 power establishes mathematical impossibility)
1. Evolution requires vast number of transitional forms, each changing in small increments. Darwin himself believed by faith that countless transitional forms will be excavated in the near future. But our current fossil record speaks otherwise.
2. Evolution requires beneficial mutation to work, but none has been observed to this day.
3. I have more, but settle down, we want to pace ourselves.
life and human societies appear suddenly in the history of the world. there is no evidence to support anything other than what the ancients have written down and handed down through oral tradition and archaeology. To just shrug off the most accurate ancient documents and say that the events recorded never happened is just plain foolish. what we observe is consistant whtith what the bible records. Why would you doubt it.
Actually the Bible "records" that life began between the Tigris and Euphrates around 6000 - 10,000 years ago. It also says light existed before stars, and Animals were "created" right before Humans (forgetting that Humans are animals). These are merely a few "claims" from the Bible that are wrong.
actually humans are only animals because we named them they that way, we as humans classified ourselves. So because the Bible says that we are classified in a different way than we have classified ourselves it must be wrong ?
Actually the Bible "records" that life began between the Tigris and Euphrates around 6000 - 10,000 years ago. It also says light existed before stars. There, does that make it better for you?
No clue, Genesis actually says in 1 and 2 (two different authors) that humans were created before animals in one, and after in the other. God said let there be light, then created the stars and sun in the sky. If the bible's chronology is to be trusted, Eden was set up between four rivers, two being the Euphrates and the Tigris arguably from 6000 to 10,000 years ago.
Ok, Scientest have conducted DNA tests and only Cro-magnon man carries any of our DNA. Neanderthal does not carry a .1 percent bit of DNA that Cro-Magnon or modern human carries. Look it up.
Actually we conducted mitochondrial DNA testing (mtDNA is passed from mother to offspring) on a recently discovered preserved Neanderthal body, we show significant enough difference in direct mtDNA genomes to say it is likely that humans did not descend directly from Neanderthal, supporting the idea they diverged late in the Homo family history, they were not human or our direct ancestors, so humans were not alone on the earth, we may have been ABLE but didn't interbreed.
Oh wow! That's actually very interesting. Is this a fairly recent find (recent enough that many textbooks would not have been updated / not substantial enough for an update)?
Ummm, the Neanderthal? Can't find my posts on the truth about the Cambrian, or the Big Bang, but yeah it is recent and my textbook is a few years older.
You will never find this proof because A)There are oodles of religious people that have been looking for ANY proof they can, yet have found none. B) Proof of God (ID) would take away your "free will" which is more important than you going to hell. This is the ONLY reason for God not to tell us all, right now, with 100% certainty "he" is up there... unless you want to claim "he" can't.
The second rule of Thermo Dynamics clearly states that the universe is moving from order to disorder. From what energy, or force, could create such a cataclysmic event as to create matter out of nothing. If there was nothing to begin with, how is it possible to create something out of nothing?
Entropy is a proven law. Matter is always moving from order to disorder. Scientifically there is no way that matter can move from chaos to order... The point is that there had to be a start or a creation that made the matter in the first place. I'm not sure what "theory" of evolution that you believe in, but every scientist agrees that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If there was nothing before the big bang, then what happened?
Wait what? I know about entropy entirely... actually matter, in an open system, can easily move towards order. It's closed systems where the law of entropy matters. Why do you presume there had to be a creation to create matter when matter cannot be created in the first place? And who says there was "nothing before the big bang" ?
Creationists agree that something suddenly happened that created the earth and our solar system and life as we know it today. Something had to be present in order for this explosion to happen, matter just doesn't suddenly explode for no reason. There had to be a catalyst. God was present. I do realize that you will not be swayed with words or with any thing that I can tell you. But I do want to ask you a question... What is your point in making this video? What if you're wrong?
Matter didn't explode. No one said there was no reason as to the Big Bang, but it (almost) certainly cannot be explained through evidence, so the question is almost moot. Matter "existed" before the Big Bang, so I see no point the whole argument. You keep saying God was this or did this... how the heck do you know? Because some elder told you, while you were in a state of ignorance believable all forms of authority, various "truths" from an archaic book? Not a very good piece of evidence.
I posted the video to further the civil discussion and debate of Creationism vs Evolutionary Theory vs Whatever-else-there-may-be. I am tired of Creationists trying to bombard their pseudo-scientific arguments and hypothesis into the science classroom and trying to push forward their political and theological ideologies using tax dollars. So what if I'm wrong? What if you're wrong? Who the bloody hell cares?
Even if you were somehow right in every literal way possible, a statistical nightmare, I would not worship your god. Presuming some higher more powerful being existed, I would immediately scorn it or he or her or whatever for doing such a terrible job.
All evidence of animals in the fossil record appear suddenly. There is no known natural process which could have cuased this. the most accurate records of the ancient world give reports of a creator and a Global flood. physical evidence supports both accounts. there is no reason to assume they are lying.
There is absolutely NO scientific evidence of a global flood. Not only is it physically impossible, but it would mean there is a similar sediment level universally spread out throughout the rock. Which there is not. All of these arguments have been debunked.
The cambrian explosion of complex animals appearing in the fossil record suddenly is not evidence for a slow mutatioin from simple to complex organisms. Don't deny the empirical evidence.
Ignoring that the cambrian argument has been destroyed numerous times, let us do what all scientists must do in order to "debunk" a theory and submit the evidence against the theory for peer review and scrutiny in science journals.
Asking for evolutioinists to approve creationists writtings is as silly as asking creationists to approve evolutionists writtings. Each side promotes their own agenda. We must decide for ourselves. the cambrian explosion was named correctly. there is an explosion of complex organisms that appear suddenly in the fossil record. We cannot deny that. If you deny it you are denying the facts.
I never denied it. And since when the hell were almost all scientists around the world in some massive conspiracy group with their own agenda? That's news to me. Last time I checked Evolutionary Theory had LOADS of evidence while Creationism is merely speculative at best, and a baseless presumption at worst. Scientists search for truth, if you hand them evidence of creation, real, true, honest evidence... they will accept it.
the cambrian explosion is a scientific fact not a creationist myth. there is no evidence to suggest a slow gradual process leading from simple to complex organisms. This is a scientific fact not reported by creationists but by evolutionists. which part of no evidence do you disagree with.
The Cambrian Explosion happened in a period anywhere from 50 to 70 million years. While this is relatively short, it isn't a two second deal, so I do not see how this gives evidence towards Creationism. This video was created for you to give evidence of Creation. Do it. Scientifically.
If Creation happened my predictioin is that life would appear suddenly and complex in the fossil record. The cambrian explosion shows exactly that. there is no evidence to show a gradual process leading up to the animals that simultaneously existed during that period. It doesn't matter how long or short the period was.
Scientists have named the Cabrian explosion, not me. although the period may have lasted a long time the evidence shows a rapid appearance of complex organisms simultaneously. not a slow gradual process leading up to them. that is science, however the science doesn't agree with what you would expect if live evolved from simple to complex organisms. all of the fossils found in the cambrian explosion are complex.
the length of time that the cambrian period lasted is irrelevant. the fact is that complex organisms of almost every fila appear all at once with no evidence of slow gradual change from organisms in the precambrian period.
precambrian fossils are insufficient to bring rise to the complex animals in the cambrian explosion. no explanation is offered for this. it is merely shrugged off by scientists as something that has not yet been discovered. that is no answer if the evidence does not support a slow gradual process bringing about the cambrian explosion then we must, as scientists presume it didn't happen.
It all depends on which creation account you wuold like to accept. if you would like to accept the biblical account then the so called cambrian explosion falls in line.
The Cambrian 'Explosion' occurred 350 million years ago, not 70 to 50 (dinosaurs died round that time!) We do have trace fossils of bilaterally symmetrical soft bodied organisms, possibly trilobitoids (go see 4 yo-self). Possible causes for the advent of the arthropods/early plated notochord fish, were the oxygen explosion, and other trace fossils suggesting the decline of the stromatolites and macro digestion of algae beds and the subsequent predation of these feeders.
Did you get the message I sent to you? I think this sums it up. You don't have to assume an intelligent creator if you don't want to, but I honestly think you're deluding yourself and making the whole question of our existence more complex than it needs to be. You say that random nature can produce ordered codes, but we know of absolutely no natural process that can do this.
No, I don't think the *CODE* in DNA came to exist naturally. This is a highly advanced and complex code that tells the body how to replace its cells. It's reasonable to assume an intelligent creator of some sort and almost foolish not to, but of course it isn't proof.
How is it reasonable to *presume an intelligent creator when there is absolutely no reason suggesting such an intelligent creator even exists in the first place, and nothing to suggest that complexity in nature needs to be created by something other than natural processes?
What are we debating? You said prove ID or creationism. How did we come to exist? How do we have consciousness? Where did the DNA code come from? Could this all be the result of an unintelligent random source of nature? I don't think so.
I don't care whether or not God "created" or "fashioned" the universe. I don't care how old the earth is, because it doesn't prove one thing or another. You have creationists who can't even agree on this.
Oh okay. Just needed clarification. But your not thinking that DNA came about naturally, along with this so-called "consciousness" (of which I've never seen universally defined), doesn't necessarily prove Creationism or ID. And criticism of non-creationism or ID doesn't prove it either.
I don't want to debate the big bang because quite frankly I don't see how it's even contradictory to the Bible, whether it actually happened or not. What I meant is that the cosmos doesn't "burp" and produce order, i.e. humans, animals, DNA code, consciousness, and fine-tuning of universal constants.
You're right on the first part you talk about. We wouldn't expect text to be randomly generated and develop meaning. So what about the code that is stored in DNA. This code has meaning and can be compared to the information in thousands of books. I think its logical to conclude an intelligent creator for the DNA code.
I think you're missing the point provita. My last message was to show you that you're being irrational by not assuming that there was an intelligent creator. You assume that I am actually the intelligent creator of these messages. So why not assume an intelligent creator for our existence, especially when it's obvious. After all, you can't prove evolution, so why don't you just drop that theory? Nature does not produce complexity. We are not the result of a cosmic burp.
Sigh... I'll respond to all these things but do you have a video camera of sorts anywhere within reach? It's just usually easier, since you are using a vast array of common yet diverse arguments, to go both ways with videos than with a lot of messages. Just a request, if you cannot, I understand. I'm just terribly busy lately so this may become somewhat tedious.
I assume these messages are created by "intelligent" beings and not toads, snails, or computers because it has never once been documented or seen or even proposed that anything other than a human being can create such a specific and carefully constructed message. Now, say in 50 to 100 years, when AI is amazingly superior, we may have trouble distinguishing. But that isn't the point...
It is physically impossible for text to, by a complete random event, show up on a website under a name unless it was behind a program created by an intelligent being. Furthermore, even so, the chances (unless programmed specifically for such a task) of a program to randomly post understandable text with such complexity and such relativity to the subject under a name on a website is so high, it can easily be discarded.
And if it was programmed to do so, then it was created by an intelligent being, and therefore it's origins are still from an intelligent being. And again, that can still go back to an AI argument, and AI isn't that superior... yet.
Why not PRESUME an intelligent creator for ... everything (except that intelligent creator, obviously)? Because there is no evidence suggesting that matter nor energy even NEED to be created, and all evidence suggests that they CANNOT be created. Also, if you want to get out of physics and argue this intelligent creator can do what we cannot, you need to provide evidence was to how you know this, otherwise it's just a PRESUMPTION. Not an assumption.
If you want to argue Evolution, refer to my Evolution video... but to contribute: Evolution, nor anything else through the scientific method, can be proven. It can only be suggested through inference and agreed upon by the scientific community. it has loads of evidence behind it, however the only things that can be PROVEN in the strictest sense are through mathematical formulas.Which doesn't include Evolutionary Theory.
I don't really understand your last tow sentences... the second to last one has no backing to it and the last one is just an overused and since abandoned rhetorical argument used to attempt to make the Big Bang Theory seem foolish through mere language and not through actual argument.
I can't prove creationism to you. Why don't you prove evolution to me? While your at it, prove my whole existence including the code in DNA. In fact, you're wasting your time responding to this message, because this message is not the result of an intelligent creator but rather purely natural principles that we aren't sure of just yet. It's merely the arrangement of a bunch of symbols.
Until you provide evidence for such "natural principles that we aren't just sure of just yet", we cannot assume that this message is made by nature. Terrible comparison, by the way.
I didn't reject it or delete it. I still see it connected to the video. Maybe Youtube was either slow or acted weird or something. But I'm looking at a thumbnail right now under my video that connects to your video.
While I'd argue with that, simply so that we don't change the subject to evolution (however I will gladly do an evolution video afterwards) I'd like to stick with proof of creationism, not "disproof" of evolution.
The fact is that there are many creatures that are living proof of intelligent design.
The theory of evolution was thought up when we never fully had the knowledge of complex life forms, as we do today. I believe in intelligent design, not just because of my religious beliefs, but as I said, I am yet to see any evidence of evolution in nature. The geological Fossil dating method is a prime example of the flaws in evolutionists thinking.
That 'proof' could never be considered scientific in nature because it can never be tested or predict future occurrences. It also assumed a creator which breaks all of the laws of physics of which is also not scientific and cannot be falsified.
Mutations can certainly be observed and provide evidence of evolution in nature. Ever hear of genetics? Why the flip do you think so many poor phd's work with fruit flies?
Yes it is. Do you have a mother? A father? A brother or sister? They may have similarities to you, but none the less they appear different. The differences are due to changes in your DNA. You have a variation of dna (combinations of your mother and fathers genes). Therefore you and your relatives have mutated strands. Mutation simply means no longer the same as it's prior form (caused by outside sources such as radiation from the sun, or anti oxidants which break dna apart.) THat is a mutation.
Therefore, a mutation can result in a creature growing a limb, or their eyes changing. Height, hair color, tooth alignment, longevity of bones, anything. Those genes which allow that creature to survive, then are passed on to children. Those gene's 'survive' and become prime components. Changes which occur through mutation are 'random'.
The problem with the painter proves a painting analogy with the universe is that it doesn't truly fit. A painter never creates a painting. A painter gathers billions(!) of atoms and organizes them in a certain way. I used bad wording in my video. Sorry.
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution,
theory of relativity,
theory of quantum mechanics
are compatible with christianity and islam
pauman2121 2 years ago
Neither creationists nor macro evolutionists can offer you conclusive proof that their view is correct; but I feel that if you weigh the evidences on both sides, the preponderance of the evidence points away from macro evolution and towards a God created universe. That is my take on it, and I don't intend to be antagonistic.
bigboyvernon 2 years ago
Infinity(Space and Time)are limitless.If you want to know the origin of man,universe etc. you may want to look there.If infinity exists in itself is it so hard to think maybe a God could be infinite too.The Universe was created from nothing ,but,that nothing is actually something science is too young to fathom yet.
demer64 3 years ago
Word to the wise: It's difficult to play chess with people who think we're playing checkers.
thetetrapharmakos 3 years ago
People dont do proper research today. If they did they would realise that modern science and FACT often do not agree. But don't let the complete lack of evidence for darwinist theory stop you. Bad theory dies hard, especially when there are too many oversized ego's and reputations to safeguard. It was not long ago that respected doctors encouraged pregnant women to smoke, then sent them away with some opium and a handful of bennys for good measure. Was when the Komodo Dragon didn't exist right?
Archiveninja 3 years ago
Ah, but modern science says that smoking while pregnant can cause birth defects... perhaps modern science, as you say, is wrong? Science makes claims on all current evidence, when new evidence comes up, it changes it. That's actually the most sensible way... unless you have a better one?
provita 3 years ago
how can you get a logical response from people who believe in superstitions ??? Its a failed argument right out of the gate. The Easter bunny will win all arguments on "faith" alone.
MasterMark123 3 years ago
I'm getting a bit weary of this (I'm sorry, but convincing one guy is just not motivating enough for me), so I'll leave you with this thought.
Do you know that there is no true "skeptic?" Those whoa re skeptical about the existence of God certainly are not skeptical of atheism, neither are they skeptical of their skepticism.
It take faith to be an atheist--tons of faith, when you consider the lack of small-increment-transitional forms in fossils, lack of understanding of the first life...etc.
tep2005 3 years ago 2
You can't be skeptical of denial. Skepticism is refusing to believe something until you see evidence for it. You can't refuse to not believe something because there is no evidence for disbelief. Disbelief is the absence of belief.
I refuse to deny the existence of fairies in my garden, simply because there is no evidence to show that they DON'T exist, and I am skeptical of their non existence.
You cannot believe in atheism, you can just NOT believe in theism.
ManBearPiglet 3 years ago
youtube doesn't seem to handle the reply function well, so I'm just going to do an individual post.
Provita, when you see the painting of a beautiful woman on a wall, you assume it had an intelligent cause, someone, or some "thing" did it and not some random processes over millions of years.
Layman often fail to realize the intricacies of life but as a bio sci. grad. from UC Irvine, I can tell you, a cell is more complex than a space shuttle, let alone a painting.
tep2005 3 years ago
Another one.
Dr. Gentry, whom even the evolutionists describe as a "careful and competent researcher" have found conclusive evidence for the instant formation of the earth's granite crust. He found radioactive halos for 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, whose half-lives are 3 min, 164 microsec, and 138 days). These halos (esp. 214 Po) could never have formed in granite if the earth was not formed instantly by either some kind of unfathomable technology--or supernatural means. This points to a creator.
tep2005 3 years ago
Wrong on all levels of possibility. You presume a creator out of thin air. Just for our own fun, let us presume there somehow is a creator... how does this creator exist? Provide evidence.
provita 3 years ago
People used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God because there was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so they attributed the effect to God--and I believe this is what you are accusing of me doing.
But first, we attribute the design to intelligent cause not because we lack evidence of a natural explanation, but because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause.
Designs unattainable by natural means (i.e. a cell) calls for a designer.
tep2005 3 years ago
People used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God because there was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so they attributed the effect to God--and I believe this is what you are accusing of me doing.
But first, we attribute the design to intelligent cause not because we lack evidence of a natural explanation, but because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause.
Designs unattainable by natural means (i.e. a cell) calls for a designer.
tep2005 3 years ago
You are ignoring almost all evidence for the Theory of Evolution in hopes that the fleeting arguments made by Creationists are correct. And actually, it is a theory. Not a hypothesis. It is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community (you know... those who actually do research, unlike us average joe's) and has not been disproven yet.
provita 3 years ago
Boy, a lot of fragmented comments, let me give you some info:
1. On May 17th, 1985, The popular megazine Science sent a letter to Dr. Humphrey of the Sandia National Laboratories stating: "...It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism."
Interestingly enough that's what evolutionists often demand Creationists do, to publish their findings in scientific journals.
Here you can see evolution is defended with religious zeal.
tep2005 3 years ago
Research on the origin is a type of forensic science that searches for the cause--intelligent or nonintelligent.
Darwinists claim that creationism is not science based on their biased definition of science, but that's arguing in a circle! If your def. of science rules out intelligent cause beforehand, you'll never consider intelligent design science.
Also, do you know how many professors/teachers have been fired because they (not necessarily teach) believe in creation science?
tep2005 3 years ago
In fact.. I tell you what. Since you are so thrilled to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory... quite simply publish a scientific journal to the scientific community and let the experiments begin. If you are, indeed, correct... eventually scientists will see this and will embrace the new theory. Until then, you don't really have much backing.
provita 3 years ago
Now, please, as I asked in this exact video, give me scientific evidence the world is: a) 6000 or so years old and b) is created by a god or gods.
provita 3 years ago
The law of causality (that is the foundation of science, which is a commitment to understand the cause of phenomenon) requires a designer for a design that could not possibly have arisen from random processes. In this case, a protein to form in the primordial earth.
The proability of a protein forming by random chances. 10 to the -191 power.
2. a cell occuring: 10 to the - 40,000 power.
Just so you know, when the chance for an event is less than 10 to the -70, it is statistically impossible.
tep2005 3 years ago
When you see design that cannot arise by natural means, the law of causality, which is the foundation of logic and science as an attempt to explain the cause of all things, requires a Designer.
One may ask, are you sure the design we see cannot be inspired by natural means? Know this, the probability of even a protein forming in primordial earth by random chances: 10 to the -191 power. (btw, 10 to the -70 power establishes mathematical impossibility)
A cell definitely requires a designer.
tep2005 3 years ago
Intellectual debates are fun, so here goes.
1. Evolution requires vast number of transitional forms, each changing in small increments. Darwin himself believed by faith that countless transitional forms will be excavated in the near future. But our current fossil record speaks otherwise.
2. Evolution requires beneficial mutation to work, but none has been observed to this day.
3. I have more, but settle down, we want to pace ourselves.
tep2005 3 years ago
Your points do not give evidence towards the Creation Hypothesis.
provita 3 years ago
But I intend to first show you how theoretically unsound the theory, or better put, the hypothesis, of evolution is.
tep2005 3 years ago
life and human societies appear suddenly in the history of the world. there is no evidence to support anything other than what the ancients have written down and handed down through oral tradition and archaeology. To just shrug off the most accurate ancient documents and say that the events recorded never happened is just plain foolish. what we observe is consistant whtith what the bible records. Why would you doubt it.
mejc2 4 years ago
Actually the Bible "records" that life began between the Tigris and Euphrates around 6000 - 10,000 years ago. It also says light existed before stars, and Animals were "created" right before Humans (forgetting that Humans are animals). These are merely a few "claims" from the Bible that are wrong.
provita 4 years ago
actually humans are only animals because we named them they that way, we as humans classified ourselves. So because the Bible says that we are classified in a different way than we have classified ourselves it must be wrong ?
jolderath 4 years ago
Actually the Bible "records" that life began between the Tigris and Euphrates around 6000 - 10,000 years ago. It also says light existed before stars. There, does that make it better for you?
provita 4 years ago
Ok If that is in the bible what verse is it???
Rogajim 4 years ago
No clue, Genesis actually says in 1 and 2 (two different authors) that humans were created before animals in one, and after in the other. God said let there be light, then created the stars and sun in the sky. If the bible's chronology is to be trusted, Eden was set up between four rivers, two being the Euphrates and the Tigris arguably from 6000 to 10,000 years ago.
scienceminded 4 years ago
Ok, Scientest have conducted DNA tests and only Cro-magnon man carries any of our DNA. Neanderthal does not carry a .1 percent bit of DNA that Cro-Magnon or modern human carries. Look it up.
AuburnUniversity90 4 years ago
Sorry I don't really understand... please elaborate.
provita 4 years ago
Actually we conducted mitochondrial DNA testing (mtDNA is passed from mother to offspring) on a recently discovered preserved Neanderthal body, we show significant enough difference in direct mtDNA genomes to say it is likely that humans did not descend directly from Neanderthal, supporting the idea they diverged late in the Homo family history, they were not human or our direct ancestors, so humans were not alone on the earth, we may have been ABLE but didn't interbreed.
scienceminded 4 years ago
Oh wow! That's actually very interesting. Is this a fairly recent find (recent enough that many textbooks would not have been updated / not substantial enough for an update)?
provita 4 years ago
Ummm, the Neanderthal? Can't find my posts on the truth about the Cambrian, or the Big Bang, but yeah it is recent and my textbook is a few years older.
scienceminded 4 years ago
You will never find this proof because A)There are oodles of religious people that have been looking for ANY proof they can, yet have found none. B) Proof of God (ID) would take away your "free will" which is more important than you going to hell. This is the ONLY reason for God not to tell us all, right now, with 100% certainty "he" is up there... unless you want to claim "he" can't.
sfg911 4 years ago
The second rule of Thermo Dynamics clearly states that the universe is moving from order to disorder. From what energy, or force, could create such a cataclysmic event as to create matter out of nothing. If there was nothing to begin with, how is it possible to create something out of nothing?
jeryork88 4 years ago
Entropy. What's your point? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. You presume a beginning of nothingness.
provita 4 years ago
Entropy is a proven law. Matter is always moving from order to disorder. Scientifically there is no way that matter can move from chaos to order... The point is that there had to be a start or a creation that made the matter in the first place. I'm not sure what "theory" of evolution that you believe in, but every scientist agrees that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If there was nothing before the big bang, then what happened?
jeryork88 4 years ago
Wait what? I know about entropy entirely... actually matter, in an open system, can easily move towards order. It's closed systems where the law of entropy matters. Why do you presume there had to be a creation to create matter when matter cannot be created in the first place? And who says there was "nothing before the big bang" ?
provita 4 years ago
Creationists agree that something suddenly happened that created the earth and our solar system and life as we know it today. Something had to be present in order for this explosion to happen, matter just doesn't suddenly explode for no reason. There had to be a catalyst. God was present. I do realize that you will not be swayed with words or with any thing that I can tell you. But I do want to ask you a question... What is your point in making this video? What if you're wrong?
jeryork88 4 years ago
Matter didn't explode. No one said there was no reason as to the Big Bang, but it (almost) certainly cannot be explained through evidence, so the question is almost moot. Matter "existed" before the Big Bang, so I see no point the whole argument. You keep saying God was this or did this... how the heck do you know? Because some elder told you, while you were in a state of ignorance believable all forms of authority, various "truths" from an archaic book? Not a very good piece of evidence.
provita 4 years ago
I posted the video to further the civil discussion and debate of Creationism vs Evolutionary Theory vs Whatever-else-there-may-be. I am tired of Creationists trying to bombard their pseudo-scientific arguments and hypothesis into the science classroom and trying to push forward their political and theological ideologies using tax dollars. So what if I'm wrong? What if you're wrong? Who the bloody hell cares?
provita 4 years ago
Even if you were somehow right in every literal way possible, a statistical nightmare, I would not worship your god. Presuming some higher more powerful being existed, I would immediately scorn it or he or her or whatever for doing such a terrible job.
provita 4 years ago
I'm sorry you feel that way.
jeryork88 4 years ago
I tried to post a text comment but it didn't show up.
mejc2 4 years ago
All evidence of animals in the fossil record appear suddenly. There is no known natural process which could have cuased this. the most accurate records of the ancient world give reports of a creator and a Global flood. physical evidence supports both accounts. there is no reason to assume they are lying.
mejc2 4 years ago
There is absolutely NO scientific evidence of a global flood. Not only is it physically impossible, but it would mean there is a similar sediment level universally spread out throughout the rock. Which there is not. All of these arguments have been debunked.
provita 4 years ago
The cambrian explosion of complex animals appearing in the fossil record suddenly is not evidence for a slow mutatioin from simple to complex organisms. Don't deny the empirical evidence.
mejc2 4 years ago
Ignoring that the cambrian argument has been destroyed numerous times, let us do what all scientists must do in order to "debunk" a theory and submit the evidence against the theory for peer review and scrutiny in science journals.
provita 4 years ago
Asking for evolutioinists to approve creationists writtings is as silly as asking creationists to approve evolutionists writtings. Each side promotes their own agenda. We must decide for ourselves. the cambrian explosion was named correctly. there is an explosion of complex organisms that appear suddenly in the fossil record. We cannot deny that. If you deny it you are denying the facts.
mejc2 4 years ago
I never denied it. And since when the hell were almost all scientists around the world in some massive conspiracy group with their own agenda? That's news to me. Last time I checked Evolutionary Theory had LOADS of evidence while Creationism is merely speculative at best, and a baseless presumption at worst. Scientists search for truth, if you hand them evidence of creation, real, true, honest evidence... they will accept it.
provita 4 years ago
the cambrian explosion is a scientific fact not a creationist myth. there is no evidence to suggest a slow gradual process leading from simple to complex organisms. This is a scientific fact not reported by creationists but by evolutionists. which part of no evidence do you disagree with.
mejc2 4 years ago
The Cambrian Explosion happened in a period anywhere from 50 to 70 million years. While this is relatively short, it isn't a two second deal, so I do not see how this gives evidence towards Creationism. This video was created for you to give evidence of Creation. Do it. Scientifically.
provita 4 years ago
If Creation happened my predictioin is that life would appear suddenly and complex in the fossil record. The cambrian explosion shows exactly that. there is no evidence to show a gradual process leading up to the animals that simultaneously existed during that period. It doesn't matter how long or short the period was.
mejc2 4 years ago
Scientists have named the Cabrian explosion, not me. although the period may have lasted a long time the evidence shows a rapid appearance of complex organisms simultaneously. not a slow gradual process leading up to them. that is science, however the science doesn't agree with what you would expect if live evolved from simple to complex organisms. all of the fossils found in the cambrian explosion are complex.
mejc2 4 years ago
the length of time that the cambrian period lasted is irrelevant. the fact is that complex organisms of almost every fila appear all at once with no evidence of slow gradual change from organisms in the precambrian period.
mejc2 4 years ago
May I ask what you are actually trying to promote/prove/bring evidence for?
This video was presented for people to bring evidence for Creation.
provita 4 years ago
precambrian fossils are insufficient to bring rise to the complex animals in the cambrian explosion. no explanation is offered for this. it is merely shrugged off by scientists as something that has not yet been discovered. that is no answer if the evidence does not support a slow gradual process bringing about the cambrian explosion then we must, as scientists presume it didn't happen.
mejc2 4 years ago
I hardly know anything in the field... so I honestly cannot comment much further... however, how exactly does this bring evidence for Creation?
provita 4 years ago
It all depends on which creation account you wuold like to accept. if you would like to accept the biblical account then the so called cambrian explosion falls in line.
mejc2 4 years ago
The Cambrian 'Explosion' occurred 350 million years ago, not 70 to 50 (dinosaurs died round that time!) We do have trace fossils of bilaterally symmetrical soft bodied organisms, possibly trilobitoids (go see 4 yo-self). Possible causes for the advent of the arthropods/early plated notochord fish, were the oxygen explosion, and other trace fossils suggesting the decline of the stromatolites and macro digestion of algae beds and the subsequent predation of these feeders.
scienceminded 4 years ago
Did you get the message I sent to you? I think this sums it up. You don't have to assume an intelligent creator if you don't want to, but I honestly think you're deluding yourself and making the whole question of our existence more complex than it needs to be. You say that random nature can produce ordered codes, but we know of absolutely no natural process that can do this.
thereallefank 4 years ago
No, I don't think the *CODE* in DNA came to exist naturally. This is a highly advanced and complex code that tells the body how to replace its cells. It's reasonable to assume an intelligent creator of some sort and almost foolish not to, but of course it isn't proof.
thereallefank 4 years ago
How is it reasonable to *presume an intelligent creator when there is absolutely no reason suggesting such an intelligent creator even exists in the first place, and nothing to suggest that complexity in nature needs to be created by something other than natural processes?
provita 4 years ago
What are we debating? You said prove ID or creationism. How did we come to exist? How do we have consciousness? Where did the DNA code come from? Could this all be the result of an unintelligent random source of nature? I don't think so.
I don't care whether or not God "created" or "fashioned" the universe. I don't care how old the earth is, because it doesn't prove one thing or another. You have creationists who can't even agree on this.
thereallefank 4 years ago
Oh okay. Just needed clarification. But your not thinking that DNA came about naturally, along with this so-called "consciousness" (of which I've never seen universally defined), doesn't necessarily prove Creationism or ID. And criticism of non-creationism or ID doesn't prove it either.
provita 4 years ago
Whether or not God "created" the universe or "fashioned" it, isn't even agreed upon by Christians. I honestly don't care.
thereallefank 4 years ago
I'm not really willing to debate whether or not some god started off the big bang or if it was completely "natural".
I mean, it would be a useless argument both ways.
So what exactly *are* we arguing?
provita 4 years ago
I don't want to debate the big bang because quite frankly I don't see how it's even contradictory to the Bible, whether it actually happened or not. What I meant is that the cosmos doesn't "burp" and produce order, i.e. humans, animals, DNA code, consciousness, and fine-tuning of universal constants.
thereallefank 4 years ago
You're right on the first part you talk about. We wouldn't expect text to be randomly generated and develop meaning. So what about the code that is stored in DNA. This code has meaning and can be compared to the information in thousands of books. I think its logical to conclude an intelligent creator for the DNA code.
thereallefank 4 years ago
I think you're missing the point provita. My last message was to show you that you're being irrational by not assuming that there was an intelligent creator. You assume that I am actually the intelligent creator of these messages. So why not assume an intelligent creator for our existence, especially when it's obvious. After all, you can't prove evolution, so why don't you just drop that theory? Nature does not produce complexity. We are not the result of a cosmic burp.
thereallefank 4 years ago
Sigh... I'll respond to all these things but do you have a video camera of sorts anywhere within reach? It's just usually easier, since you are using a vast array of common yet diverse arguments, to go both ways with videos than with a lot of messages. Just a request, if you cannot, I understand. I'm just terribly busy lately so this may become somewhat tedious.
provita 4 years ago
I assume these messages are created by "intelligent" beings and not toads, snails, or computers because it has never once been documented or seen or even proposed that anything other than a human being can create such a specific and carefully constructed message. Now, say in 50 to 100 years, when AI is amazingly superior, we may have trouble distinguishing. But that isn't the point...
provita 4 years ago
It is physically impossible for text to, by a complete random event, show up on a website under a name unless it was behind a program created by an intelligent being. Furthermore, even so, the chances (unless programmed specifically for such a task) of a program to randomly post understandable text with such complexity and such relativity to the subject under a name on a website is so high, it can easily be discarded.
provita 4 years ago
And if it was programmed to do so, then it was created by an intelligent being, and therefore it's origins are still from an intelligent being. And again, that can still go back to an AI argument, and AI isn't that superior... yet.
provita 4 years ago
Why not PRESUME an intelligent creator for ... everything (except that intelligent creator, obviously)? Because there is no evidence suggesting that matter nor energy even NEED to be created, and all evidence suggests that they CANNOT be created. Also, if you want to get out of physics and argue this intelligent creator can do what we cannot, you need to provide evidence was to how you know this, otherwise it's just a PRESUMPTION. Not an assumption.
provita 4 years ago
If you want to argue Evolution, refer to my Evolution video... but to contribute: Evolution, nor anything else through the scientific method, can be proven. It can only be suggested through inference and agreed upon by the scientific community. it has loads of evidence behind it, however the only things that can be PROVEN in the strictest sense are through mathematical formulas.Which doesn't include Evolutionary Theory.
provita 4 years ago
I don't really understand your last tow sentences... the second to last one has no backing to it and the last one is just an overused and since abandoned rhetorical argument used to attempt to make the Big Bang Theory seem foolish through mere language and not through actual argument.
provita 4 years ago
I can't prove creationism to you. Why don't you prove evolution to me? While your at it, prove my whole existence including the code in DNA. In fact, you're wasting your time responding to this message, because this message is not the result of an intelligent creator but rather purely natural principles that we aren't sure of just yet. It's merely the arrangement of a bunch of symbols.
thereallefank 4 years ago
Until you provide evidence for such "natural principles that we aren't just sure of just yet", we cannot assume that this message is made by nature. Terrible comparison, by the way.
provita 4 years ago
You can simply comment the reason why you removed my video on my video page now.
owchywawa 4 years ago
I didn't reject it or delete it. I still see it connected to the video. Maybe Youtube was either slow or acted weird or something. But I'm looking at a thumbnail right now under my video that connects to your video.
provita 4 years ago
Yeah I reposted it.
owchywawa 4 years ago
Why do you continue to remove my video responces?
owchywawa 4 years ago
Did you remove my video response?
owchywawa 4 years ago
I am still yet to see any evidence of evolution in nature. Adaptation maybe, but evolving? No.
PottersHouseOz 4 years ago
While I'd argue with that, simply so that we don't change the subject to evolution (however I will gladly do an evolution video afterwards) I'd like to stick with proof of creationism, not "disproof" of evolution.
provita 4 years ago
The fact is that there are many creatures that are living proof of intelligent design.
The theory of evolution was thought up when we never fully had the knowledge of complex life forms, as we do today. I believe in intelligent design, not just because of my religious beliefs, but as I said, I am yet to see any evidence of evolution in nature. The geological Fossil dating method is a prime example of the flaws in evolutionists thinking.
PottersHouseOz 4 years ago
That 'proof' could never be considered scientific in nature because it can never be tested or predict future occurrences. It also assumed a creator which breaks all of the laws of physics of which is also not scientific and cannot be falsified.
provita 4 years ago
Mutations can certainly be observed and provide evidence of evolution in nature. Ever hear of genetics? Why the flip do you think so many poor phd's work with fruit flies?
gaya1111 4 years ago
Mutation is not evolution.
PottersHouseOz 4 years ago
why not try learning about what evolution actually is. You obviously don't know so I don't see how you can even attempt to discuss it.
gaya1111 4 years ago
Yes it is. Do you have a mother? A father? A brother or sister? They may have similarities to you, but none the less they appear different. The differences are due to changes in your DNA. You have a variation of dna (combinations of your mother and fathers genes). Therefore you and your relatives have mutated strands. Mutation simply means no longer the same as it's prior form (caused by outside sources such as radiation from the sun, or anti oxidants which break dna apart.) THat is a mutation.
malachitransfer 4 years ago
Therefore, a mutation can result in a creature growing a limb, or their eyes changing. Height, hair color, tooth alignment, longevity of bones, anything. Those genes which allow that creature to survive, then are passed on to children. Those gene's 'survive' and become prime components. Changes which occur through mutation are 'random'.
malachitransfer 4 years ago
You deleted my last comment? Ha Ha Ha Ha!
A painting doesn't prove that there was a painter?
Dude??? Please explain how you came to this conclusion.
PottersHouseOz 4 years ago
I didn't delete it, don't worry about that. I don't censor comments. Was it the other comment? If not... maybe youtube made an error?
provita 4 years ago
The problem with the painter proves a painting analogy with the universe is that it doesn't truly fit. A painter never creates a painting. A painter gathers billions(!) of atoms and organizes them in a certain way. I used bad wording in my video. Sorry.
provita 4 years ago
Therefore he is the Intelligent designer of the peice of art. Correct?
The painter analogy is a bad one mate. Seriously.
PottersHouseOz 4 years ago
He isn't an intelligent designer in the same sense as your intelligent designer, who also created.
provita 4 years ago