SOME Humans are so dumb...Why cant you see that everything was CREATED. Before the :big bang" it was NOTHINGNESS! Your brain can not even fully grasp nothingness. But according to science EVERYTHING happened Perfectly from Nothingness and complete chance. GET REAL
@AlanaPower111 Your inability to comprehend or imagine how it could be possible doesn't mean that its impossible, just that you lack understanding/imagination. You also make unfounded assumptions about what existed before the Big Bang; we don't actually know because we're not yet able to detect anything before planck time.
@ArcanaKnight I was once a Evolutionist. I studied it during my time at UF. But being realistic the entire Big Bang Theory and Evolution is extremly Flawed. Evidence shows that the earth is not even BILLIONS years old like some evolutionist like to think. Me and some classmates (who are all former evolutionist) studied the whole Evoltuion vs Creation Argument. And whether you chose to believe it or not. It's much more evidence pointing towards Creation.. Evolution itself has become a mockery
@AlanaPower111 "Evolution and the Big Bang are being taking out..." No, they're being taken out because of laypeople are allowing their religious beliefs to dictate what knowledge they want taught.
"Evidence shows that the earth is not even BILLIONS years old" Not true.
"It's much more evidence pointing towards Creation" Also not true. That belief relies upon cherry picking the evidence and ignoring or being ignorant of the rest, especially if you believe in YEC.
There's no such thing as "irreducible complexity". The flagellum is just a slightly modified TTSS. It's not magic, just a tweaked protein. Bible nerds should get a less intense hobby than religion ... like Firefly, Doctor Who or Settlers of Catan.
But I get it, it's confusing having loud obnoxious idiots yell religion at you in one ear, whilst rational educated scientists laugh at you in the other. But don't worry, I hear Jesus is coming back in your lifetime to clear things up.
This is just the watch maker argument again. That argument is getting a bit old now. I do not know why some people think biological systems are to complicated and therefore must had been built by someone.
I am left scratching my head a little after the 5:56 mark. Which scientist says the flagellum happened by chance? Does he not know that natural selection was the cause of its development?
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
I'm sorry but the IC of the flagellum proposed here has already been shown to be wrong. If this was the vids best point then it's a failure. If you're showing this for historical reason then that's fine. If you're showing this under the assumption it is correct then that's a shame.
@thybigballs oh, and how has IC been shown to be wrong. What part would you take out or rather, what part would you start with and it still work as a propeller? this video although old, is still valid today. The truths of it still stand strong.
Are you sure you're not talking about "ID", Intelligent Design?
Because Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum case for Intelligent design was proven wrong *in court*, he was practically laughed out of there by scientists who actually knew what they were doing. Behe was also relying on such logical fallacies as argument from ignorance and moving the goalpost.
@AndyG792 As shown in this video, 40 parts are removed and it is perfectly functional: /watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU ... And in this video I would like to emphasize what's said in particular, starting about the 2:30 mark: /watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4 ... As Founoe has pointed out, Michael Behe was indeed shown to be wrong in court. All the other experts on his side also jumped ship and decided not to testify. Wanna guess why? Anyway, only creationists believe it still stands. The rest of the world moved on.
The problem with intelligent design is you cannot claim something is intelligently designed until you give an example of something that is NOT intelligently designed. Just like you can't say a water is hot without defining what is cold.
Just because life occurs that doesn't mean it's intelligent.
@Casshyr use your common sense. if you see a Boeing 747 in a junk yard, do you think someone designed it? or do you think it just happened to form 747 with engines and seats and all that after millions years ago? Time is not solution to everything. no matter how long time passes, i don't think Boeing 747 will be formed and fueled to fly. If you believe that evolution happens if millions of time passes? lol show one proof of evolution. I haven't seen any yet..
@TheTruthRock also use your common sense: you are taking a non-life example and you think it applies to life. That's like comparing apple to computer, not even apple to orange. Your analogy assumes non-life is just like life. Total fail. Try again.
@TheTruthRock What a tired argument. Why do I hear this from every damn creationist....oh why. This has nothing whatever to do with the processes that are observed by scientists. If you haven't seen evidence of evolution, you haven't been looking. Ever heard of a flu shot? Why isn't there just one fix-all shot? The virus evolves....and you talk about "common sense"...wow. How about this: show me where in the bible the diversity in the Galapagos was accounted for, much less even acknowledged.
@TheTruthRock Gosh, people are still talking about 747s and junkyards.
The reason this analogy fails is this:
747s are not the product of self-replicating molecules, and living things are.
Natural selection is not a chance process, so there is no claim that eyes or wings or elephants "just happened" - that would be an argument for creationism.
So you have created a fallacy, and are using the absurdity of that fallacy to attack a process that you originally mis-defined.
@xXsakkelaoXx Molecules to man? Really? Do you even know what a molecule is? Water (H2O) is a molecule, so water to man? Really? Go back to 5th grade.
those complex biological systems SEEM to defy explanation. Primarily because he refuses to pay attention when someone explains the breakdown of the systems. This seems more like an "I don't understand it so I'm going to make my own explanation" kind of argument.
These people are not scientists - using the argument of irreducible complexity is a complete non sequitur. Basically they are stating fact by saying if you take away the leaves on a tree it will not function as a tree - well duh! That is no proof for intelligent design!
Its funny because in my school we had science, like biology (and my famous Mr Onion (the teacher)) and no Religious Education. its as if they didnt want us become religious. GO TEAM ATHEIST!!
What i dont understand is why there are so many videos on youtube that try to disprove evolution, and there are hardly any that support it? GO TEAM ATHEIST!!!
Exactly; Darwin was just watching the changes from the Outside. He never took into account that the inner design of the cells are complex machines that simply cannot come up out of nowhere, by chance. They have a purpose, and they can better be described as machines that were designed. This of course, has the implication that there is a Designer. Yes, that' the conclusion. So, what's the problem with that? Are you afraid to accept this implication? that Darwin was wrong?
@oopscanada Evolution is understood very well, has lots of evidence to back it up and is widely accepted by the best and brightest. Even if all abiogenesis theories are proven wrong, it wont impact on evolutionary theory. They are not the same. To say that evolution is wrong just because we don't know exactly how the first super primitive organisms were formed is really shitty logic. Just like the logic behind the argument, "We don't know exactly how this happened yet, therefore it was magic.".
Of course evolution is understood; there are tons of papers on this theory. However, nobody has seen new organs being formed or in the middle of being formed, or new systems, or new anything. All we have seen is adaption, but nothing "new". If by adaptation, you mean evolution, sure; that's everywhere. But I am talking about "true" evolution: from simple cells, we see "new" beings being formed, new organs, new systems, new, new new. There is nothing new!
To make matters worse, you cannot assert that abiogenesis does not have an effect to the theory of evolution; of course it does. It's just a matter of backward iterations, going back to the root. As you go back to the previous versions of the organism, down to the molecular level, you cannot, as demonstrated in the video, "assume' that this was formed by evolution. You have to prove it. Nobody can't, as to put all items together, dna, rna, molecules, etc, in a single step? Nahh..
@oopscanada My point was that even if some unbelievably powerful super intelligent magical being outside of our reality did put life on this planet, there is still evidence that said life has evolved. There is evidence that life is continuing to evolve and it is very easily observable on the small scale. The only reason we haven't observed macro evolution is simply because it takes a hell of a long time for complex species to change significantly enough/for those small changes to accumulate.
@oopscanada Also, is it really that hard to believe that living material, given millions or even more than a billion years, could accumulate into something that can replicate itself? I wonder how much longer people will be able to argue that its impossible, I'm sure that with all the successful experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life can easily be formed in nature from non living materials will eventually show how all these materials can come together.
@oopscanada wait... so if I can't bring forth full blown proof that cannot be written off with a "god did it that way because he wanted to," then we have to ASSUME that everything was the work of the sky man? why do you get to make such a huge assumption when evolutionists can't make small ones in thinking very very similar organisms have a good chance of being related? What's important about those scientific assumptions is that not one test has been devised that disproves them.
@im1penguin ; Actually, I don't like assumptions either. The point is that, *so far*, it is very likely that Darwin was wrong, and natural selection would not be able to explain how cellular components could have been formed to the basic level they need to be at to create new cells with different properties, *without* precoding it in the DNA. Therefore, if given the evidence, this points to a designer, then be it.
@oopscanada I'm not sure how to explain this to you other than to say that there never will be anything but small changes of already functional systems. The chance of a big change being functional is almost nonexistent. You seem to recognize that animals adapt over time, but you apparently think that this doesn't count and that they won't accomplish any big changes over long periods of time.
the problem is that the changes that are seen in variations and adaptations of animals to the habitat, are not due to "new" code. That is, the code is there, it just needs some variable to be turned on or off. However, we do not see really *new* systems being formed. It's like if anything needed to be built is already built. Not to make this debate a religious one, but: "There is nothing new under the Sun". That is not hard to grasp.
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
HAHAHA! This is pathetic! This is a perfect example of humans comparing machines they have built with elements of the natural world. These so called scientists seem to think that because our intelligence creates machines, then it must also be an intelligence that created life HAHA!. I've read one or two comments stating that evolution is a theory. Wrong! It used to be a theory, but has now been proven to be fact. Just the same as which it is a FACT that God does not exist.
nobody ever said darwin's theory explains the origin of life. it explains variation among species and the branches of species in the evolutionary time line, not the beginning of the first cell.
@xXsakkelaoXx Actually, as far as evolution is concerned, it wouldn't matter whether life began via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some other method because it wouldn't change the vast amount of evidence confirming evolution and common descent. Yes, the two fields are related, but they are not dependent on the validity of each other at all.
@ArcanaKnight Actually, that depends, in my view, they are dependent, once again, why try so hard to dodge it?
"the vast amount of evidence confirming evolution " define what you mean by evolution, micro or macro? (because variation within the kinds happen, but a molecule can never ever turn into a human because of no new genetic information.
@xXsakkelaoXx "that depends, in my view, they are dependent" Your view is wrong then. They're no more dependent on each other than they're dependent on quantum theory or the theory of gravity.
"variation within the kinds happen" Define exactly what you mean by "kinds".
"...no new genetic information" Just stop. By any reasonable definition of the term, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
@ArcanaKnight Evolution needs billions of years and so does the big bang, you can't have neither if you prove creation, so disprove big bang, you automatically disprove evolution because they both need billions of years right?
Kinds: a chiauaua and a wolf are both dogs = dog (dog is a kind) a wolf can be breed to a chiauaua but not back because there is a loss of information.
@xXsakkelaoXx Well, big bang proofs and disproofs are purely math heavy physics, so have fun with that. Also, as they are completely different phenomenon, I fail to see how disproving the big bang would disprove evolution.
@im1penguin " I fail to see how disproving the big bang would disprove evolution." really`? Evolution (molecules to man) needs billions of years, and big bang claims billions of years, now if you could disprove billions of years, that would automatically disprove evolution. Still fail to see it?
@xXsakkelaoXx We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities. If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
@ArcanaKnight yes, I agree with you, one can turn a wolf into a chiauau right? (by breeding) and if chiauau's were better off in nature(of course they are not, stupid example really :P ) they might of been looked upon as "more" information according to evolutionsists, but it's not more information, there is clearly a loss, a chiauau can not be breed back to a wolf because the information originally in the gene pool of the wolf has been lost.
@xXsakkelaoXx "yes, I agree with you," You clearly don't, or you wouldn't have written that last post; I'm not even sure you understand what I said. All those increases in genetic information I just listed are ones that we've already observed, so you can't honestly claim that no new genetic "information" has evolved and still be defining the term in any meaningful way.
@ArcanaKnight "We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population"
that is not an ape turning into a human, this is always within the kinds, like I explained to you. "increase genetic material" do you mean more of the same type of information? thats redundancy.
" novel genetically-regulated abilities" could you give an example of one of these?
@xXsakkelaoXx "always within the kinds" Define exactly what you mean by "kinds".
"that is not an ape turning into a human" Except that's not an example of increased genetic information; you obviously don't even understand what it is you're talking about. There is no meaningful definition of the term "information" for which your claim is true.
BTW, here's sources for all 4 examples I gave before: Lenski et al, American Naturalist, 1991; Brown et al, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 1998; Knox et al, Chemistry and Biology, 1996; and Prijambada et al, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1995.
Also, this video series is utter rubbish. Its little more than one long string of arguments from ignorance/incredulity and Gaps arguments.
@xXsakkelaoXx "explain the flaggellum without the borrowed components" There you go dismissing out-of-hand a very common process; its clear you don't know the first thing about evolution or how it actually works. Supposedly IC systems like the flagellum can be (and have been) explained quite easily by processes like exaptation and the Mullerian two-step. The concept of irreducible complexity is itself little more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity.
Ok, how does the mullerian two-step work? explain it to me please :) (because I can explain why evolution is wrong, whils you have so far just come up with hypothesis and statements which in no manner proves evolution, it's more like peaces in a puzzle which you cut and shape to fit your theory, because everyone in their right mind would see that the earth from the huge stars to the tiny cells is by design
@xXsakkelaoXx You shouldn't get your information from places like CMI; they're not reliable. Case in point, the author of that article is a quack who got his degree from a diploma mill, and his sources don't even support his claims (eg the article by Pennisi et al made the exact opposite point).
"how does the mullerian two-step work" Google it. It's been shown that it can create "IC" systems through numerous examples and even programs like genetic algorithms.
CONT "everyone in their right mind would see that the earth from the huge stars to the tiny cells is by design" That's nothing but subjective opinion, one which ignores the reasons why we're able to so easily recognize human design. No ID proponent has been able to come up with a valid method of objectively determining design.
@ArcanaKnight CONT "...and they are still scientists" No, they're fringe scientist with unproven claims, many of whom have apparently allowed their personal beliefs to blind them to the cherry-picking and other dishonest tactics needed to support these claims. My earlier comment refutes your attempted argument from authority by putting them into context.
@xXsakkelaoXx "In which position are you to say which scientist is wrong and wright" Its not me that says they're wrong, its the scientific community which has shown they are. ID/creationism is the biological equivalent of a geologist claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, or anyone who supports Neal Adams's expanding earth theory. Even ID's own proponents have admitted that its not science.
@ArcanaKnight "That's nothing but subjective opinion" you probably believe the big bang right? yet you have no evidence for it? exept for the evidence YOU interpret as evidence for it, but it could be anything (like background radiation)
You must explain where Io (jupiters moon) has too much heat than it should have had if the earth (solar system) was billions of years old, because evolution needs billions of years, without it, it won't work
@xXsakkelaoXx "you probably believe the big bang right? yet you have no evidence for it?" Except that that isn't the the same at all. We actually have verifiable evidence supporting the big bang, whereas IDers haven't even been able to come up with a single objective method of determining design, let alone found evidence of it
Your claim about Io is nothing but ignorance. I found the answer to that "problem" of yours in 1 min of research, and that its been known for some time.
@ArcanaKnight "Case in point, the author of that article is a quack who got his degree from a diploma mill, and his sources don't even support his claims (eg the article by Pennisi et al made the exact opposite point)." if one article says something different than another one, doesnt mean that the first one is wrong? that's like saying: chocolate has sugar in it, but no: this article says it doesnt, therefore it cant have sugar in it?
@xXsakkelaoXx "if one article says something different than another one..." No, it doesn't; not all articles are created equal. I'll also point out that this was an article that Bergman CHOSE (albeit wrongly) to cite in support of his argument, not just some random paper which happened to contradict him. Bergman is a dishonest quack who knows little and has even less to support his beliefs about evolution.
@ArcanaKnight M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.
M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.
Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.
@xXsakkelaoXx Most of his degrees are in psychology, the degree in "human biology" is from a now-defunct diploma mill, and the last ones are degrees in medicine. As far as biology and evolutionary theory is concerned, he is little better than a layman, so you can just stop with that attempted appeal to authority. And again, its not me saying that he's wrong, its the rest of the scientific community.
He has a PhD in human BIOLOGY, are you ignoring this on purpose?
the rest of the scientific community? how come the planets have strong magnetic fields, when according to billions of years, they shouldnt have strong magnetic fields, and evolution needs billions of years
@xXsakkelaoXx "are you ignoring this on purpose" Look back at my last comment. Notice how I specifically mentioned how that degree's from a defunct degree mill? Now, explain exactly how I'm supposedly ignoring it.
"how come the planets have strong magnetic fields" Quit trying to change the topic. Your ignorance regarding astronomy and physics has little bearing on the topic we've been discussing, but the short answer is that you're wrong on pretty much every count. tinyurlDOTcom/7xol9rc
@ArcanaKnight You said that the planets magnetic fields works as dynamoes, I explained why not, and then you all you have left is to call me ignorant ? lol!
however I stand corrected on the PhD in biology topic,
but change the subject? proving a young age, disproves evolution??
@xXsakkelaoXx "You said that the planets magnetic fields works as dynamoes" Actually, I didn't say any such thing. Also, your attempt to "explain why not" did so by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you (as is true of most YEC claims).
"but change the subject?" Yes, we weren't talking about the age of the earth or the universe, so trying to "prove a young age" is not only changing the subject, its not even in the same field of science anymore.
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
@ArcanaKnight the big bang model doesn't fit with OBSERVED fact. My question to you would be: why do you ceep forming and strethching observed facts from reality to fit with your worldview instead of dismissing it when observation suggests otherwise?
be sure to check out the letter written to the scientific community written mostly by secular astronomers/scientists: cosmologystatement(dot)org
@ArcanaKnight I have a BSc and have worked with a number of people with PhDs and my general experience has been that the qualification actually impedes the person, who holds the degree, from being capable of anything practical...
@jagara1 If you had payd some better attention: the argument was on how can someone with no actual intelligence on a subject say that one is right and one is wrong when it comes to scientific articles rebbuting eachother. AND: I stated that his PhD in Biology is from a disregarded school thus the: " I stand corrected" but that doesnt alter reality: that observable facts tell us that the universe is young and evolution is therefor an unobserved impossibility
@ArcanaKnight there are a number of good reasons to believe that the magnetic fields of the planets are not dynamos, and are much different than that of the sun. The sun is so hot that most of its atoms are ionized—the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus in a state called “plasma.” Plasma is highly sensitive to magnetic fields, and interacts with them much more strongly than neutral gas.
@ArcanaKnight CONT. The turbulent motions within the sun are constantly generating chaotic bits of magnetism. However, the planets are not made of plasma and do not exhibit the kinds of motions we see in the sun. Additionally, in the process by which the sun is thought to reverse its magnetic field, the rotation axis should be almost exactly aligned with the magnetic poles.
@ArcanaKnight CONT. This is the case for the sun, but not for the planets. In fact, the planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields which are tilted severely relative to their respective rotation axes.
@ArcanaKnight lol, u must be some sort of kid, how old are you? like 16 ? lol, your probably not even that, like 12? u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists ? you havn't given ONE reason why they are wrong, either you are willingly ignorant or you are lying on purpose
@xXsakkelaoXx "u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists" Since you chose to bring that up, I'll just point out that you're ignoring vastly more professors and scientists who don't support yourpseudoscientific belief; those from relevant fields who support ID make up less than 1% of all scientists in that field (a fact which should be a clear sign of it likely being a fringe belief and not valid science).
@ArcanaKnight The argument that there are more evolutionary and big bang scientists doesn't alter reality, and they are still scientists, lol, how did you "disprove" my statement: "u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists" with that comment?
@ArcanaKnight OH! and btw: why don't you actually watch the video? especially part 3 in the series is very good and pretty much disproves evolution right there.
@xXsakkelaoXx noooo... nothing is lost or gained in a chihuahua (genetically, it's lost almost all body mass) and with a few hundred year breeding program like the one that produced the chihuahua in the first place, you could in fact shape a population of them back into wolves. Furthermore just a few (5-10) generations would be enough time to see a significant shift toward wolf-like appearance and attitude, but the size would be a bit more of a chore to get back.
@im1penguin Is this indeed fact? Where is the source for this "fact" that chihuahua's can be breed into wolves? (even if they can: this only proves that they had a common ancestor: a dog right? because mutations never adds genetic information to the genome, only noise and redundancy.)
@xXsakkelaoXx redundancy is information that is now free to mutate and take on new roles without compromising the function it was redundant for. "noise" would still be information, it is just information with no usable translation yet. As any orchestra can demonstrate, you first must have the noise, and then you can go about organizing it.
@im1penguin "As any orchestra can demonstrate, you first must have the noise, and then you can go about organizing it" well that kind of proves my point: you need SOMEONE to be able to put that noise into harmony and music, it doesnt happen by itself, not in a quadratrillion billion years ;)
@xXsakkelaoXx You're taking an example to prove one point, and applying it to a different one to which it is not suited. I never said the whole process was exactly like an orchestra. I was just arguing that the "noise" was not useless, but was a starting point on which harmony can be built. I'm talking about evolution here, not the origin of species and I can link you to a flood of information proving that no outside interference is necessary to produce greater genetic diversity.
@im1penguin "You're taking an example to prove one point, and applying it to a different one to which it is not suited" Actually I thought it suited my point farely well, everything that is clearly desgined, needs a designer, but when it comes to the earth: oh no! no design, impossible!! lol, why? Wouldn't natural selection dicard the noise if it has no apparant function? define "greater genetic diversity"
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
@xXsakkelaoXx how are they dependent? how does the origin of the first cell change the fact that it then differentiated into every other living thing we know of.
You make it sound like there aren't mountains of evidence showing mechanisms by which additional genetic information can be added to an organism.
@im1penguin " showing mechanisms by which additional genetic information can be added to an organism." really there are'nt any other than mutations, and mutations can't in a billion years change a molecule to a man, the probability is'nt even there for it, and the fewest of mutations turn out beneficial (in a certain environment) and is not the kind of information that leads to the extreme complexity and variation from the cell, to the digestive system, to the entire human body.
@im1penguin "how are they dependent? how does the origin of the first cell change the fact that it then differentiated into every other living thing we know of." Ofcourse, one might argue that evolution happens, (although clearly it doesn't) but evolution as I see it, is the billions year change from molecules to man) this theory goes hand in hand with the big bang and abiogenesis: now if you could name one big group of people who believe abiogenesis but not evolution, i would be wrong.
You guys are assholes.You deny evolution wich is actually a scientific fact,and think an invisible man in the sky did it.How can you live with yourselves.
@xSRGDarknessx "Evolution is a THEORY not fact" Your failure to understand even the most basic terminology of a topic you've chosen to discuss is honestly just sad.
@ArcanaKnight How is that? I know excatly what a theory is. I'm not nearly as stupid as you'd like to be. But a theory is a theory. There are also problems with that theory. Problems like irreducible complexity. There are systems in organisms that have to have many parts in order to even function, let alone properly. Those systems would not exist if it were only evolution that formed them. They would have showed up in an organism as a peice of the puzzle, but not for long, as it would serve....
@xSRGDarknessx "I know excatly what a theory is" You say that, and yet you continue spout ignorance like demeaning it because it's "just a theory". You're clearly showing that you don't understand what a scientific theory actually is.
IC isn't a problem for evolution; its nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Besides, every single supposed example of an IC system that's been put forward has soon been refuted by people showing how it could have evolved.
@ArcanaKnight ....purpose. According to your THEORY of evolution, these systems can not exist. Yet they do. I'm not saying that evoultion is complete bogous. I know that it can cause changes in populations of organisms. Like height, and hair color. But I refuse to believe in a theory that has a whole in it nearly as big as the one in multiverses.
Behe was wrong and so is this deluded individual. The biggest issue is the falicy thata this person actually know what he is talking about. JUST WRONG.
**While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific** Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
Behe is either a deluded fool or a deliberate liar
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
Sorry to say that, but since the Kitzmiller/Dover-Trial in 2005 there is absolutly no good excuse anymore to bring up the "irredusable complexity" of the flagelum anymore. This idea (at least for that particular example) has been proofen wrong. Anybody who still uses that argument is eather poorly informed or simply dishonest. And in the case of Behe, I'm sure that it's not simply a matter of ill-informed, since he took part in the trial. So, if he's still presenting that idea, he's a liar.
I love any video with a title along these lines because is video is the exact same - it's some person who has had the argument 1000 times in their head and they think their logic is just 100% gold and pure. So they post shit like this claiming that evolution has been proved/falsified, but the one question they never stop to ask: If this was remotely fucking true, then wouldn't evolution have just been proved one way or the other at this point? Wouldn't someone see this and be like...OMG...PROOF!
The irreducible complexity argument with bacterial flagellum has been completely answered and its evolution explained. The basic argument of this video is false.
@Nautilus987 Hi, I am not exactly sure what it is your are requesting, but check out the video with the title "Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum" and this one "The Evolution of the Flagellum". Once again, rather than drop into the choice of tagging all complex questions as god solved, do some simple checking out of things. Most have an answer. A few are simply waiting for discovery.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
@Lynnmist don't believe. get a good biology book, and learn.
google "irreducible complexity" and see for yourself, it's crap disguised as a theory, they were thrown out of court. michael J Behe's own university issued a statement disagreeing with him. don't take my or anybody else's word for it, find out for yourself. don't "believe."
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Cus I tell ya, I eat alot of pasta, and that has alot of salt and protien in it, I dont want to accidentaly create life while im spooling it onto a fork. OH ya, no the idea of it laying in a filthy pond for a billion years makes that so much more plausible.
So why is it, that biology gets to be the one sinly exception to this obvious truth. It was designed ok? Thats the end of the damn discussion. Give me some proof of concept of something self replicating that was produced by entirely naturalistic forces, and you might have theory. Until then, don't give me any of that shit "just because we dont know how doesnt mean we wont ever find out", its common damn sense. If humans cant do it, and we know what to do, WHY can salt and protien do it?
@preacherJ60 Don't say science, because Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD. It is these scientists who force atheism onto their subject, so science becomes its own religious entity. Science itself is our truest link, other than the Bible, to our creator. And these scientists would dare take it from us? No... no... there will be a retribution for this.
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
@MagnusCattus@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
@MagnusCattus@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
@MagnusCattus "that doesn't make it right" That's not what I was arguing though.
"Constant repitition does not make a hypothesis a fact" If that's all you think supports evolutionary theory, then you're more ignorant about this topic than I thought.
"Show me evidence of evolution." Would it really matter if I did? Could any amount of evidence truthfully change your mind? Would you accept the evidence presented, or would you just make hand-waving excuses to deny it?
@preacherJ60 science falls short today but its making progress faster than ever. the bible is a shot in the dark with no intent of figuring anything out.
@preacherJ60 "The Bible on the other hand can explain everything." except how to diagnose & treat skin conditions...not that it didn't try, as revealed in Leviticus 13 and 14. sadly, sacrificing birds isn't going to cure any skin disease. give me good, atheistic science any day over sacrificing animals.
And I'll tell you right now, human beings have never to my knowledge constructed a robot that can construct another robot of nearly identical design, that can also construct another copy, and that copy can copy itself and so on and so forth. Humans have never done it, and even if we get to that chance, the amount of intelligence that went into it is unfathomable. So wtf makes you think throwing assorted parts into a pool for a million years will ever produce a robot that can self replicate?
@MagnusCattus That wouldn't be all that difficult, but it would be rather costly and pointless. We don't need robots that can produce other robots all by themselves because running an assembly line of robots is much more cost effective. Now, creating a new form of life, that would be a challenge... but equally pointless. That's not the kind of thing that would get much corporate support.
i stopped watching at 4:55. anybody who knows anything about biochemistry can call this douchebag's bluff. if hewas dissuaded from evolution because he read a book (and doesn't tell us what that book said to confince him), and especially because he began to study the cell's microscopic structure, then he was a shoddy biochemist to begin with. molecular and cellular biology was taught in highschool and college biology over 25 ago.
OK. around 4:55 they talk about the microscopic structure of the cell and refer to it as similar to machinery. no problem there. then they say these are recent discoveries. i call BS. the only recent thing about these structures is that some deluded person "recently" (the last decade) or so, got a hold of a biochemistry and "discovered" a flagellum or laminin and invented "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design" to sound sciency and fool the credulous.
Stop trying to control every one with this thing they call god.
BrettGeale 6 days ago
SOME Humans are so dumb...Why cant you see that everything was CREATED. Before the :big bang" it was NOTHINGNESS! Your brain can not even fully grasp nothingness. But according to science EVERYTHING happened Perfectly from Nothingness and complete chance. GET REAL
AlanaPower111 1 week ago
@AlanaPower111 Your inability to comprehend or imagine how it could be possible doesn't mean that its impossible, just that you lack understanding/imagination. You also make unfounded assumptions about what existed before the Big Bang; we don't actually know because we're not yet able to detect anything before planck time.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight I was once a Evolutionist. I studied it during my time at UF. But being realistic the entire Big Bang Theory and Evolution is extremly Flawed. Evidence shows that the earth is not even BILLIONS years old like some evolutionist like to think. Me and some classmates (who are all former evolutionist) studied the whole Evoltuion vs Creation Argument. And whether you chose to believe it or not. It's much more evidence pointing towards Creation.. Evolution itself has become a mockery
AlanaPower111 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Evolution and the Big Bang are being taking out of a lot of schools curriculm because of the major flaws.
AlanaPower111 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlanaPower111 "Evolution and the Big Bang are being taking out..." No, they're being taken out because of laypeople are allowing their religious beliefs to dictate what knowledge they want taught.
"Evidence shows that the earth is not even BILLIONS years old" Not true.
"It's much more evidence pointing towards Creation" Also not true. That belief relies upon cherry picking the evidence and ignoring or being ignorant of the rest, especially if you believe in YEC.
ArcanaKnight 6 days ago
Oh wow, at 8:10 there is a straight up lie.
DoctorMeh 1 week ago
Is it not funny how videos like this always end up disabling ratings?
IcelandicBetta 1 week ago
@IcelandicBetta too true
DoctorMeh 1 week ago
There's no such thing as "irreducible complexity". The flagellum is just a slightly modified TTSS. It's not magic, just a tweaked protein. Bible nerds should get a less intense hobby than religion ... like Firefly, Doctor Who or Settlers of Catan.
But I get it, it's confusing having loud obnoxious idiots yell religion at you in one ear, whilst rational educated scientists laugh at you in the other. But don't worry, I hear Jesus is coming back in your lifetime to clear things up.
G0lfYankee 1 week ago
An argument base on the flagellum? Uploaded 2008? Three years after the Dover Trial? The bullshit just keeps coming, doesn't it?
TomFynn 1 week ago
This is just the watch maker argument again. That argument is getting a bit old now. I do not know why some people think biological systems are to complicated and therefore must had been built by someone.
Jesses001 1 week ago
I am left scratching my head a little after the 5:56 mark. Which scientist says the flagellum happened by chance? Does he not know that natural selection was the cause of its development?
/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
thybigballs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 1 week ago
sigh terrible video
804gio 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry but the IC of the flagellum proposed here has already been shown to be wrong. If this was the vids best point then it's a failure. If you're showing this for historical reason then that's fine. If you're showing this under the assumption it is correct then that's a shame.
thybigballs 3 weeks ago
@thybigballs oh, and how has IC been shown to be wrong. What part would you take out or rather, what part would you start with and it still work as a propeller? this video although old, is still valid today. The truths of it still stand strong.
AndyG792 1 week ago
@AndyG792
"and how has IC been shown to be wrong"
Are you sure you're not talking about "ID", Intelligent Design?
Because Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum case for Intelligent design was proven wrong *in court*, he was practically laughed out of there by scientists who actually knew what they were doing. Behe was also relying on such logical fallacies as argument from ignorance and moving the goalpost.
founoe 1 week ago
@AndyG792 As shown in this video, 40 parts are removed and it is perfectly functional: /watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU ... And in this video I would like to emphasize what's said in particular, starting about the 2:30 mark: /watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4 ... As Founoe has pointed out, Michael Behe was indeed shown to be wrong in court. All the other experts on his side also jumped ship and decided not to testify. Wanna guess why? Anyway, only creationists believe it still stands. The rest of the world moved on.
thybigballs 1 week ago
The problem with intelligent design is you cannot claim something is intelligently designed until you give an example of something that is NOT intelligently designed. Just like you can't say a water is hot without defining what is cold.
Just because life occurs that doesn't mean it's intelligent.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr use your common sense. if you see a Boeing 747 in a junk yard, do you think someone designed it? or do you think it just happened to form 747 with engines and seats and all that after millions years ago? Time is not solution to everything. no matter how long time passes, i don't think Boeing 747 will be formed and fueled to fly. If you believe that evolution happens if millions of time passes? lol show one proof of evolution. I haven't seen any yet..
TheTruthRock 2 weeks ago
@TheTruthRock also use your common sense: you are taking a non-life example and you think it applies to life. That's like comparing apple to computer, not even apple to orange. Your analogy assumes non-life is just like life. Total fail. Try again.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@TheTruthRock What a tired argument. Why do I hear this from every damn creationist....oh why. This has nothing whatever to do with the processes that are observed by scientists. If you haven't seen evidence of evolution, you haven't been looking. Ever heard of a flu shot? Why isn't there just one fix-all shot? The virus evolves....and you talk about "common sense"...wow. How about this: show me where in the bible the diversity in the Galapagos was accounted for, much less even acknowledged.
getsupercharged 2 weeks ago
@TheTruthRock The sheer ignorance of your comment made me laugh, your understanding of the evolutionary theory is zero, go read a book
619stanley 1 week ago
@TheTruthRock Gosh, people are still talking about 747s and junkyards.
The reason this analogy fails is this:
747s are not the product of self-replicating molecules, and living things are.
Natural selection is not a chance process, so there is no claim that eyes or wings or elephants "just happened" - that would be an argument for creationism.
So you have created a fallacy, and are using the absurdity of that fallacy to attack a process that you originally mis-defined.
Way to go...
RationalThinker1859 1 week ago
@TheTruthRock Absolutely right!
AndyG792 1 week ago
So where's the proof? Also, the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been disproved
petegriswold 3 weeks ago
I do believe the Flagellum ahs already been disproven as intelligent design :P
Dickified 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Molecules to man? Really? Do you even know what a molecule is? Water (H2O) is a molecule, so water to man? Really? Go back to 5th grade.
Peaceeverbody 1 month ago
Same old.....same old......nothing........
wjarnock44 1 month ago
Any time someone says they can "disprove" evolution, just ask them why they haven't gotten their Nobel prize.
kossxf 1 month ago
@kossxf For the same reason Obama got one for not doing anything.
jerichosfumato 3 weeks ago
those complex biological systems SEEM to defy explanation. Primarily because he refuses to pay attention when someone explains the breakdown of the systems. This seems more like an "I don't understand it so I'm going to make my own explanation" kind of argument.
im1penguin 1 month ago
If he had a proof he would not turn off Like bar
newpro2227 1 month ago
"that observable facts tell us that the universe is young" - how young?
"evolution is therefor an unobserved impossibility" - please provide proof for this assertion.
jagara1 1 month ago
These people are not scientists - using the argument of irreducible complexity is a complete non sequitur. Basically they are stating fact by saying if you take away the leaves on a tree it will not function as a tree - well duh! That is no proof for intelligent design!
jagara1 1 month ago
Its really hard to take this seriously when the title of the video isn't even grammatically correct
KStateWildcat7 1 month ago
Fanatics... always funny.
warlord1981nl 1 month ago
@warlord1981nl lol
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
Its funny because in my school we had science, like biology (and my famous Mr Onion (the teacher)) and no Religious Education. its as if they didnt want us become religious. GO TEAM ATHEIST!!
heseldonia 1 month ago
What i dont understand is why there are so many videos on youtube that try to disprove evolution, and there are hardly any that support it? GO TEAM ATHEIST!!!
heseldonia 1 month ago
Exactly; Darwin was just watching the changes from the Outside. He never took into account that the inner design of the cells are complex machines that simply cannot come up out of nowhere, by chance. They have a purpose, and they can better be described as machines that were designed. This of course, has the implication that there is a Designer. Yes, that' the conclusion. So, what's the problem with that? Are you afraid to accept this implication? that Darwin was wrong?
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada Evolution is understood very well, has lots of evidence to back it up and is widely accepted by the best and brightest. Even if all abiogenesis theories are proven wrong, it wont impact on evolutionary theory. They are not the same. To say that evolution is wrong just because we don't know exactly how the first super primitive organisms were formed is really shitty logic. Just like the logic behind the argument, "We don't know exactly how this happened yet, therefore it was magic.".
Hungryturtlez 1 month ago
@Hungryturtlez
Of course evolution is understood; there are tons of papers on this theory. However, nobody has seen new organs being formed or in the middle of being formed, or new systems, or new anything. All we have seen is adaption, but nothing "new". If by adaptation, you mean evolution, sure; that's everywhere. But I am talking about "true" evolution: from simple cells, we see "new" beings being formed, new organs, new systems, new, new new. There is nothing new!
oopscanada 1 month ago
To make matters worse, you cannot assert that abiogenesis does not have an effect to the theory of evolution; of course it does. It's just a matter of backward iterations, going back to the root. As you go back to the previous versions of the organism, down to the molecular level, you cannot, as demonstrated in the video, "assume' that this was formed by evolution. You have to prove it. Nobody can't, as to put all items together, dna, rna, molecules, etc, in a single step? Nahh..
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada My point was that even if some unbelievably powerful super intelligent magical being outside of our reality did put life on this planet, there is still evidence that said life has evolved. There is evidence that life is continuing to evolve and it is very easily observable on the small scale. The only reason we haven't observed macro evolution is simply because it takes a hell of a long time for complex species to change significantly enough/for those small changes to accumulate.
Hungryturtlez 1 month ago
@oopscanada Also, is it really that hard to believe that living material, given millions or even more than a billion years, could accumulate into something that can replicate itself? I wonder how much longer people will be able to argue that its impossible, I'm sure that with all the successful experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life can easily be formed in nature from non living materials will eventually show how all these materials can come together.
Hungryturtlez 1 month ago
@oopscanada wait... so if I can't bring forth full blown proof that cannot be written off with a "god did it that way because he wanted to," then we have to ASSUME that everything was the work of the sky man? why do you get to make such a huge assumption when evolutionists can't make small ones in thinking very very similar organisms have a good chance of being related? What's important about those scientific assumptions is that not one test has been devised that disproves them.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin ; Actually, I don't like assumptions either. The point is that, *so far*, it is very likely that Darwin was wrong, and natural selection would not be able to explain how cellular components could have been formed to the basic level they need to be at to create new cells with different properties, *without* precoding it in the DNA. Therefore, if given the evidence, this points to a designer, then be it.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada I'm not sure how to explain this to you other than to say that there never will be anything but small changes of already functional systems. The chance of a big change being functional is almost nonexistent. You seem to recognize that animals adapt over time, but you apparently think that this doesn't count and that they won't accomplish any big changes over long periods of time.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin
the problem is that the changes that are seen in variations and adaptations of animals to the habitat, are not due to "new" code. That is, the code is there, it just needs some variable to be turned on or off. However, we do not see really *new* systems being formed. It's like if anything needed to be built is already built. Not to make this debate a religious one, but: "There is nothing new under the Sun". That is not hard to grasp.
oopscanada 1 month ago
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
pompeycharlie 1 month ago
Chimps became humans,
Humans became intelligent,
Intelligence became imagination,
Imagination became Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse and God.
pompeycharlie 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
HAHAHA! This is pathetic! This is a perfect example of humans comparing machines they have built with elements of the natural world. These so called scientists seem to think that because our intelligence creates machines, then it must also be an intelligence that created life HAHA!. I've read one or two comments stating that evolution is a theory. Wrong! It used to be a theory, but has now been proven to be fact. Just the same as which it is a FACT that God does not exist.
pompeycharlie 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
nobody ever said darwin's theory explains the origin of life. it explains variation among species and the branches of species in the evolutionary time line, not the beginning of the first cell.
DanSnyder101 1 month ago
@DanSnyder101 but the beginning of the first cell goes hand in hand with evolution theory, why try to hard to dodge it?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Actually, as far as evolution is concerned, it wouldn't matter whether life began via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some other method because it wouldn't change the vast amount of evidence confirming evolution and common descent. Yes, the two fields are related, but they are not dependent on the validity of each other at all.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Actually, that depends, in my view, they are dependent, once again, why try so hard to dodge it?
"the vast amount of evidence confirming evolution " define what you mean by evolution, micro or macro? (because variation within the kinds happen, but a molecule can never ever turn into a human because of no new genetic information.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "that depends, in my view, they are dependent" Your view is wrong then. They're no more dependent on each other than they're dependent on quantum theory or the theory of gravity.
"variation within the kinds happen" Define exactly what you mean by "kinds".
"...no new genetic information" Just stop. By any reasonable definition of the term, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Evolution needs billions of years and so does the big bang, you can't have neither if you prove creation, so disprove big bang, you automatically disprove evolution because they both need billions of years right?
Kinds: a chiauaua and a wolf are both dogs = dog (dog is a kind) a wolf can be breed to a chiauaua but not back because there is a loss of information.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Well, big bang proofs and disproofs are purely math heavy physics, so have fun with that. Also, as they are completely different phenomenon, I fail to see how disproving the big bang would disprove evolution.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin " I fail to see how disproving the big bang would disprove evolution." really`? Evolution (molecules to man) needs billions of years, and big bang claims billions of years, now if you could disprove billions of years, that would automatically disprove evolution. Still fail to see it?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight "By any reasonable definition of the term, increases in information have been observed to evolve."
noise and redundancy is not new information, which is what is needed for a molecule to turn into a man or a microbe to a microbiologist.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities. If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight yes, I agree with you, one can turn a wolf into a chiauau right? (by breeding) and if chiauau's were better off in nature(of course they are not, stupid example really :P ) they might of been looked upon as "more" information according to evolutionsists, but it's not more information, there is clearly a loss, a chiauau can not be breed back to a wolf because the information originally in the gene pool of the wolf has been lost.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "yes, I agree with you," You clearly don't, or you wouldn't have written that last post; I'm not even sure you understand what I said. All those increases in genetic information I just listed are ones that we've already observed, so you can't honestly claim that no new genetic "information" has evolved and still be defining the term in any meaningful way.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight "We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population"
that is not an ape turning into a human, this is always within the kinds, like I explained to you. "increase genetic material" do you mean more of the same type of information? thats redundancy.
" novel genetically-regulated abilities" could you give an example of one of these?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx "always within the kinds" Define exactly what you mean by "kinds".
"that is not an ape turning into a human" Except that's not an example of increased genetic information; you obviously don't even understand what it is you're talking about. There is no meaningful definition of the term "information" for which your claim is true.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
BTW, here's sources for all 4 examples I gave before: Lenski et al, American Naturalist, 1991; Brown et al, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 1998; Knox et al, Chemistry and Biology, 1996; and Prijambada et al, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1995.
Also, this video series is utter rubbish. Its little more than one long string of arguments from ignorance/incredulity and Gaps arguments.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Ok, explain the flaggelum without the borrowed components then
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "explain the flaggellum without the borrowed components" There you go dismissing out-of-hand a very common process; its clear you don't know the first thing about evolution or how it actually works. Supposedly IC systems like the flagellum can be (and have been) explained quite easily by processes like exaptation and the Mullerian two-step. The concept of irreducible complexity is itself little more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight read this: tinyurl(dot)com/77xe6ld
Ok, how does the mullerian two-step work? explain it to me please :) (because I can explain why evolution is wrong, whils you have so far just come up with hypothesis and statements which in no manner proves evolution, it's more like peaces in a puzzle which you cut and shape to fit your theory, because everyone in their right mind would see that the earth from the huge stars to the tiny cells is by design
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx You shouldn't get your information from places like CMI; they're not reliable. Case in point, the author of that article is a quack who got his degree from a diploma mill, and his sources don't even support his claims (eg the article by Pennisi et al made the exact opposite point).
"how does the mullerian two-step work" Google it. It's been shown that it can create "IC" systems through numerous examples and even programs like genetic algorithms.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
CONT "everyone in their right mind would see that the earth from the huge stars to the tiny cells is by design" That's nothing but subjective opinion, one which ignores the reasons why we're able to so easily recognize human design. No ID proponent has been able to come up with a valid method of objectively determining design.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight CONT "...and they are still scientists" No, they're fringe scientist with unproven claims, many of whom have apparently allowed their personal beliefs to blind them to the cherry-picking and other dishonest tactics needed to support these claims. My earlier comment refutes your attempted argument from authority by putting them into context.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight In which position are you to say which scientist is wrong and wright?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx "In which position are you to say which scientist is wrong and wright" Its not me that says they're wrong, its the scientific community which has shown they are. ID/creationism is the biological equivalent of a geologist claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, or anyone who supports Neal Adams's expanding earth theory. Even ID's own proponents have admitted that its not science.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight "That's nothing but subjective opinion" you probably believe the big bang right? yet you have no evidence for it? exept for the evidence YOU interpret as evidence for it, but it could be anything (like background radiation)
You must explain where Io (jupiters moon) has too much heat than it should have had if the earth (solar system) was billions of years old, because evolution needs billions of years, without it, it won't work
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx "you probably believe the big bang right? yet you have no evidence for it?" Except that that isn't the the same at all. We actually have verifiable evidence supporting the big bang, whereas IDers haven't even been able to come up with a single objective method of determining design, let alone found evidence of it
Your claim about Io is nothing but ignorance. I found the answer to that "problem" of yours in 1 min of research, and that its been known for some time.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight "Case in point, the author of that article is a quack who got his degree from a diploma mill, and his sources don't even support his claims (eg the article by Pennisi et al made the exact opposite point)." if one article says something different than another one, doesnt mean that the first one is wrong? that's like saying: chocolate has sugar in it, but no: this article says it doesnt, therefore it cant have sugar in it?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "if one article says something different than another one..." No, it doesn't; not all articles are created equal. I'll also point out that this was an article that Bergman CHOSE (albeit wrongly) to cite in support of his argument, not just some random paper which happened to contradict him. Bergman is a dishonest quack who knows little and has even less to support his beliefs about evolution.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.
M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.
Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986.
Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976.
M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.
B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.
this is Dr. Jerry Bergman's education, NOW please answer my question: in what position are you to say that he is wrong?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Most of his degrees are in psychology, the degree in "human biology" is from a now-defunct diploma mill, and the last ones are degrees in medicine. As far as biology and evolutionary theory is concerned, he is little better than a layman, so you can just stop with that attempted appeal to authority. And again, its not me saying that he's wrong, its the rest of the scientific community.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight oh for crying out loud!
He has a PhD in human BIOLOGY, are you ignoring this on purpose?
the rest of the scientific community? how come the planets have strong magnetic fields, when according to billions of years, they shouldnt have strong magnetic fields, and evolution needs billions of years
=> evolution is wrong, right?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "are you ignoring this on purpose" Look back at my last comment. Notice how I specifically mentioned how that degree's from a defunct degree mill? Now, explain exactly how I'm supposedly ignoring it.
"how come the planets have strong magnetic fields" Quit trying to change the topic. Your ignorance regarding astronomy and physics has little bearing on the topic we've been discussing, but the short answer is that you're wrong on pretty much every count. tinyurlDOTcom/7xol9rc
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight You said that the planets magnetic fields works as dynamoes, I explained why not, and then you all you have left is to call me ignorant ? lol!
however I stand corrected on the PhD in biology topic,
but change the subject? proving a young age, disproves evolution??
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "You said that the planets magnetic fields works as dynamoes" Actually, I didn't say any such thing. Also, your attempt to "explain why not" did so by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you (as is true of most YEC claims).
"but change the subject?" Yes, we weren't talking about the age of the earth or the universe, so trying to "prove a young age" is not only changing the subject, its not even in the same field of science anymore.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight But you can't denie that a young age of the earth disproves evolution whichever scientific field it comes from. You did say that they work as dynamoes, maybe that was someone else, i'm debating in plural here. But a strong magnetic field around the earth does prove that the earth is not billions of years old, thus disproving evolution too.
"by ignoring vast amounts of evidence which refutes you" this is quite the opposite of reality, even some SECULAR astronomers now agree that..
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight the big bang model doesn't fit with OBSERVED fact. My question to you would be: why do you ceep forming and strethching observed facts from reality to fit with your worldview instead of dismissing it when observation suggests otherwise?
be sure to check out the letter written to the scientific community written mostly by secular astronomers/scientists: cosmologystatement(dot)org
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "He has a PhD in human BIOLOGY"
SO!
That is not an argument to prove anything other than his having a piece of paper saying he is a PhD...
Let's be scientific and point to evidence.
jagara1 1 month ago
@jagara1 Its also not even a valid degree. He got it from a degree mill which has since been shut down.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I have a BSc and have worked with a number of people with PhDs and my general experience has been that the qualification actually impedes the person, who holds the degree, from being capable of anything practical...
jagara1 1 month ago
@jagara1 If you had payd some better attention: the argument was on how can someone with no actual intelligence on a subject say that one is right and one is wrong when it comes to scientific articles rebbuting eachother. AND: I stated that his PhD in Biology is from a disregarded school thus the: " I stand corrected" but that doesnt alter reality: that observable facts tell us that the universe is young and evolution is therefor an unobserved impossibility
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight there are a number of good reasons to believe that the magnetic fields of the planets are not dynamos, and are much different than that of the sun. The sun is so hot that most of its atoms are ionized—the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus in a state called “plasma.” Plasma is highly sensitive to magnetic fields, and interacts with them much more strongly than neutral gas.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight CONT. The turbulent motions within the sun are constantly generating chaotic bits of magnetism. However, the planets are not made of plasma and do not exhibit the kinds of motions we see in the sun. Additionally, in the process by which the sun is thought to reverse its magnetic field, the rotation axis should be almost exactly aligned with the magnetic poles.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight CONT. This is the case for the sun, but not for the planets. In fact, the planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields which are tilted severely relative to their respective rotation axes.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight lol, u must be some sort of kid, how old are you? like 16 ? lol, your probably not even that, like 12? u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists ? you havn't given ONE reason why they are wrong, either you are willingly ignorant or you are lying on purpose
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists" Since you chose to bring that up, I'll just point out that you're ignoring vastly more professors and scientists who don't support yourpseudoscientific belief; those from relevant fields who support ID make up less than 1% of all scientists in that field (a fact which should be a clear sign of it likely being a fringe belief and not valid science).
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight The argument that there are more evolutionary and big bang scientists doesn't alter reality, and they are still scientists, lol, how did you "disprove" my statement: "u do realize these are cambridge professors and scientists" with that comment?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight OH! and btw: why don't you actually watch the video? especially part 3 in the series is very good and pretty much disproves evolution right there.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx noooo... nothing is lost or gained in a chihuahua (genetically, it's lost almost all body mass) and with a few hundred year breeding program like the one that produced the chihuahua in the first place, you could in fact shape a population of them back into wolves. Furthermore just a few (5-10) generations would be enough time to see a significant shift toward wolf-like appearance and attitude, but the size would be a bit more of a chore to get back.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin Is this indeed fact? Where is the source for this "fact" that chihuahua's can be breed into wolves? (even if they can: this only proves that they had a common ancestor: a dog right? because mutations never adds genetic information to the genome, only noise and redundancy.)
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx redundancy is information that is now free to mutate and take on new roles without compromising the function it was redundant for. "noise" would still be information, it is just information with no usable translation yet. As any orchestra can demonstrate, you first must have the noise, and then you can go about organizing it.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin "As any orchestra can demonstrate, you first must have the noise, and then you can go about organizing it" well that kind of proves my point: you need SOMEONE to be able to put that noise into harmony and music, it doesnt happen by itself, not in a quadratrillion billion years ;)
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx You're taking an example to prove one point, and applying it to a different one to which it is not suited. I never said the whole process was exactly like an orchestra. I was just arguing that the "noise" was not useless, but was a starting point on which harmony can be built. I'm talking about evolution here, not the origin of species and I can link you to a flood of information proving that no outside interference is necessary to produce greater genetic diversity.
im1penguin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@im1penguin "You're taking an example to prove one point, and applying it to a different one to which it is not suited" Actually I thought it suited my point farely well, everything that is clearly desgined, needs a designer, but when it comes to the earth: oh no! no design, impossible!! lol, why? Wouldn't natural selection dicard the noise if it has no apparant function? define "greater genetic diversity"
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 1 week ago
@xXsakkelaoXx how are they dependent? how does the origin of the first cell change the fact that it then differentiated into every other living thing we know of.
You make it sound like there aren't mountains of evidence showing mechanisms by which additional genetic information can be added to an organism.
im1penguin 1 month ago
@im1penguin " showing mechanisms by which additional genetic information can be added to an organism." really there are'nt any other than mutations, and mutations can't in a billion years change a molecule to a man, the probability is'nt even there for it, and the fewest of mutations turn out beneficial (in a certain environment) and is not the kind of information that leads to the extreme complexity and variation from the cell, to the digestive system, to the entire human body.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@im1penguin "how are they dependent? how does the origin of the first cell change the fact that it then differentiated into every other living thing we know of." Ofcourse, one might argue that evolution happens, (although clearly it doesn't) but evolution as I see it, is the billions year change from molecules to man) this theory goes hand in hand with the big bang and abiogenesis: now if you could name one big group of people who believe abiogenesis but not evolution, i would be wrong.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
Kitzmiller vs dover trial where behe and ken miller went head to head on IC ,guess what miller won
Fishingbirb 1 month ago
You guys are assholes.You deny evolution wich is actually a scientific fact,and think an invisible man in the sky did it.How can you live with yourselves.
msc8472 1 month ago
@msc8472 You're a complete idiot. Evolution is a THEORY not fact. That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.
xSRGDarknessx 1 month ago
@xSRGDarknessx "Evolution is a THEORY not fact" Your failure to understand even the most basic terminology of a topic you've chosen to discuss is honestly just sad.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight How is that? I know excatly what a theory is. I'm not nearly as stupid as you'd like to be. But a theory is a theory. There are also problems with that theory. Problems like irreducible complexity. There are systems in organisms that have to have many parts in order to even function, let alone properly. Those systems would not exist if it were only evolution that formed them. They would have showed up in an organism as a peice of the puzzle, but not for long, as it would serve....
xSRGDarknessx 1 month ago
@xSRGDarknessx "I know excatly what a theory is" You say that, and yet you continue spout ignorance like demeaning it because it's "just a theory". You're clearly showing that you don't understand what a scientific theory actually is.
IC isn't a problem for evolution; its nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Besides, every single supposed example of an IC system that's been put forward has soon been refuted by people showing how it could have evolved.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight ....purpose. According to your THEORY of evolution, these systems can not exist. Yet they do. I'm not saying that evoultion is complete bogous. I know that it can cause changes in populations of organisms. Like height, and hair color. But I refuse to believe in a theory that has a whole in it nearly as big as the one in multiverses.
xSRGDarknessx 1 month ago
Reducible Complexity.
davewatcher 1 month ago
Behe was wrong and so is this deluded individual. The biggest issue is the falicy thata this person actually know what he is talking about. JUST WRONG.
teb0atoz 1 month ago
**While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific** Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
Behe is either a deluded fool or a deliberate liar
BlueAvantiGuy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
Sorry to say that, but since the Kitzmiller/Dover-Trial in 2005 there is absolutly no good excuse anymore to bring up the "irredusable complexity" of the flagelum anymore. This idea (at least for that particular example) has been proofen wrong. Anybody who still uses that argument is eather poorly informed or simply dishonest. And in the case of Behe, I'm sure that it's not simply a matter of ill-informed, since he took part in the trial. So, if he's still presenting that idea, he's a liar.
TheTruggsess 1 month ago
funny how theists try all pathetic and desperate means combined with lies to prove faulty theories about small comedian god
Impulse116 1 month ago
I love any video with a title along these lines because is video is the exact same - it's some person who has had the argument 1000 times in their head and they think their logic is just 100% gold and pure. So they post shit like this claiming that evolution has been proved/falsified, but the one question they never stop to ask: If this was remotely fucking true, then wouldn't evolution have just been proved one way or the other at this point? Wouldn't someone see this and be like...OMG...PROOF!
skdjhfkdhfa 2 months ago
What a pant-load of shit running down the leg of any Creationist retard who would believe this garbage.
DaGingerHeadMan 2 months ago
The irreducible complexity argument with bacterial flagellum has been completely answered and its evolution explained. The basic argument of this video is false.
teaohar2 2 months ago
@teaohar2 can you share the link or video please?
Nautilus987 2 months ago
@Nautilus987 Hi, I am not exactly sure what it is your are requesting, but check out the video with the title "Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum" and this one "The Evolution of the Flagellum". Once again, rather than drop into the choice of tagging all complex questions as god solved, do some simple checking out of things. Most have an answer. A few are simply waiting for discovery.
teaohar2 2 months ago
@teaohar2 thanks I'm watching it know
Nautilus987 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
Wow...I wonder how it feels to have spent your whole life working on your career only to end up a complete failure.
kjohnsen045 2 months ago
What a load of crap.
Al3xX420 2 months ago
@Lynnmist don't believe. get a good biology book, and learn.
google "irreducible complexity" and see for yourself, it's crap disguised as a theory, they were thrown out of court. michael J Behe's own university issued a statement disagreeing with him. don't take my or anybody else's word for it, find out for yourself. don't "believe."
peace
castelgandalf 2 months ago
Absolutely amazing! Glory to GOD!!! :)
Awake4Truth 2 months ago
boooooooooooooooooooooooo
MrGetthefuckup 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Cus I tell ya, I eat alot of pasta, and that has alot of salt and protien in it, I dont want to accidentaly create life while im spooling it onto a fork. OH ya, no the idea of it laying in a filthy pond for a billion years makes that so much more plausible.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
So why is it, that biology gets to be the one sinly exception to this obvious truth. It was designed ok? Thats the end of the damn discussion. Give me some proof of concept of something self replicating that was produced by entirely naturalistic forces, and you might have theory. Until then, don't give me any of that shit "just because we dont know how doesnt mean we wont ever find out", its common damn sense. If humans cant do it, and we know what to do, WHY can salt and protien do it?
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus Science falls short of explaining why we are here. The Bible on the other hand can explain everything.
preacherJ60 2 months ago
@preacherJ60 Don't say science, because Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD. It is these scientists who force atheism onto their subject, so science becomes its own religious entity. Science itself is our truest link, other than the Bible, to our creator. And these scientists would dare take it from us? No... no... there will be a retribution for this.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusCattus @MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusCattus @MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus You do realize that scientists with religious beliefs accept evolution as being correct too, right? That even prominent religious leaders say that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible?
"Science explains to us very clearly how we got here. Namely GOD." That's just not true; science doesn't say that God (or a god) is how we got here.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Sure, that doesn't make it right. Constant repitition does not make a hypothesis a fact. Show me evidence of evolution.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusCattus "that doesn't make it right" That's not what I was arguing though.
"Constant repitition does not make a hypothesis a fact" If that's all you think supports evolutionary theory, then you're more ignorant about this topic than I thought.
"Show me evidence of evolution." Would it really matter if I did? Could any amount of evidence truthfully change your mind? Would you accept the evidence presented, or would you just make hand-waving excuses to deny it?
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@preacherJ60 science falls short today but its making progress faster than ever. the bible is a shot in the dark with no intent of figuring anything out.
jonstephen1 2 months ago
@preacherJ60 "The Bible on the other hand can explain everything." except how to diagnose & treat skin conditions...not that it didn't try, as revealed in Leviticus 13 and 14. sadly, sacrificing birds isn't going to cure any skin disease. give me good, atheistic science any day over sacrificing animals.
castelgandalf 2 months ago
And I'll tell you right now, human beings have never to my knowledge constructed a robot that can construct another robot of nearly identical design, that can also construct another copy, and that copy can copy itself and so on and so forth. Humans have never done it, and even if we get to that chance, the amount of intelligence that went into it is unfathomable. So wtf makes you think throwing assorted parts into a pool for a million years will ever produce a robot that can self replicate?
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus That wouldn't be all that difficult, but it would be rather costly and pointless. We don't need robots that can produce other robots all by themselves because running an assembly line of robots is much more cost effective. Now, creating a new form of life, that would be a challenge... but equally pointless. That's not the kind of thing that would get much corporate support.
im1penguin 1 month ago
i stopped watching at 4:55. anybody who knows anything about biochemistry can call this douchebag's bluff. if hewas dissuaded from evolution because he read a book (and doesn't tell us what that book said to confince him), and especially because he began to study the cell's microscopic structure, then he was a shoddy biochemist to begin with. molecular and cellular biology was taught in highschool and college biology over 25 ago.
castelgandalf 2 months ago
@castelgandalf Explain.
Patience1138 2 months ago
@Patience1138
OK. around 4:55 they talk about the microscopic structure of the cell and refer to it as similar to machinery. no problem there. then they say these are recent discoveries. i call BS. the only recent thing about these structures is that some deluded person "recently" (the last decade) or so, got a hold of a biochemistry and "discovered" a flagellum or laminin and invented "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design" to sound sciency and fool the credulous.