The main evidence for creation? It is so obvious. Biological systems are mind-bogglingly complex. We do not even understand them, much less possess the ability to create them. They replicate, repair themselves, possess sentience, protect themselves. The DNA code is digital! It is based on a language! ALL of it must be working perfectly to exist at all. Random chance simply cannot create this. A universe and 13.7 billion years are not nearly enough. Evolution is based on religion, not science.
@alyosha24601 A crystal lattice is complex and highly ordered, yet we have a perfectly natural explanation for it. Complexity is not an argument for creationism, irreducible complexity would be, but there are no good examples, not to mention it takes time for humans to decipher all of biochemistry. Intelligence, let alone science are in their infancy. BTW, you didn't respond to vestigial traits. What was "God" thinking when he "designed" whales with a femur and pelvis?
@alyosha24601 in a perfect solar system on a perfect planet with perfect conditions, its impossible for life not to exist. it's not random, its what naturally happens
@Ltpeppers05 I'm not your enemy Ltpeppers05, but think about this statement you have just written: I've been an amateur astronomer 45 years and I know more about astronomy than you'll ever know. Your assertion has nothing to do with science. No one could know such a thing without testing on billions of planets. Your statement is 100% faith-based - it's religious. It's far more reasonable to conclude that, given the mind-boggling complexity of life, that it was designed. It's just too complex.
@alyosha24601 You keep making it abundantly clear for us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Complexity is not a metric of design, artificiality is a metric of design and life is comprised of components that react with themselves.
That embryonic structures grow differently clearly is the result of modifications of evolution.The same for homolog. parts, if they are there because as you say "they work", why do they serve completely different functions(EX:humerus of bats and whales)?Explain why bats share a niche closer to birds, but more homolog. parts and DNA with whales.Explain useless whale femur/pelvis.No trans.fossils?! Try A. afarensis.The DNA of any two order-members is closer than class-members-perfect alignment.
@rt36crazyfists I'm close to putting a video up about A. afarensis. It will make even an evolutionist laugh! It takes a perfect mutation chain (1200 base pairs per generation, 150,000 times in a row) to go from ape to man in 2.3 million years, assuming 6% difference in the DNA. Each generation requires a complete "miracle". Then find a mate. Why do you believe this happened? Peer pressure, that's why. If it weren't for the whole system pushing this bunk, scientists would laugh!
@alyosha24601 How can you deny the evidence of homologous parts? What are whales and bats doing with more homologous physiology and DNA than birds and bats? How can creationism square that?What people often don't realize is that evolution didn't have to happen the way it did. Every given event in the universe is unlikely, but once it has happened it is nonsense to question its likelihood.Today I saw the license plate: "GCW 9725", wow what are the odds of seeing that exact plate?!
@alyosha24601 There are no such thing as 'perfect mutations' mutations are random. It's not a directional process, this isn't quantum mechanics here, it's basic biology.
there are 120 million base pairs difference, the average mutation rate is 125 per zygote, we've been diverging for 5-7 million years, the average generation time has been 13 years (and thats being conservative)
Homologous parts are not evidence for evolution?! They are living transitional forms.We have dead ones too.The evidence from homology exists at every single taxonomic level and is perfectly aligned with DNA, because evolution actually happened as it turns out! "Many creatures have similar structures because they work!"Birds and bats both have wings but these are not homologous parts,only analogous, bats are mammals, birds are dinosaurs. Bats have more homologous parts with whales than birds.
@rt36crazyfists Homology is there occasionally; we can see that. Monkeys and racoons have hands and so do we. But your claim that it "exists at every single taxonomic level and is perfectly aligned with DNA" is totally off. This claim comes from the theory, and not from observation. In fact, there are NO - not just few - transitional fossils. None. And in every case you have similar LOOKING structures in the womb they develop into totally different parts. Evolution never happened
Let's examine your thinking, are you a religious person? Why do you assume creationism? What is the evidence of creation? Can it explain the appendix and other vestiges? Why do we have gills and tails in utero? Why is the gene for hair and nails the same for scales and feathers? Did God get lazy? Lets please see the scientific evidence for creation.
@rt36crazyfists Did you know the appendix that evolutionists used to teach us is useless has now been found to be essential to a BABY'S immune system? That the human "gills" grow into hearing mechanisms (I think I got that right, but they do NOT just disappear)? And, are you saying that an engine and a fork are both made of steel, so this proves an engine evolved from a fork? "No debate?" This is true! If a scientist or educator stands up and questions evolution in the USA, he's out of a job!
@alyosha24601 If a surgeon is in the abdomen for any reason, it is usually taken out because it is nothing but an liability (Appendicitis). Real good "design" that is. Not only are the genes for scales feathers and hair the same, birds, reptiles, and mammals have homologous parts. Bones structures, organs, facial features, brain structure etc.The gills become the pharynx, why not just make a pharynx?You didn't answer my Q, are you religious? What evidence is there for creation?
@rt36crazyfists I told you that the appendix has been discovered to be critical for BABIES. You've been lied to. It is not junk at all. Evolutionists made a poor assumption based on their worldview. Homologous structures prove nothing. Many creatures have similar structures because they work! If something happens to LOOK like something else, how is that more proof for evolution than creation? What we need to see is a history of transitions./ I don't want to talk about religion - stick to science
@alyosha24601 What a terrible design it is then, if it is critical to babies and then serves no purpose but to cause deadly infection. Of course it was useful in the digestion of raw meat before we evolved into H. sapiens sapiens. I would love to hear some scientific evidence for creation, but I am guessing the origin of your creationism is a "holy" book. Why would god create parasites? The simpler explanation, niches are filled via evolution. Occam's razor confirms evolution
@rt36crazyfists Think hard now - this is not a scientific statement. Why do you say this? The REAL foundation of your thinking is not scientific at all. You have been trained in a naturalistic presupposition. You have assumed that the world REQUIRES a natural origin. But this assumption is religious! Do you have the courage to chunk this requirement, then just follow the science - wherever it leads? (Finally, I think we both know there are no 2 billion-year-old sexual transitional "fossils")
@alyosha24601 Asking for evidence for ev. is like asking to see a mountain in Nepal. All ya have to do is open your eyes. I don't know which mountain to begin with, you have to align a few parts, mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection. The scientific evidence for nat.sel. IS everywhere(ex Galapagos finches).Artificial selection as well(ex dogs, which are relatives of wolves.+many breeds). Speciation happens in many ways look it up. There is no real debate, it is established.
@rt36crazyfists I believe in natural selection because we observe it in nature - but NS is removing information, not adding it. It is not "evolution". Did you know that the beak sizes of Galapagos finches return to normal after droughts end? They never tell you that, do they? Same with dogs if man's hand is removed, or, are you suggesting that dogs "evolve" to something new in 300 years? No way because there is no source of information! When the teach this in school, it is plain deceptive!
@alyosha24601 There are many more dog breeds today than just a century ago. Clearly evolution can occurred. There are many different finches on the Galapagos, in existence, with very specialized beaks. Fossil records, physiological characteristics, DNA and phylogeny all match up. Evolution is proven. It is as debatable as the sum of 2 and 2. There are pathogenic viruses, bacteria, protists, parasitic insects, there are >300 species of worms that infect only humans... some design.
@rt36crazyfists What makes you think that God should have created a paradise? & now we're into theology again. I don't want to talk about theology - stick to science. Why do evolutionists always want to jump into theology? It's because they start squirming when you pin down the DETAILS of evolution. They should - evolution is a state mandated creation myth. Try an experiment: stand up in a class and question evolution. Find out why anger is only part of the scientific method with this one topic!
@rt36crazyfists You've been suckered. Dog breeding removes information; it doesn't add it! See how you've been lied to? I was taught this, too! Or, are you really saying that all the genes to make a poodle appeared by chance in the last 200 years? MILLIONS OF DIFFERENCES! Fossil records? Why did the director of the largest fossil collection on earth say 15 years ago that he was not aware of a single transitional fossil! Not one! Taxonomy wouldn't even exist if evolution really occurred; bogus!
@rt36crazyfists That's all you have to say? Just like the evolutionary debaters. Debating evolutionists typically spend their time discussing "philosophy of science" or religion, while Youtube evolutionists typically just leave me insults. Meanwhile the creationists stick with science. Another phenomena that occurs is evolutionists' belief that they know what creationists believe, while in reality they almost never do. Evolution survives because it is a RELIGIOUS commitment; it is quack science.
@alyosha24601 Listen, I am a science student. You are clearly very misinformed if you think what this guy is saying is legitimate, he is very misleading to a layman. Evolution is not a religious commitment, it is a central scientific theory, the evidence for which is omnipresent. Please study some actual science. I'd recommend you some books but I get the impression you're not into reading. You're comments are painfully embarrassing to read. Creationism is anti-science.
@rt36crazyfists OK Mr. Science, lets drop the religious comments then. No insults, no comments about "uneducated", no appeals to consensus or "legitimate sources", etc. Just science. Please send me a scientific objection to creationism. Here's yours: How is it that sexual reproduction began? Millions (!) of perfectly complementary mutations in this transition: (80% of mutations are recessive, no one has ever discovered a beneficial mutation) ALL IN ONE GENERATION!!! Then they find each other!
@alyosha24601 My biology teacher replicated an experiment where frogs are chilled and the normal separation of two chromosomes does not occur in their gametes-they go from having 28 to 26 chromosomes-a new species is created literally overnight. Homologies are often shown in DNA of related species which shows that this sort of thing happens all the time. Evolution can be produced in the lab, and it is constantly produced in nature. No room left, please inform yourself. Evolution is established
@rt36crazyfists Changing the number of chromosomes does not introduce new information. If it did, Downs Syndrome kids could be little Einsteins. Where ARE the new species you claim are so "easy"? Your professor has not created a frog with a new infrared-receiving eye or a microwave bug-paralyzer. He has merely damaged frog DNA. The new "species" won't even be able to jump. // Now, you have dodged my sexual reproduction question. Please try to answer. Evolution is quack science & quack religion!
@alyosha24601 I don't think the frog DNA was "damaged", but I'll ask, Selection experiments have made fitter sp. in lab. I've researched origin of sex. repro quite a bit. -Several competing theories.Fossil records show that it arose ~2BYA. Either your creator god intervened halfway through Erths life hist. or a beneficial mutation occurred. If you take a screwdriver to a car and make a random turn, it is not likely to enhance it's performance, but 1/Bil is all nat. selec. requires.
@rt36crazyfists I agree that selection can make a fitter species. I do not agree that selection can produce information from nothing. You tell me, if your job at a car factory was rejecting all the imperfect vehicles, how many millions of years would it take you to produce an airplane? It will never happen because an airplane requires A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. New machines, new materials, a design, testing - and it ALL has to work, all at once, or you get a crash! Nat sel is only quality control.
It is a logical fallacy to say: "Well how else did we get here?" is your justification. As much as you want to believe otherwise, it's even more false to use the Bible as your basis for the notion of Creation. No matter what, the Judeo-Christian God can never be logically said to have created the world.
At best, you can consider it a possibility that a being of much higher dimension created this reality. Even then, your heathen religion is wrong.
@pleasereason So, a "higher dimension" may have created the universe, but surely no Christian God. I see. You speak with such authority. As for me, I believe the fulfilled prophecies and mathematical structure in the Bible speak for themselves. Man still cannot achieve such feats, so I prefer to see such things as the signature of God. I have seen three miracles with my own eyes. I can no longer pretend there is no God. Good luck to you.
@alyosha24601 I get it now. You don't even understand what I'm saying do you? You are denying a basic truth because it makes you uncomfortable. You are afraid to entertain any notion that threatens your belief. You pretend to have this insightful scientific mind by posting these worthless videos, but really you don't understand ANY of it do you?
Fulfilled prophecies occur in all cultures everywhere, because people see what they want to. What makes your prophecy more correct than theirs?
@alyosha24601 And no, I didn't say a "higher dimension" created the universe. That doesn't make sense. The fact that you say that is how I know that you don't actually understand the points I am making. You will probably insist that you do, but your statement proves otherwise.
I don't speak with authority. I speak with understanding. I've been like you. I was for years. But when I was HONEST with myself I knew the religion was a lie, and one that has caused much more bad than good.
@alyosha24601 You Christians are so defensive against science and logic because it challenges your beliefs and makes you doubt things that are obviously insane. Like Noah's Ark for instance. Do you really think that a man fit two of every species on all continents on a boat? Every tiny variation, every one of the vast number of finch species. (and that plants survived salt water on their own)?
Creationists: There's something you need to understand if you are going to step into the realm of objectivity. Even if you prove evolution to be false, the strongest claim you can make is that you don't know where we came from. Creationism is an idea that can never be proven nor dis-proven. This is why it is not a science. You just are not logically justified in saying that a being of infinite and perfect power created us.
@pleasereason Not so. The mind-boggling complexity of life requires some kind of creator. Self reproducing, fragile, error correcting, miniaturized, digital (not analog!) codes do not create themselves. Now, why would an atheist become a dedicated YouTube evangelist with the one life he believes he has? The real reason is because he is bitter with God? True?
@alyosha24601 I agree on one thing. It is mind-boggling. But your statement of this just proves my point as to how primitive this belief is. You are saying this: "I don't understand how things came to be, therefore I KNOW it must be God." This is a foundation-less, logically invalid statement. If you have faith/BELIEVE in God then fine. But even then, the statement is invalid. Regardless of what anyone including myself believes, there is no way around that. It is false.
@alyosha24601 And since you obviously don't understand evolution itself, no one is claiming that any living thing created itself, or that it is 'self producing". These aren't even your words are they? You heard the argument from some creation theorist, and since it coincided with what you wanted to believe you accepted it as fact. A very human thing to do, but it still doesn't negate the actual facts of the matter.
@alyosha24601 I mean you are actually positing the claim that God created a universe with BILLIONS of GALAXIES that hold BILLIONS OF STARS that harbor still more planets and moons. Yet, the only reason he created any of it was so that he could put US here on this one planet to fuck things up, rape and murder each other, destroy his gift? Not only that but he KNEW ahead of time that we were going to fuck up, and go to hell to suffer, and he made us anyways because he loves us.
@alyosha24601 If that doesn't sound insane to you, it's because you're DELUSIONAL. The Bible says that God wagered a man's faith against Satan to prove a point. Job was so successful and happy so of course he was cool with God. But God, simply to prove that he could, destroyed and murdered every thing and everyone that Job cared about.
If Job had broken, he'd have gone to hell for the sin of being tortured by his own God and giving up. That is not love even by the Bible's definition.
@alyosha24601 So with Job we see that God does something that an evil human would do. He destroys a man's life out of pride, to prove to the devil that Job really loves him. God knew, he did not have to prove anything. Love does not boast. So, we have two possibilities. 1) This was obviously made up by a MAN because it shows man projected on to God (hopefully you know what 'projection' means). 2) God is a bastard who would destroy your life even if you have faith in him just because he can.
@alyosha24601 That doesn't sound like a God I want to be close to. See the Bible is full of little gems like that.
On to your second question. I assume it's directed at me. One, I don't believe I only have one life. This is where you really start to show your close-mindedness and ego-centrism. You assume that since I don't share YOUR belief, that I must be some evil atheist who "doesn't believe in anything."
@alyosha24601 The type of ignorant thinking occurs because in order to remain a Christian, you must shut your mind off to certain modes of thought. In fact your mode of thinking, along with the rest of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is exactly the type of thinking that caused witch hunts, or the persecution in the middle east. You probably still won't even be able to see it now when you yourself are doing it, because you people are fools who historically turn to hate before reason.
@alyosha24601 This brings me to my reply to your last question. The answer is of course (as you well know) NO. It would be hard for me to be bitter with a God I don't believe exists, don't you think? Even more ego-centrism for you. Very common with Christians, Muslims and Jews alike.
The reason I do what I do, is that people like you spread a disease. Not faith, but the dogma and close mindedness you carry with you. I mean do you even realize how much you people have held humans back?
@alyosha24601 You people fight tooth and nail to deny things that shouldn't even challenge your faith! You haven't changed in centuries.
The Church outlawed all books that made arguments favoring Heliocentrism. That is YOUR religion denying that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and the ban wasn't lifted until the mid-early 1700s. It started again with the theory of Evolution. I mean it's undeniable and you claw at it with pseudo-science and crazy theories.
@alyosha24601 You deny this existence of fucking dinosaurs, even though there is an insurmountable amount of evidence. Or you come up with some insane theory to explain it while leaving the Bible fully intact, attempting to mold science to fit a single book.
YOU EVEN DENY BOOKS OF THE GOSPELS THAT WERE DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE BIBLE BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT THE DESIRED STORY.
So yes, I'm bitter. Because people like YOU are really, really bad for our species.
@alyosha24601 Please understand. Science isn't your enemy, and anyone who treats it as such is doing evil to the world. I have several Christian friends, who would deny nothing I have said to you, because they do not deny logic. They still have their beliefs, but they understand that the Bible is very fallible because it was composed by men long after Christ's death. Early Christians even believed in re-incarnation.
@alyosha24601 Other Early Christians even acknowledged that their religion was nothing more than a different version of the worship of the pagan Sun God. In fact, historically speaking, there is really no denying that that is what happened. There are literally dozens of old pagan sun Gods that have the EXACT same story as Jesus. Star in the East, three kings, 12 disciples, died on the cross, raised three days later.
You people are so repressed from true knowledge because otherwise you'd stop.
@alyosha24601 There are texts from famous Christian apologetics that say exactly, without a chance of misinterpretation, that their worship of Jesus is the same as the worship of Perseus, Mythra, Horus, etc. Just look up those Gods (and do it on an objective cite, not a Christian one). Even Thomas Paine wrote about this is Age of Reason. He was a founding father who called Christianity of parody of the worship of the sun, where they worship a 'man' rather than a personification of the sun.
@alyosha24601 In fact, there is actually a great deal of evidence that makes it much more reasonable to assume that these 'gods' including Jesus were actually aliens, considering the size of the universe and and exact same stories of knowledge bringers from the stars in all cultures. Different continents, same descriptions, same knowledge beyond their technology, same stars named as the gods' home (Physical evidence, not Biblical 'evidence' although there is some of that too like in Ezekiel. )
@alyosha24601 So yes, you could say that I'm bitter, but not at God. Because even if your God were real, he wouldn't want you ppl to act like you do. There is so much more to the story than what is in your little book.
And as long as your morons are out in the world plugging your ears to reason while spewing ignorance and hate i'll be challenging you at least so that other people don't fall into your trap of ignorance.
@alyosha24601 I hope you take the time to read ALL of this, but I highly doubt you will. Hell you will probably even delete it all.
I also hope you realize that Evolution, aside from being undeniable, doesn't actually challenge the existence of God. The only reason to deny it is if you are afraid of its implications, and that isn't a reason it's cowardice. So please, just try actually reading about it instead of only reading why it isn't true. You aren't just fooling yourself, but others too.
@pleasereason Why don't you write a book so everyone can benefit from your genius? I'm sure all of humanity would benefit from your intelligent, well thought out ideas. There has probably never been anything like it before.
@pleasereason So, you want a real response? You're not really an atheist. A real atheist wouldn't spend 2 seconds with such an argument. Your real motivation is bitterness. You are at war with God because he didn't give you something you thought you deserved. Of course you will deny this, but that is my response! Have a good life, because all too soon you'll have to deal with the entity you've decided is your enemy. Cheers!
@alyosha24601 LOL I'm not really sure which argument makes you so uncomfortable that you would say that, but it obviously doesn't matter because you are prepared to delude yourself as much as necessary to harbor your belief.
Do you just assume that anyone who doesn't believe in YOUR god is actually just "at war" with god? You see with me, I just see the huge inherent logical fallacy with the notion of your God. You have to ignore it, I don't know how because it's like denying the sky is blue.
@pleasereason uses words like: "realm of objectivity" but put yourself in my shoes. I have seen at least three undeniable miracles in my lifetime - actual violations of physical law. I can never go back to thinking this is a purely naturalistic world. OK, well, let's part company. Good luck to you.
@alyosha24601 Just because you can't explain something, doesn't mean God is the explanation. That reasoning is EXACTLY how primitive man created the notion of God. We know can only perceive 1/1,000,000th of what is PHYSICAL AND REAL.
If we went back in time where Kings and armies employed your logic, and showed people soda and computers, we'd be executed as evil sorcerers...BY THE CHURCH. Some things must never change.
@alyosha24601 And like I said, faith isn't what I take issue with. I have no problem with your faith, so long as you acknowledge that it is nothing more than that. My problem is that you ppl are always on a Crusade Against Science, as if explaining the world is EVIL if it contradicts a book written by HUMANS with very limited knowledge 2000 years ago. That has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with fear and DOGMA.
You people hate what you fear, and fear what you don't understand.
@alyosha24601 And finally, what exactly were this "miracles" that made you convinced that dinosaur bones should just be ignored so we can think the Earth is only 6000 years old. The reason I ask is you seem convinced that YOU are somehow special enough to have witnessed 3 miracles, when 99.99% of people NEVER see one.
I think you wanted to think of those things as miracles, so you did. And again that's cool up to the point that you disregard facts to believe in them.
@pleasereason I'm quite happy to leave the evolution discussing purely in the realm of science. I can't win a theological debate, but I think I can win a scientific one. For instance, did you know that every single dinosaur bone we carbon date yields an age? With a half-life of 5730 years, this is absolute proof of a young earth. But, as usual, this result will only be ignored, because of a (religious) naturalistic presupposition. So please, it's evolutionists that resist real science, not us.
@alyosha24601 I know I seem a very angry person and I'm sure that in your mind that gives you all the more excuse to ignore me. But I also KNOW that you don't actually believe I'm just bitter with God.
I know from my own experience and that of others' that Christianity MAKES you ignorant because you HAVE to ignore reason to keep your belief. After all, renouncing Christ is eternally damning. I remember being terrified and crying when I realized i believe in evolution.
@pleasereason You're telling ME how *I* think. I can't force you to see things my way of course, but please try to believe what I myself think: 1) The religion of the Bible gives me FREEDOM, not bondage 2) Yes, I do believe that deep down you are bitter, but of course I could be wrong, and 3) Science, reason, and theology seem perfectly complementary to me. I'm not denying reason, I just draw different conclusions, as would be expected. I believe the universe centers around its creator - not us.
@alyosha24601 It wasn't because I knew i was being sinful. It was because I could NOT deny my belief anymore than I could deny that 1+1=2, and I had been fear mongered at that that meant I was going to hell (because I realized the Bible was factually wrong/inconsistent).
"Believe or burn" is not a religion of Love. It's a religion of Fear, no matter how you slice it.
I'll leave you with that, but I really hope you free yourself from those shackles one day.
@wmilleiv You may be able to stick your paw in the wrong glove, but a protein is much less forgiving. If you attempt to violate chirality, not only will the molecule not fit/work, but it will actually prove toxic to life. A more appropriate analogy would be trying to put a left-handed screw into a right-handed thread. Can you do that uncomfortably too? Now, go to your mommy: go learn some chemistry and some manners. Evolution is quack science.
@alyosha24601 I love how deluded you are. You do understand that the notion of a creator and Evolution are compatible right? Or was that notion just put in my head by Satan?
We now know that biological compounds are abundant outside of this planet.
At the end of the day, it is simply much more likely that life evolved rather than being snapped into existence by a magical wizard who is self-contradictory. Even if evolution is false, the only quack idea is the one involving magic: yours.
These deceptions are in current biology textbooks all around the world - at least one evolutionist is patently dishonest. Evolution is the modern state mandated creation myth; it's "quack science!"
@alyosha24601 Wrong as usual. The Miller experiment was actually successful in producing amino acids and at least one purine base. To say that it's supposed to detail the entirety of the origin of life is dishonest, but you've made it clear you have no problem with that.
@CreationismMirrored Miller himself today says his experiment was contrived and "dishonest". (Not in the moral sense, but scientifically - Miller is a scientist with integrity because he admits the experiment was bogus. He had to keep oxygen out of his mix and trap out all the amino acids because all the tar destroyed them immediately. But I guess you know more than him, Mr. Fake Professor?) Now keep off my channel you spammer.
The main evidence for creation? It is so obvious. Biological systems are mind-bogglingly complex. We do not even understand them, much less possess the ability to create them. They replicate, repair themselves, possess sentience, protect themselves. The DNA code is digital! It is based on a language! ALL of it must be working perfectly to exist at all. Random chance simply cannot create this. A universe and 13.7 billion years are not nearly enough. Evolution is based on religion, not science.
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 A crystal lattice is complex and highly ordered, yet we have a perfectly natural explanation for it. Complexity is not an argument for creationism, irreducible complexity would be, but there are no good examples, not to mention it takes time for humans to decipher all of biochemistry. Intelligence, let alone science are in their infancy. BTW, you didn't respond to vestigial traits. What was "God" thinking when he "designed" whales with a femur and pelvis?
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 in a perfect solar system on a perfect planet with perfect conditions, its impossible for life not to exist. it's not random, its what naturally happens
Ltpeppers05 2 weeks ago
@Ltpeppers05 I'm not your enemy Ltpeppers05, but think about this statement you have just written: I've been an amateur astronomer 45 years and I know more about astronomy than you'll ever know. Your assertion has nothing to do with science. No one could know such a thing without testing on billions of planets. Your statement is 100% faith-based - it's religious. It's far more reasonable to conclude that, given the mind-boggling complexity of life, that it was designed. It's just too complex.
alyosha24601 2 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 You keep making it abundantly clear for us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Complexity is not a metric of design, artificiality is a metric of design and life is comprised of components that react with themselves.
TheAggressionScale 2 weeks ago
That embryonic structures grow differently clearly is the result of modifications of evolution.The same for homolog. parts, if they are there because as you say "they work", why do they serve completely different functions(EX:humerus of bats and whales)?Explain why bats share a niche closer to birds, but more homolog. parts and DNA with whales.Explain useless whale femur/pelvis.No trans.fossils?! Try A. afarensis.The DNA of any two order-members is closer than class-members-perfect alignment.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists I'm close to putting a video up about A. afarensis. It will make even an evolutionist laugh! It takes a perfect mutation chain (1200 base pairs per generation, 150,000 times in a row) to go from ape to man in 2.3 million years, assuming 6% difference in the DNA. Each generation requires a complete "miracle". Then find a mate. Why do you believe this happened? Peer pressure, that's why. If it weren't for the whole system pushing this bunk, scientists would laugh!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 How can you deny the evidence of homologous parts? What are whales and bats doing with more homologous physiology and DNA than birds and bats? How can creationism square that?What people often don't realize is that evolution didn't have to happen the way it did. Every given event in the universe is unlikely, but once it has happened it is nonsense to question its likelihood.Today I saw the license plate: "GCW 9725", wow what are the odds of seeing that exact plate?!
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 There are no such thing as 'perfect mutations' mutations are random. It's not a directional process, this isn't quantum mechanics here, it's basic biology.
there are 120 million base pairs difference, the average mutation rate is 125 per zygote, we've been diverging for 5-7 million years, the average generation time has been 13 years (and thats being conservative)
The difference falls well within the range.
TheAggressionScale 2 weeks ago
Homologous parts are not evidence for evolution?! They are living transitional forms.We have dead ones too.The evidence from homology exists at every single taxonomic level and is perfectly aligned with DNA, because evolution actually happened as it turns out! "Many creatures have similar structures because they work!"Birds and bats both have wings but these are not homologous parts,only analogous, bats are mammals, birds are dinosaurs. Bats have more homologous parts with whales than birds.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists Homology is there occasionally; we can see that. Monkeys and racoons have hands and so do we. But your claim that it "exists at every single taxonomic level and is perfectly aligned with DNA" is totally off. This claim comes from the theory, and not from observation. In fact, there are NO - not just few - transitional fossils. None. And in every case you have similar LOOKING structures in the womb they develop into totally different parts. Evolution never happened
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
Let's examine your thinking, are you a religious person? Why do you assume creationism? What is the evidence of creation? Can it explain the appendix and other vestiges? Why do we have gills and tails in utero? Why is the gene for hair and nails the same for scales and feathers? Did God get lazy? Lets please see the scientific evidence for creation.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists Did you know the appendix that evolutionists used to teach us is useless has now been found to be essential to a BABY'S immune system? That the human "gills" grow into hearing mechanisms (I think I got that right, but they do NOT just disappear)? And, are you saying that an engine and a fork are both made of steel, so this proves an engine evolved from a fork? "No debate?" This is true! If a scientist or educator stands up and questions evolution in the USA, he's out of a job!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 If a surgeon is in the abdomen for any reason, it is usually taken out because it is nothing but an liability (Appendicitis). Real good "design" that is. Not only are the genes for scales feathers and hair the same, birds, reptiles, and mammals have homologous parts. Bones structures, organs, facial features, brain structure etc.The gills become the pharynx, why not just make a pharynx?You didn't answer my Q, are you religious? What evidence is there for creation?
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists I told you that the appendix has been discovered to be critical for BABIES. You've been lied to. It is not junk at all. Evolutionists made a poor assumption based on their worldview. Homologous structures prove nothing. Many creatures have similar structures because they work! If something happens to LOOK like something else, how is that more proof for evolution than creation? What we need to see is a history of transitions./ I don't want to talk about religion - stick to science
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 What a terrible design it is then, if it is critical to babies and then serves no purpose but to cause deadly infection. Of course it was useful in the digestion of raw meat before we evolved into H. sapiens sapiens. I would love to hear some scientific evidence for creation, but I am guessing the origin of your creationism is a "holy" book. Why would god create parasites? The simpler explanation, niches are filled via evolution. Occam's razor confirms evolution
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
Nothing in biology makes sense EXCEPT in light of evolution
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists Think hard now - this is not a scientific statement. Why do you say this? The REAL foundation of your thinking is not scientific at all. You have been trained in a naturalistic presupposition. You have assumed that the world REQUIRES a natural origin. But this assumption is religious! Do you have the courage to chunk this requirement, then just follow the science - wherever it leads? (Finally, I think we both know there are no 2 billion-year-old sexual transitional "fossils")
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Asking for evidence for ev. is like asking to see a mountain in Nepal. All ya have to do is open your eyes. I don't know which mountain to begin with, you have to align a few parts, mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection. The scientific evidence for nat.sel. IS everywhere(ex Galapagos finches).Artificial selection as well(ex dogs, which are relatives of wolves.+many breeds). Speciation happens in many ways look it up. There is no real debate, it is established.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists I believe in natural selection because we observe it in nature - but NS is removing information, not adding it. It is not "evolution". Did you know that the beak sizes of Galapagos finches return to normal after droughts end? They never tell you that, do they? Same with dogs if man's hand is removed, or, are you suggesting that dogs "evolve" to something new in 300 years? No way because there is no source of information! When the teach this in school, it is plain deceptive!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 There are many more dog breeds today than just a century ago. Clearly evolution can occurred. There are many different finches on the Galapagos, in existence, with very specialized beaks. Fossil records, physiological characteristics, DNA and phylogeny all match up. Evolution is proven. It is as debatable as the sum of 2 and 2. There are pathogenic viruses, bacteria, protists, parasitic insects, there are >300 species of worms that infect only humans... some design.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists has occurred*
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists What makes you think that God should have created a paradise? & now we're into theology again. I don't want to talk about theology - stick to science. Why do evolutionists always want to jump into theology? It's because they start squirming when you pin down the DETAILS of evolution. They should - evolution is a state mandated creation myth. Try an experiment: stand up in a class and question evolution. Find out why anger is only part of the scientific method with this one topic!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists You've been suckered. Dog breeding removes information; it doesn't add it! See how you've been lied to? I was taught this, too! Or, are you really saying that all the genes to make a poodle appeared by chance in the last 200 years? MILLIONS OF DIFFERENCES! Fossil records? Why did the director of the largest fossil collection on earth say 15 years ago that he was not aware of a single transitional fossil! Not one! Taxonomy wouldn't even exist if evolution really occurred; bogus!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
what a turd
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists That's all you have to say? Just like the evolutionary debaters. Debating evolutionists typically spend their time discussing "philosophy of science" or religion, while Youtube evolutionists typically just leave me insults. Meanwhile the creationists stick with science. Another phenomena that occurs is evolutionists' belief that they know what creationists believe, while in reality they almost never do. Evolution survives because it is a RELIGIOUS commitment; it is quack science.
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Listen, I am a science student. You are clearly very misinformed if you think what this guy is saying is legitimate, he is very misleading to a layman. Evolution is not a religious commitment, it is a central scientific theory, the evidence for which is omnipresent. Please study some actual science. I'd recommend you some books but I get the impression you're not into reading. You're comments are painfully embarrassing to read. Creationism is anti-science.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists OK Mr. Science, lets drop the religious comments then. No insults, no comments about "uneducated", no appeals to consensus or "legitimate sources", etc. Just science. Please send me a scientific objection to creationism. Here's yours: How is it that sexual reproduction began? Millions (!) of perfectly complementary mutations in this transition: (80% of mutations are recessive, no one has ever discovered a beneficial mutation) ALL IN ONE GENERATION!!! Then they find each other!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 My biology teacher replicated an experiment where frogs are chilled and the normal separation of two chromosomes does not occur in their gametes-they go from having 28 to 26 chromosomes-a new species is created literally overnight. Homologies are often shown in DNA of related species which shows that this sort of thing happens all the time. Evolution can be produced in the lab, and it is constantly produced in nature. No room left, please inform yourself. Evolution is established
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists Changing the number of chromosomes does not introduce new information. If it did, Downs Syndrome kids could be little Einsteins. Where ARE the new species you claim are so "easy"? Your professor has not created a frog with a new infrared-receiving eye or a microwave bug-paralyzer. He has merely damaged frog DNA. The new "species" won't even be able to jump. // Now, you have dodged my sexual reproduction question. Please try to answer. Evolution is quack science & quack religion!
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 I don't think the frog DNA was "damaged", but I'll ask, Selection experiments have made fitter sp. in lab. I've researched origin of sex. repro quite a bit. -Several competing theories.Fossil records show that it arose ~2BYA. Either your creator god intervened halfway through Erths life hist. or a beneficial mutation occurred. If you take a screwdriver to a car and make a random turn, it is not likely to enhance it's performance, but 1/Bil is all nat. selec. requires.
rt36crazyfists 3 weeks ago
@rt36crazyfists I agree that selection can make a fitter species. I do not agree that selection can produce information from nothing. You tell me, if your job at a car factory was rejecting all the imperfect vehicles, how many millions of years would it take you to produce an airplane? It will never happen because an airplane requires A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. New machines, new materials, a design, testing - and it ALL has to work, all at once, or you get a crash! Nat sel is only quality control.
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
It is a logical fallacy to say: "Well how else did we get here?" is your justification. As much as you want to believe otherwise, it's even more false to use the Bible as your basis for the notion of Creation. No matter what, the Judeo-Christian God can never be logically said to have created the world.
At best, you can consider it a possibility that a being of much higher dimension created this reality. Even then, your heathen religion is wrong.
pleasereason 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@pleasereason So, a "higher dimension" may have created the universe, but surely no Christian God. I see. You speak with such authority. As for me, I believe the fulfilled prophecies and mathematical structure in the Bible speak for themselves. Man still cannot achieve such feats, so I prefer to see such things as the signature of God. I have seen three miracles with my own eyes. I can no longer pretend there is no God. Good luck to you.
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 I get it now. You don't even understand what I'm saying do you? You are denying a basic truth because it makes you uncomfortable. You are afraid to entertain any notion that threatens your belief. You pretend to have this insightful scientific mind by posting these worthless videos, but really you don't understand ANY of it do you?
Fulfilled prophecies occur in all cultures everywhere, because people see what they want to. What makes your prophecy more correct than theirs?
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 And no, I didn't say a "higher dimension" created the universe. That doesn't make sense. The fact that you say that is how I know that you don't actually understand the points I am making. You will probably insist that you do, but your statement proves otherwise.
I don't speak with authority. I speak with understanding. I've been like you. I was for years. But when I was HONEST with myself I knew the religion was a lie, and one that has caused much more bad than good.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 You Christians are so defensive against science and logic because it challenges your beliefs and makes you doubt things that are obviously insane. Like Noah's Ark for instance. Do you really think that a man fit two of every species on all continents on a boat? Every tiny variation, every one of the vast number of finch species. (and that plants survived salt water on their own)?
pleasereason 1 month ago
Creationists: There's something you need to understand if you are going to step into the realm of objectivity. Even if you prove evolution to be false, the strongest claim you can make is that you don't know where we came from. Creationism is an idea that can never be proven nor dis-proven. This is why it is not a science. You just are not logically justified in saying that a being of infinite and perfect power created us.
pleasereason 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@pleasereason Not so. The mind-boggling complexity of life requires some kind of creator. Self reproducing, fragile, error correcting, miniaturized, digital (not analog!) codes do not create themselves. Now, why would an atheist become a dedicated YouTube evangelist with the one life he believes he has? The real reason is because he is bitter with God? True?
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 I agree on one thing. It is mind-boggling. But your statement of this just proves my point as to how primitive this belief is. You are saying this: "I don't understand how things came to be, therefore I KNOW it must be God." This is a foundation-less, logically invalid statement. If you have faith/BELIEVE in God then fine. But even then, the statement is invalid. Regardless of what anyone including myself believes, there is no way around that. It is false.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 And since you obviously don't understand evolution itself, no one is claiming that any living thing created itself, or that it is 'self producing". These aren't even your words are they? You heard the argument from some creation theorist, and since it coincided with what you wanted to believe you accepted it as fact. A very human thing to do, but it still doesn't negate the actual facts of the matter.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 I mean you are actually positing the claim that God created a universe with BILLIONS of GALAXIES that hold BILLIONS OF STARS that harbor still more planets and moons. Yet, the only reason he created any of it was so that he could put US here on this one planet to fuck things up, rape and murder each other, destroy his gift? Not only that but he KNEW ahead of time that we were going to fuck up, and go to hell to suffer, and he made us anyways because he loves us.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 If that doesn't sound insane to you, it's because you're DELUSIONAL. The Bible says that God wagered a man's faith against Satan to prove a point. Job was so successful and happy so of course he was cool with God. But God, simply to prove that he could, destroyed and murdered every thing and everyone that Job cared about.
If Job had broken, he'd have gone to hell for the sin of being tortured by his own God and giving up. That is not love even by the Bible's definition.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 So with Job we see that God does something that an evil human would do. He destroys a man's life out of pride, to prove to the devil that Job really loves him. God knew, he did not have to prove anything. Love does not boast. So, we have two possibilities. 1) This was obviously made up by a MAN because it shows man projected on to God (hopefully you know what 'projection' means). 2) God is a bastard who would destroy your life even if you have faith in him just because he can.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 That doesn't sound like a God I want to be close to. See the Bible is full of little gems like that.
On to your second question. I assume it's directed at me. One, I don't believe I only have one life. This is where you really start to show your close-mindedness and ego-centrism. You assume that since I don't share YOUR belief, that I must be some evil atheist who "doesn't believe in anything."
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 The type of ignorant thinking occurs because in order to remain a Christian, you must shut your mind off to certain modes of thought. In fact your mode of thinking, along with the rest of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is exactly the type of thinking that caused witch hunts, or the persecution in the middle east. You probably still won't even be able to see it now when you yourself are doing it, because you people are fools who historically turn to hate before reason.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 This brings me to my reply to your last question. The answer is of course (as you well know) NO. It would be hard for me to be bitter with a God I don't believe exists, don't you think? Even more ego-centrism for you. Very common with Christians, Muslims and Jews alike.
The reason I do what I do, is that people like you spread a disease. Not faith, but the dogma and close mindedness you carry with you. I mean do you even realize how much you people have held humans back?
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 You people fight tooth and nail to deny things that shouldn't even challenge your faith! You haven't changed in centuries.
The Church outlawed all books that made arguments favoring Heliocentrism. That is YOUR religion denying that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and the ban wasn't lifted until the mid-early 1700s. It started again with the theory of Evolution. I mean it's undeniable and you claw at it with pseudo-science and crazy theories.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 You deny this existence of fucking dinosaurs, even though there is an insurmountable amount of evidence. Or you come up with some insane theory to explain it while leaving the Bible fully intact, attempting to mold science to fit a single book.
YOU EVEN DENY BOOKS OF THE GOSPELS THAT WERE DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE BIBLE BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT THE DESIRED STORY.
So yes, I'm bitter. Because people like YOU are really, really bad for our species.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 Please understand. Science isn't your enemy, and anyone who treats it as such is doing evil to the world. I have several Christian friends, who would deny nothing I have said to you, because they do not deny logic. They still have their beliefs, but they understand that the Bible is very fallible because it was composed by men long after Christ's death. Early Christians even believed in re-incarnation.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 Other Early Christians even acknowledged that their religion was nothing more than a different version of the worship of the pagan Sun God. In fact, historically speaking, there is really no denying that that is what happened. There are literally dozens of old pagan sun Gods that have the EXACT same story as Jesus. Star in the East, three kings, 12 disciples, died on the cross, raised three days later.
You people are so repressed from true knowledge because otherwise you'd stop.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 There are texts from famous Christian apologetics that say exactly, without a chance of misinterpretation, that their worship of Jesus is the same as the worship of Perseus, Mythra, Horus, etc. Just look up those Gods (and do it on an objective cite, not a Christian one). Even Thomas Paine wrote about this is Age of Reason. He was a founding father who called Christianity of parody of the worship of the sun, where they worship a 'man' rather than a personification of the sun.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 In fact, there is actually a great deal of evidence that makes it much more reasonable to assume that these 'gods' including Jesus were actually aliens, considering the size of the universe and and exact same stories of knowledge bringers from the stars in all cultures. Different continents, same descriptions, same knowledge beyond their technology, same stars named as the gods' home (Physical evidence, not Biblical 'evidence' although there is some of that too like in Ezekiel. )
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 So yes, you could say that I'm bitter, but not at God. Because even if your God were real, he wouldn't want you ppl to act like you do. There is so much more to the story than what is in your little book.
And as long as your morons are out in the world plugging your ears to reason while spewing ignorance and hate i'll be challenging you at least so that other people don't fall into your trap of ignorance.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 I hope you take the time to read ALL of this, but I highly doubt you will. Hell you will probably even delete it all.
I also hope you realize that Evolution, aside from being undeniable, doesn't actually challenge the existence of God. The only reason to deny it is if you are afraid of its implications, and that isn't a reason it's cowardice. So please, just try actually reading about it instead of only reading why it isn't true. You aren't just fooling yourself, but others too.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@pleasereason Why don't you write a book so everyone can benefit from your genius? I'm sure all of humanity would benefit from your intelligent, well thought out ideas. There has probably never been anything like it before.
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 If you don't have an actual response, just say so instead of acting like a child.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@pleasereason So, you want a real response? You're not really an atheist. A real atheist wouldn't spend 2 seconds with such an argument. Your real motivation is bitterness. You are at war with God because he didn't give you something you thought you deserved. Of course you will deny this, but that is my response! Have a good life, because all too soon you'll have to deal with the entity you've decided is your enemy. Cheers!
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 LOL I'm not really sure which argument makes you so uncomfortable that you would say that, but it obviously doesn't matter because you are prepared to delude yourself as much as necessary to harbor your belief.
Do you just assume that anyone who doesn't believe in YOUR god is actually just "at war" with god? You see with me, I just see the huge inherent logical fallacy with the notion of your God. You have to ignore it, I don't know how because it's like denying the sky is blue.
pleasereason 1 month ago
@pleasereason uses words like: "realm of objectivity" but put yourself in my shoes. I have seen at least three undeniable miracles in my lifetime - actual violations of physical law. I can never go back to thinking this is a purely naturalistic world. OK, well, let's part company. Good luck to you.
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 Just because you can't explain something, doesn't mean God is the explanation. That reasoning is EXACTLY how primitive man created the notion of God. We know can only perceive 1/1,000,000th of what is PHYSICAL AND REAL.
If we went back in time where Kings and armies employed your logic, and showed people soda and computers, we'd be executed as evil sorcerers...BY THE CHURCH. Some things must never change.
pleasereason 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 And like I said, faith isn't what I take issue with. I have no problem with your faith, so long as you acknowledge that it is nothing more than that. My problem is that you ppl are always on a Crusade Against Science, as if explaining the world is EVIL if it contradicts a book written by HUMANS with very limited knowledge 2000 years ago. That has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with fear and DOGMA.
You people hate what you fear, and fear what you don't understand.
pleasereason 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 And finally, what exactly were this "miracles" that made you convinced that dinosaur bones should just be ignored so we can think the Earth is only 6000 years old. The reason I ask is you seem convinced that YOU are somehow special enough to have witnessed 3 miracles, when 99.99% of people NEVER see one.
I think you wanted to think of those things as miracles, so you did. And again that's cool up to the point that you disregard facts to believe in them.
pleasereason 4 weeks ago
@pleasereason I'm quite happy to leave the evolution discussing purely in the realm of science. I can't win a theological debate, but I think I can win a scientific one. For instance, did you know that every single dinosaur bone we carbon date yields an age? With a half-life of 5730 years, this is absolute proof of a young earth. But, as usual, this result will only be ignored, because of a (religious) naturalistic presupposition. So please, it's evolutionists that resist real science, not us.
alyosha24601 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 I know I seem a very angry person and I'm sure that in your mind that gives you all the more excuse to ignore me. But I also KNOW that you don't actually believe I'm just bitter with God.
I know from my own experience and that of others' that Christianity MAKES you ignorant because you HAVE to ignore reason to keep your belief. After all, renouncing Christ is eternally damning. I remember being terrified and crying when I realized i believe in evolution.
pleasereason 4 weeks ago
@pleasereason You're telling ME how *I* think. I can't force you to see things my way of course, but please try to believe what I myself think: 1) The religion of the Bible gives me FREEDOM, not bondage 2) Yes, I do believe that deep down you are bitter, but of course I could be wrong, and 3) Science, reason, and theology seem perfectly complementary to me. I'm not denying reason, I just draw different conclusions, as would be expected. I believe the universe centers around its creator - not us.
alyosha24601 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 It wasn't because I knew i was being sinful. It was because I could NOT deny my belief anymore than I could deny that 1+1=2, and I had been fear mongered at that that meant I was going to hell (because I realized the Bible was factually wrong/inconsistent).
"Believe or burn" is not a religion of Love. It's a religion of Fear, no matter how you slice it.
I'll leave you with that, but I really hope you free yourself from those shackles one day.
pleasereason 4 weeks ago
Fuck you, I can put my right hand in a left handed glove. It's just a little uncomfortable.
wmilleiv 1 month ago
@wmilleiv You may be able to stick your paw in the wrong glove, but a protein is much less forgiving. If you attempt to violate chirality, not only will the molecule not fit/work, but it will actually prove toxic to life. A more appropriate analogy would be trying to put a left-handed screw into a right-handed thread. Can you do that uncomfortably too? Now, go to your mommy: go learn some chemistry and some manners. Evolution is quack science.
alyosha24601 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 The problem with your analogy being that we already know of processes that can affect chirality.
Don't try to throw around multi-syllabic words when you have no idea what they mean.
Kaopsis 1 month ago
@alyosha24601 I love how deluded you are. You do understand that the notion of a creator and Evolution are compatible right? Or was that notion just put in my head by Satan?
We now know that biological compounds are abundant outside of this planet.
At the end of the day, it is simply much more likely that life evolved rather than being snapped into existence by a magical wizard who is self-contradictory. Even if evolution is false, the only quack idea is the one involving magic: yours.
pleasereason 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I just came across your channel after noticing some of your well put comments on another vid. I'm liking your vids, great stuff!
ian9toes 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
These deceptions are in current biology textbooks all around the world - at least one evolutionist is patently dishonest. Evolution is the modern state mandated creation myth; it's "quack science!"
alyosha24601 2 months ago
@alyosha24601 Wrong as usual. The Miller experiment was actually successful in producing amino acids and at least one purine base. To say that it's supposed to detail the entirety of the origin of life is dishonest, but you've made it clear you have no problem with that.
CreationismMirrored 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CreationismMirrored Miller himself today says his experiment was contrived and "dishonest". (Not in the moral sense, but scientifically - Miller is a scientist with integrity because he admits the experiment was bogus. He had to keep oxygen out of his mix and trap out all the amino acids because all the tar destroyed them immediately. But I guess you know more than him, Mr. Fake Professor?) Now keep off my channel you spammer.
alyosha24601 2 months ago
@alyosha24601 Incorrect. The results of his experiment have actually been shown to have formed *more* amino acids than he originally thought.
If you don't want your retardation corrected, don't post it.
ScienceWebinarSeries 1 month ago