Ahh typical atheist flat earth, you must be stupid, mocking ad hominum attacks. Why you must be a genius to have such refined arguments. Try reading "origins" by Richard Leakey and then "signature in the cell" and then critique it without merely strawmaning it, I have. Let me know when your finished. Till then spew your nonsense on someone else.
@odinata If you get your science from videos you may have to rethink your methods. I enjoy a variety if videos but get my "real information" the hard way, reading, try it out.
If you're right, and we're wrong then why are they teaching evolution in schools? And Pasteur invented pasteurization, correct, which is the process of killing bacteria and other mcroscopic organisms present in food, through heating up the food. It had nothing to do with creating life you pale excuse for a creationist. P.S. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGGINING OF LIFE!!!!! so stop saying so!
Obviously it was another god since like can only come from like and life can only give rise to life. And something cant come from nothing therefore god must have had a creator.
which is another god and that god was created by an even more powerful god and so on.
Who created the original god one might ask, well....
@unfad1ng you said "Obviously it was another god since like can only come from like and life can only give rise to life. And something cant come from nothing therefore god must have had a creator."
Why would the Creator be subject to the laws of the creation? If a man builds a computer is he subject to the programming of the computer?
@unfad1ng Again, why is the Creator subject to the laws of the creation? Space, matter and time are all created, the Creator need not trouble Himself with these things, no more than a computer designer is bound by the programs in the computer.
@unfad1ng did you create yourself? can a house build it'self? I dont think you get the point. You ask, "what created God?" You assume that He is subject to the laws of the creation, that He must have a beginning because His creation must have a beginning. That's (no offence) circular reasoning. If you make a clay pot, would I assume that you must have been made of clay? That seems to be the same logic (IMHO). Time is created, God is outside of time and therefore needs no beginning.
@unfad1ng Well of course the Universe is subject to the laws of the universe lol. God is outside of the Universe...the universe can no more create it'self than a house can build it'self. Energy dosn't create it'self nor dose matter. Therefore energy and matter must have had a beginning point and something to create it. A "big bang" creates nothing..even if there was a "big bang" all that would accomplish is spreading everything out that was already created.
the laws of the universe only apply within the universe, not for the universe itself. The universe is for eaxmple expanding much faster than the spped ofl ight even thought thaths impossible ithin the universe.
So the universe is not subject to the alws of the universe.
But if everything needs a begining then so does god, he can create himself?
@unfad1ng I dont get where you see that God need's to be created. a creation needs to be created. God is not a creation, EVERYTHING doesn't need a beginning, only that which is created. Space, Time, Matter, Energy...these all need a beginning. They all need to come from something, they dont just become. God isn't made of of chemicals or cells or dna, He created those things. He need not have a beginning because He created time. Eternity isn't from now on, it just is and has no beginning or end.
god is a creation. When you look at god and what he can do , you realise that he is way to complex to have just come out of nothing, he has to have had a creator, because a computer doesnt just come out of nothing, and god is billions of times more complex so obviously he needs a maker too..
either you grant me that or your logic can apply to the universe, it is not created.
you are just assuming god, but god is to complex to arise from nothing
@unfad1ng Is the Universe intelligent??? That would be my first question to your logic. Second, what are you even talking about when you use the word universe? I'm talking about everything within it, planets, stars, nebula, solar systems...matter, light, .... when you say universe are you just talking about the empty space between all this? God is not made of matter, He isn't what we call physical as is everything we see....I really dont understand your logic at all.
@unfad1ng if God is un-caused then your argument is invalid..so..It makes sense that in a universe of causality the the orginal cause of it all must be un-caused (hence why God fits that description of an un-caused entity) hence making your argument invalid unless you believe an infinite regression is possible then there is nothing i can say, however, i doubt that you do.
@unfad1ng again that is a logical question to ask :) However, something causing itself breaks the law of contradiction and has clear fault in its reasoning. Let me explain, If the universe caused itself it would have to exist before itself in order to create itself. Do you see the problem here? if it existed before itself it wouldnt need to cause itself, it would just exist (already existing means no need to cause itself to exist) lol then you reach square one and reassess, what is its cause? :)
yeah but my point is that the first thing has to create itself, so its not a valid argument to just call upon god as an explanation because he also contradicts himself, because he needs to create himself.
and if he needs to create himself he offers no new explanation, since the universe could do the same thing if such a thing is possible.
What if god is the universe and he created himself and we all live inside him :P?
@unfad1ng "my point is that the first thing has to create itself" I disagree. If that statement was true then there are many logical implications involved. As i showed in previous comments logically nothing creates itself. It either always existed (infinite) or began to exist at some moment (finite). If the universe is infinite it causes many problems; contradicts the law of thermodynamics, it undermines all laws of logic too (nothing is needed to cause anything) Nice question at the end btw :)
@jakry321 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@unfad1ng Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
So much I want to facepalm about. I'll just say one thing though. Why is the concept of 'millions of years' so alien to you? Yes a frog turning into a prince is inanely ludicrous. However when it happened over millions of years, with billions upon billions of generations of animals between an amphibian and a human, then yes, it makes perfect sense. Kicking a tree, and it turning into a house is a fairy tale. But, over a period of TIME, you can make a house out of it. Understood?
@LostSubsForever I wanted to make sure you know that in your last sentcence you say that with outside design something more intelligent can make a house out of a tree. Because evolution would say that, over time that tree would just turn into a house all by itself. I just wanted to make sure you knew that.
Sorry for the multiple posts of the exact same thing but youtube is acting strangely again. When I respont and hit POST, there isn't anything there until several minutes later, like it isn't posting. so I post again. Then there ends up being 3 posts of the same thing.
Watch the crevo rant video about DNA mutations and alleged 'beneficial mutations'. Similar design would point to a similar designer. No problem there. Vestiges? Such as? Don't tell me you still think that the appendix is a vestigial organ, or the tailbone. 'poor design'? Before anyone can say anything about the human body is a 'poor' design they need to come up with something better and show how it is created. Again with fossil record - see earlier.
Similar design would point to a similar designer? Would the reverse be true? Would differences in design point to different designers? Because if that is the case, then that would mean that not all life on Earth has the same designer wouldn't it?
@h8uall66 One line of thinking says the similarlities mean everything came from one single celled organism a gazillion years ago. However we see similar design in nature, similar repeatable patterns that aren't random, such as fibonacci sequence, binary sequence, divine proportion - even some of these patterns that shows up in the universe. Everything doesn't look EXACTLY the same. I wasn't saying that.
Also, you didn't really answer the question. Would differences in design point to different designers? Because if the answer is no, then your point about similar designs indicating similar designers actually explains nothing. By definition, an unfalsifiable explanation that explains everything explains nothing.
...evidence would scarcely fill a single coffin. What we find is a huge imagination and loads of plaster of paris come up with so called 'transitionals'.
Yes the nonsense belief that everything came from a single celled organism is not only nonsense but it is an embarassment that some would associate science with such a belief. There isn't any evidence that everything came from a single celled organism. It exists as a belief only.
It depends on who you ask regarding evolutionism. It has been said, that it is easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition of just what evolution assumes. DNA does away with alleged genetic evidence for evolution. Fossil evidence - the problem with using fossils as a defense of evolutionism is this - basically 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No evidence of transitionals. The less than 1% that is used as...
...observations. Even some evolutionists have done away with some hierarchial tree of life. Such a 'tree of life' would imply that everything traced back to some single celled organism again, which is nonsense.
Evolutionism is a supernatural belief and it is not scientific.
Apparently you aren't familiar with all of the objections and problems with the evolutionary theory. All living things do NOT share a common ancestor. We do not have any evidence of this nor do we have any evidence of your just-so story that things just kept evolving over time. In these crevo rants he explains how there are problems with genetic evidence, specifically DNA. Also fossil evidence demonstrates that things didn't evolved either. This isn't faith based objections, this is...
You have created a god of the gaps argument by stating that we do not know how life started therefore it must be supernatural. We do not know how life started, but we both agree with abiogenesis. The only difference is that scientists are looking for natural explanations for abiogenesis and you want there to be a supernatural one.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. That is a different field of science. If you knew the biological definition of evolution, this would be apparent.
Furthermore, evolution is testable, observable, and falsifiable; which is why it is science.
Evolution does not address the origin of life? Well, it depends on what evolutionist you ask. Because some would claim supposedly that things evolved from other things. Well if you follow that pattern then if you go further back then you end up with this alleged single celled organism that everything "evolved" from. That isn't a different field of science, that just isn't science.
Tell me, can you even define evolution in a biological context? In addition, yes, evolution is science. Just as I said, it is testable, observable, and falsifiable. Simply because you do not want to accept that fact will not make it go away.
@jebus6kryst@jebus6kryst Evolution isn't science. Science is 'knowledge gained by OBSERVATION'. It isn't testable, observable, and it is falsifiable because it is false. Evolution isn't a 'fact'. Something can't 'go away' unless it materializes first. What are the 'facts' of evolution? The just-so stories given to us by evolution don't happen, and there isn't evidence of such happening in the past. Evolution goes against science and physical laws.
Well, by definition, evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. (I see you did not even try to define it. I wonder why?) Therefore, by definition it has been tested and observed in both the lab and the field. If you would like I can cite you evidence of this. It is also a fact by the definition.
Furthermore, inferences about the past can be made using the theory of evolution and other forms of empirical evidence such as fossils, ERV, and atavism.
@jebus6kryst Here's the problem. You are using a clasic bait and switch. You will say evolution is true, and claim a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor, but then water down the definition to simply 'change'. No one can argue things 'change'. There are OBSERVED changes within a kind. What we don't observe and we don't have evidence for, is changes from one kind to another. That isn't science, not a fact, doesn't happen, and there isn't evidence for such a thing happening.
First off, what is a kind? The term kind does not carry any meaning in biology. However, if you want you can Google observed speciation events and that will bring up a list of observed speciation events that scientists have documented between species, genera, and even family is some cases. So first define kind, and I will explain further
Again, depending on how you define kinds, there is evidence for it happening. Nevertheless, until you provide a definition we cannot move further on this issue
@jebus6kryst Furthermore, the problem with fossils. 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates without any 'transitionals'. The other remaining % consists of remains of man or ape that all together would scarcely fill a single coffin. Imagination and plaster of paris is used to come up with 'transitionals'. So this is why the fossil record does not help evolutionism. Check trueorigin org for additional info.
Wrong, simply wrong. A good 90% of fossils discovered are of invertebrate fossils, but the term invertebrate means every other phylum but Chordata. Do you even know how many phyla there are? Second, there are many transitional fossils between different invertebrate phyla and classes. We have very good fossil records for arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, etc take your pick.
You believe that the only fossils we have are of invertebrates and hominins. What about the countless dinosaurs, reptiles, turtles, fish, and other mammal fossils that can be seen in any natural history museum?
Furthermore, humans are apes. We belong to the superfamily Hominoidea (apes), so any hominin fossil would also belong to the same superfamily. Fill a single coffin? You have to be joking. They just discovered two new hominin fossils in South Africa and published the finds this month.
There are easily dozens of different hominin species, each represented by one holotype. In addition, that says nothing to the dozens of individuals we have found for some of the species, like H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, Au. africanus, Au. afarensis, etc
A creationists propaganda website does nothing to help your case. It only explains why you are so ill informed.
Please, pick up any scientific journal and read about the discoveries being made in the fossil record. If you like, I can cite you real sources for every hominin I talked about in my last post.
Nevertheless, to get to the heart of the question, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That field of science is called abiogenesis. It has its own hypotheses about how life started. Furthermore, like I said to wazooloo, we both accept that abiogenesis happened, its just that I accept that there is a naturalistic explanation to it (one we do not know about, yet) and you believe it is supernatural.
@jebus6kryst Again it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists say it does deal with the origin of life. Others say it just deals with life after it got here from who knows what. Now you are saying that abiogenesis happened, you don't know how and there isn't evidence for it, but it just happened. That is also a classic 'just-so' story. That is not science. Life can only come from life. It doesn't arise from non life. Just as evolution doesn't happen.
Evolutionist? I think you mean biologist. No biologist would say it deals with the origin of life. That is a different field of science called abiogenesis. They say it deals with life after it got here from who knows what because it does only deal with life after it got here from who knows what.
@jebus6kryst Agian it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists claim literally life came from a rock while others only claim it deals with change. Change could be anything, therefore nobody could argue change doesn't happen. But they will sneak in that simple change as anything - literally molecules to man evolutionism.
You keep using this term evolutionist, which I do not know the meaning of, but if I were to venture a guess, it would mean anyone that accepts the theory of evolution (layperson to expert). If that were the case then I would also venture a guess that the only evolutionists that say that are lay people who do not fully understand what evolution is. No biologists would ever say that evolution, as it is defined in biology, deals with the origin of life.
I will explain this to you one more time: evolution is the change in allelic (do you know what those are) frequencies in a population over time. This means that it is well defined, and that change does not mean anything, as you put it, it means a specific thing. This is a very specific definition. Since living organisms and only living organisms possess alleles, evolution, in a biological context, cannot happen to non-living matter.
We both accept that abiogenesis happened. Life cannot always come from life because that would equal an infinite regress. A god(s) starting life would be considered abiogenesis since a god(s) would not be alive based on the definition of life. Right now, abiogenesis is a field of science made up of competing hypotheses for how life started. Your idea of a god(s) starting life is just another one of those competing hypotheses.
@jebus6kryst Life always comes from life. That is observed. The contrary is never observed. I wasn't talking about god(s) starting life. God the Creator of the heavens and the earth Created life in the beginning. In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). Here we have an accounting of the time/space/matter continuum. Some evolutionists claim abiogenesis isn't evolution while others claim it is evolution.
Again, you seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. If life always comes from life then we would have an infinite regress (do you understand what that is?). This means that life had to have arisen from non-life sometime in the past. In addition, your so-so story of a god creating it is just another hypothesis to be tested.
@jebus6kryst Why would that be?We have proof that God exists...Jesus,Bible,Prophesies,healings,ect......We need not test anything anymore...Christ and the Cross finished all that for man ;-)
Tell me, how did this god(s) create matter, space, and time? Because that is the next logical question to ask after we discover that a god(s) created matter, space, and time. Simply saying GodDidIt is not an answer, you have to explain how a god(s) did it.
@jebus6kryst 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
@jebus6kryst Abiogenesis and evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists. Abiogenesis and evolution are both not testable or observable!!
@5tonyvvvv Not at all. As an agnostic, I can believe that a certain entity (NON-CHRISTIAN) sparked life and started the whole chain of evolution. When debating evolution, you cannot tie in other subjects that are only slightly connected because that subject is NOT the target of debate.
And when you say evolution is not testable or observable...just because we did not see it happen with our own eyes doesn't mean we can't find evidence that it did.
@NoNameLikeThisOne No not at all.Iam a former atheist and abiogenesis is not testable repeatable or observable in any way , there is NO WAY to make a simple cell from chemicals and there are major problems with it happening on a primordial earth like homochirality .and at 17 your not even worth debating with kid.
@5tonyvvvv At your age, I didn't expect you would make a logical fallacy. But you did. And since you're so stubborn and unwilling to open up your mind, I won't even argue. It's not that I'm not good enough for you, but you're not good enough for ME.
@NoNameLikeThisOne You have been indoctrinated to believe Abiogenesis and evolution is fact..ok a pool of chemicals could produce life..LOL...thats like saying you have a brain!
@jebus6kryst Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@jebus6kryst "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell. there not plausible conditions
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!!
So start unpacking! Let's start with the first premise then, the point of this video. Life is a bit more than an arrangement of matter. Science tells us you cannot get life from non-life. If we have not been able to recreate this WITH all of our intelligence then how in the world did it happen just because with no guidance whatsoever? And why can we not replicate this?
Actually you didn't ask a question, you made an assertion. I responded to your assertion by asking "why not" and then asserting that life is just an arrangement of matter. To which you simply denied, so I asked how so? I will not allow you to change the subject. How so?
You have no answer! My question is how do you get life from non-life, the point of the video. This has been my question all along. Are you going to play games or are you going to "flatten" me with your awesome knowledge? It is YOU who needs to change the subject because you have no answer for this.
But to answer, the first criteria is it needs to be self replicating. In fact, just looking at DNA life is so far beyond our understanding that we could never hope to fully understand it.
Sure, self replication is obviously the key component. But even self replication is facilitated by the arrangement of matter in an organism. So we're still talking about an arrangement of matter. You've not made your case yet that life is more than an arrangement of matter.
I am not making a case! Science says you cannot get life from non-life. I did not make that rule up, it has nothing to do with me, it is a scientific FACT. You need to prove how you can create life from non-life. THAT is the subject. Your little game does not play here. If you are stating that a living organism is made up of matter then I agree. But a living organism is more than just a collection of elements. Otherwise you could create life. You cannot. :)
Your point is utterly absurd. A star is an arrangement of matter, but I can't create one of those either. All I am asking you to do is justify your base assertion that life is more than an arrangement of matter. It's a really easy question. If you have an answer then give it. We'll get to the life from non-life thing, but first we need to establish what life is. So for the last time, how is life more than an arrangement of matter?
You sure are thick headed! The question is how do you get life from non-life? You may define life as an organism that can replicate itself. That should suffice. I am about to go out for dinner, feel free to explain how you get life from non-life any time now.
Oh, is that all life is? Easy, the Spiegelman Monster, a self replicating evolving RNA molecule that can be created simple by dropping nucleobases into Q-beta replicase. So I guess I could create life if I wanted to. Enjoy your dinner.
lol, you got me! :) But is it an organism? We are starting with RNA from a virus, is that non-life? And even though the RNA is replicating can you define that as life? I suppose by MY definition you would have a case, but my mistake does not change the law of biogenesis.
You surprise me jn4oldschool. Pleasantly. Perhaps I misjudged you. You are correct, in the Spiegelman experiments he used viral RNA as the basis, but in the Sumpter & Luce experiments they simply used raw nucleobases and Q-beta replicase.
It still changes nothing you are not getting life from non-life. The law of biogenesis stands. Not to mention the fact that it takes intelligence to do this.
Wait a minute, you just defined life as being something that can replicate itself, how does this not count? Is there more to life? If so, what? Bear in mind, this is exactly what I have been asking you this whole time.
OK, the classic biological definition of life. I'm fine with that. But do keep in mind that that definition rules out viruses. OK, so now we have a list of attributes. How do these attributes indicate that life is more than an arrangement of matter?
But isn't that still a collection of matter? Also, how organized are we talking here? Microbiologists remove and organelles from cells all the time. It doesn't cause them to break down or stop working. I can't just add or remove parts from my car and expect it to work.
I fail to see the point? You could certainly remove many parts from your car and it would still work. Likewise, I could lose an arm, a leg, or an eye and still have a complete and fulfilling life.
No, life goes beyond just a collection of parts. The parts must interrelate to each other. The organism must fulfill the definition of life. It is a collection of matter but the sum is much greater than the parts. I can put all the parts of a car in a pile but unless assembled it is not a car.
I don't disagree, a pile of parts is not a car. But when the parts are in a specific "arrangement" they are. And when matter is in another arrangement it's called life. See what I mean? We're still talking about arrangements of matter. If you just want to skip ahead and say that matter can not arrange itself into life that would be a lot faster for both of us. But make no mistake, you've not demonstrated that life is anything more than an arrangement of matter.
Well, you have hit on the crux of the matter. There is no way car parts, imagining that the parts themselves were not designed with a purpose, so it is admittedly a bad analogy, bit there is no way the parts would EVER form naturally into a car without intelligent design. And a car is DEAD SIMPLE compared to a living organism.
I do not need to demonstrate life is anything more. The whole argument is that you cannot form life from non-life. Even a virus.
Just to be clear, are you abandoning the "Life is more than an arrangement of matter" argument in favor of the "Life is too complex to form naturally argument"?
Just to be clear, I am not the one arguing. :) I would say BOTH are pretty solid facts. That life is more than an arrangement of matter is born out by the fact that no matter how much man arranges matter he cannot create life from it. That life is too complex to form naturally is born out by the fact that even man, with all our intelligence, cannot even create the simplest life.
The law of biogenesis stands today. As long as it stands it rules out life accidentally forming from nothing.
Woah, wait a minute. There is a reason why I asked that question. If matter can not be arranged, not even with advanced technology, to create a living thing, then the complexity argument actually becomes incoherent. You can not actually have both. If life is somehow not an merely an arrangement of matter then it doesn't really matter how complex it is because there is still an undefined quality to it. If it is an arrangement then complexity is important.
Hmmm...I see your point. If it is simply a matter of complexity then it is just a matter of man learning the full details to be able to create it himself. If it is a matter of something undefined beyond the actual matter and the arrangement then man may not ever be able to create it himself.
Interesting thought. I can tell you for a fact that we are not even close to understanding the complexity. Manipulate life? Sure, we can manipulate it. But we do not fully understand it.
Oh good, I wasn't sure you would understand what I meant. I only realized how poorly written my comment was after I sent it. But you do understand. Cool! OK, so it seems that you are sticking with the idea that life is more than an arrangement of matter, correct? I don't want to mischaracterize your position.
Listen, I stand by both comments. But it does not matter. If you are going somewhere with all this then you better get there fast because i am going to bed soon and I am not going to be available again until Wed.
I will admit that in the future it may become possible that man creates life from non-life. Doubtful, but possible. What does that prove? Intelligent design, after all, we are created in God's image.
But for now biogenesis stands. Unless you can prove otherwise.
Well I see life as simply an arrangement of matter. There is no evidence of any sort of "animus" but if there is in the future I will change my view to accommodate it. As merely an arrangement of mater, what possible barrier could there be for abiogenesis? As I demonstrated, self replicating, evolving RNA chains spontaneously form under the right conditions. The only barrier would be complexity, but natural selection takes care of that. As for the law of biogenesis well what is a scientific law?
self replicating RNA is merely manipulating existing life (even Sumpter and Luce used Q-Beta Replicase). Let's see someone repeat this building everything from the basic elements.
But I will grant you what you say. But even if complexity were the only barrier you are still looking at an impossibility that "nature" did by accident what we cannot figure out with intelligence. But that is an argument for another day and another thread.
Well I hope we can pick this up again on Wednesday. I've enjoyed our conversation. And more importantly I would like to apologize for being hostile in the beginning. I really judged you wrongly. You've been an absolutely great person to talk to about this issue. I'm not used to that. I'm looking forward to Wednesday.
The point here is that, as it stands today, life forming on this planet from non-life goes against scientific law. You are free to theorize all you like, but please do not call it fact and allow others the same freedom to their theories. I have no reason to doubt what the Bible says, every scientific fact fits in very well with a creation belief. Your beliefs are just as much a fairy tale to me as mine are to you.
Of course I believe in God so I believe that there is an aspect to life beyond the ingredients and arrangement. You can give anyone a box of paints and an empty canvas. You can even have them perform the exact techniques and follow the same steps but the true artist's work will stand out. I do not think we will ever duplicate God's work. Manipulate it yes, but never duplicate it.
But that is just me, and that is belief and faith. I do not need to prove God.
Hmmm...2 hours. What happened Hate? h8? I thought you had something to say? I replied as you requested and you turn tail and run?
Maybe I am speaking too soon. It is Saturday, maybe you went to the beach or something. Maybe snow boarding? Lol. I hope so, I am looking forward to an answer on how life could have possibly came from non-life...Except through the hand of God.
Come on h8Can I call you h8? I want to help you, really I do. But you will not let me! You keep striking out. I cannot keep wasting my time here, if you are not going to say anything then I cannot show you the truth. Why not just admit that you have no argument for biogenesis?
You should really watch Ian Jubys videos! You say he lies, but can you tell me what the lies are? Is not the law of biogenesis true? Do not animals adapt by suppressing genetic traits and not adding them? This is accepted, proven science. Really, I am trying not to be stupid here, for YEARS I have waited for someone to FINALLY explain to me how evolution can possibly work! I thought you might have been the hero I have been waiting on. Guess not...
Just use the reply button dude. That's all I ask. When you do so the discussion will begin. It's not much to ask, really. Unless of course you just don't want a discussion. I'm ignoring you now. I'll stop ignoring you as soon as you take your little mouse over to the reply link. The ball is now in your court. You wont though. So bye!
I was once an evolutionist h8, can you believe that? I always believed in God, but I was not saved. I was taught evolution, I thought it was a proven fact. This is what public school and college taught me.
It is wrong h8! Evolution does not work! It is wrong at every corner.
H8, I like you! You have spunk! I wonder if you are just a young college troll or if you really have something to say?
Okay h8, I will concede our little game. I will reply just to see what you have.
OK jn4, let's hear what you have to say. How does evolution "not work?" How is it wrong at every corner? By the way, I didn't expect you to respond so I started taking care of things around the house and in the neighborhood. But I am back now.
I do not have much to say really. I agree with this video. You cannot get life from nonlife.
I do accept the answer that we just may not understand how this happened, that is a relevant answer. But you can hardly get to point B without point A.
The whole question of origin without intelligence behind it is impossible by all the hard facts we do have. You need a first cause which, by definition, can only be God.
Until you can show how life began evolution is hardly proven.
There is a lot to unpack here. A lot of misconceptions. First you say you can not get life from non-life. Why not? Life is just an arrangement of matter, it's not magical.
Then you assert that origin without intelligence is impossible. What do you base this assertion on?
You assert that a first cause can only be God. This assumes so much that it isn't even worth mentioning.
Last, evolution isn't a theory about how life began and it never will be.
Ah, you still cannot answer the question! Come on, at least give it the old, predictable try. How about Urey/Miller? Maybe the law of biogenesis is wrong? Maybe it is like your high priest, Richard Dawkins, got suckered into speculating, maybe little green men from Uranus (get it? lol) planted one celled organisms on this planet for some reason? But wait...er...Where did THEY come from?...
You answer, you say something of substance and I will hit the reply button.
No, I think I've given you enough slack. Sorry, but I am not going to treat you special. You can either use the protocol that EVERYONE on YouTube uses and respond with the reply button like a normal human being or you can get lost.
I will make a deal with you though, if you actually write anything WORTH REPLYING TO then I will be sure to hit the reply button. Otherwise, you are just wasting a lot of space saying absolutely nothing. :)
So flatten me! :) You have no reply, all you can do is sling mud. You make up irrelevant insults and ad hominem attacks that make no sense. Dishonest? How so? What does post modernism have to do with anything? Creation is opposed to post modernism, check your definitions.
Cowardly? I am replying to YOU! I am not tucking tail and running!
Once again, stop babbling and ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Biogenesis says you do not get life from non-life, the point of the video. Prove otherwise.
Actually no, you are not replying to me. To reply to me you would hit the "Reply" link. If you can't figure that out then you are simply too stupid to talk to. But we both know you are doing it on purpose. Use the link so that I will be notified that you have replied to me like an honest person and I will happily discuss anything you want. Can you handle that?
Oh, as far as the reply goes, I think I will remain "dishonest!" The thread is old, there will not be much traffic. If you have anything to actually say to me then you check back in. I do not think you have anything to say you are just full of hot air. After all, you think you came from a monkey and I am sure your IQ backs that theory up! :)
Happy research, do not wear yourself out on "Evolution for Dummies."
h8uall66, Google is YOUR friend! I really do not care if you demean yourself to have a conversation with little old me. Your tactics are old, and I am unimpressed.
Please answer me how life could have formed from non-life or how like can beget unlike.
I am fully aware that a biological evolutionist will ALWAYS beg this question on the grounds that evolution only addresses the formation of new species and not origin of life. Unfortunately for you, life has to come from somewhere. :)
Yep, once again you refuse to use the reply button. Typical dishonest, creationist low-life. Have fun with your post modernism. I refuse to have any dealings with someone so dishonest and cowardly. By the way, I'm sure you think not using the reply button is pretty clever, but all you are showing is that you know you will get flattened by me. Thanks!
h8uall66 the claim here is that evolution goes against the scientific law of biogenesis. You can not prove this law false. Otherwise it would not be a scientific law. If biogenesis is true then the origin of life from non-life, as defined by the theory of evolution, can not be true.
You are so busy attacking us stupid, lying creationists that you forgot to defend evolution. Once again, I am not proving creation to you, I do not need to. :) You prove evolution to me.
You need to use the reply button if you want me to know you have something to say to me. Looks like someone is trying to make it look like I was without rejoinder. How dishonest. That's strike one. Here's your chance to earn strike two: Recite exactly what the law of biogenesis states. If you lie, you get a strike. Tell the truth and you can win my respect. I'm really hoping you will tell the truth, but I know you won't. Last, you don't even know what evolution is, so how can I prove it to you?
Also, please provide the definition of a scientific law, and an explanation of what the theory of evolution concerns itself with. Demonstrate that you can actually do these things and I will entertain the notion of having a discussion with you. I will not waste my time with some village idiot that thinks that evolutionary theory has something to do with the Big Bang. If you're that ignorant no YouTube comment section can help you.
Why is it that evos always ignore the point of the argument and get into the "can't prove God" dribble? Actually, I CAN prove God, you just will not accept that proof.
Never mind God, or creation. We will never prove creation, it is a moot point. As h8uall66 points out, the idea is to show that evolution is impossible. The point of this video was to show the SCIENTIFIC LAWS that refute evolution. Never mind diverting the argument to refuting God, YOU PROVE how evolution can be true!
Exactly, accept what he says uncritically, just as he accepted it from the person he got it from, or you are blind. Apparently blindness = not being gullible.
Actually neither do I. Could somebody who does please enlighten me on the difference between Derived and Ancestral characteristics? This hw is due in like 7 hours.
It's not that creationists don't know how it works, it's that creationists know it doesn't work. You had all the words right, just not in the correct order.
I have yet to meet a single creationist who could accurately describe the process in full. Nor have I ever met one who didnt make up ridiculous shit that had nothing to do with it. And I have yet to read or hear a creationist who didnt have to lie, as you just have, to support their view.
I wouldn't bother GallusSapien. I was fine with talking to Vertisai until yesterday. He told a bold faced lie (the etymology of the word "Universe") and when caught refused to admit that he was wrong. There is no point in having a conversation with someone so dishonest. Like children, creationists actually think that admitting when they have made a mistake, no matter how trivial, will make them lose credibility. They don't seem to understand that by admitting your mistakes you gain credibility.
Yeah I know. I keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I keep thinking maybe I will run across an honest creationist one of these days. So far its been pretty much zilch. (with one exception, a 15 yr old kid I managed to convince that Hovind was a liar)
Now you are lying about what I said. Gee you are really convincing me of creationist honesty. No. As was said before creationists will never admit mistakes. You cannot even admit your own, from the very site you cited! Try typing "universe" into the search engine, and subsequently admitting that even your own source says that you are wrong. But of course you wont admit wrong because you are a creationist, which is why I have no
Ahh typical atheist flat earth, you must be stupid, mocking ad hominum attacks. Why you must be a genius to have such refined arguments. Try reading "origins" by Richard Leakey and then "signature in the cell" and then critique it without merely strawmaning it, I have. Let me know when your finished. Till then spew your nonsense on someone else.
Galmozzi99 3 months ago
@Galmozzi99
Sorry Old Man, but copying my arguments back at me really isn't that impressive.
You even admit to not being a YEC, so I'm not sure why are you defending the bullshit that pours out of this YECs double-chinned gape.
Either way, facts are facts, and neither of your religious opinions count on that front...
odinata 3 months ago
@Galmozzi99
Bullshit propaganda out of the Discovery Institute not only isn't "science", but its been thoroughly DEBUNKED.
Sorry geezer.
You aren't ready for this.
odinata 3 months ago
Even though I am not a YEC, I love your videos. Keep em coming.
Galmozzi99 3 months ago
@Galmozzi99
Why not watch a science video and get some real information?
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata If you get your science from videos you may have to rethink your methods. I enjoy a variety if videos but get my "real information" the hard way, reading, try it out.
Galmozzi99 3 months ago
@Galmozzi99
I recomend them to you because they seem to be your speed--if you enjoy this flat earth garbage.
I seriously doubt if you have ever read a drop on the subject of science.
odinata 3 months ago
Thanks Ian! May God bless you. Keep the good work.
enoch1844 3 months ago
hahaha YES!!
KiddJesus 4 months ago
Strawman, you bald turd burglar.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata wow hey guys listen to this classy individual! i am positive the he is more intelligent !
KiddJesus 4 months ago
@KiddJesus
Than a YEC?
Hell yeah.
odinata 4 months ago
If you're right, and we're wrong then why are they teaching evolution in schools? And Pasteur invented pasteurization, correct, which is the process of killing bacteria and other mcroscopic organisms present in food, through heating up the food. It had nothing to do with creating life you pale excuse for a creationist. P.S. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGGINING OF LIFE!!!!! so stop saying so!
Spocktacular96 5 months ago
Yes, only god could create life. Just curious to know, then who created god? (just so that i can convince others)
shumbusgumbuli 9 months ago
@shumbusgumbuli
Obviously it was another god since like can only come from like and life can only give rise to life. And something cant come from nothing therefore god must have had a creator.
which is another god and that god was created by an even more powerful god and so on.
Who created the original god one might ask, well....
unfad1ng 5 months ago
@unfad1ng you said "Obviously it was another god since like can only come from like and life can only give rise to life. And something cant come from nothing therefore god must have had a creator."
Why would the Creator be subject to the laws of the creation? If a man builds a computer is he subject to the programming of the computer?
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
why would the universe even need a creator?
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng same reason a house needs a builder?
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
well if everything needs a builder then so those god.
Why cant the universe create itself if god can?
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng Again, why is the Creator subject to the laws of the creation? Space, matter and time are all created, the Creator need not trouble Himself with these things, no more than a computer designer is bound by the programs in the computer.
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
well in that case the universe could have created itself
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng did you create yourself? can a house build it'self? I dont think you get the point. You ask, "what created God?" You assume that He is subject to the laws of the creation, that He must have a beginning because His creation must have a beginning. That's (no offence) circular reasoning. If you make a clay pot, would I assume that you must have been made of clay? That seems to be the same logic (IMHO). Time is created, God is outside of time and therefore needs no beginning.
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
you are not getting my point im afraid.
If its possible that god is not subject to the laws of creation what prevents the universe from not being subject to the laws of creation?
the universe could just as easily have created itself as god.
Since the law that everytnig needs a creaotr is not universal since it does not apply to the creator himself.
and since the universe could create itself there is no need for a god
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng Well of course the Universe is subject to the laws of the universe lol. God is outside of the Universe...the universe can no more create it'self than a house can build it'self. Energy dosn't create it'self nor dose matter. Therefore energy and matter must have had a beginning point and something to create it. A "big bang" creates nothing..even if there was a "big bang" all that would accomplish is spreading everything out that was already created.
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
the laws of the universe only apply within the universe, not for the universe itself. The universe is for eaxmple expanding much faster than the spped ofl ight even thought thaths impossible ithin the universe.
So the universe is not subject to the alws of the universe.
But if everything needs a begining then so does god, he can create himself?
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng I dont get where you see that God need's to be created. a creation needs to be created. God is not a creation, EVERYTHING doesn't need a beginning, only that which is created. Space, Time, Matter, Energy...these all need a beginning. They all need to come from something, they dont just become. God isn't made of of chemicals or cells or dna, He created those things. He need not have a beginning because He created time. Eternity isn't from now on, it just is and has no beginning or end.
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@xRaisethestandardx
god is a creation. When you look at god and what he can do , you realise that he is way to complex to have just come out of nothing, he has to have had a creator, because a computer doesnt just come out of nothing, and god is billions of times more complex so obviously he needs a maker too..
either you grant me that or your logic can apply to the universe, it is not created.
you are just assuming god, but god is to complex to arise from nothing
unfad1ng 4 months ago
@unfad1ng Is the Universe intelligent??? That would be my first question to your logic. Second, what are you even talking about when you use the word universe? I'm talking about everything within it, planets, stars, nebula, solar systems...matter, light, .... when you say universe are you just talking about the empty space between all this? God is not made of matter, He isn't what we call physical as is everything we see....I really dont understand your logic at all.
xRaisethestandardx 4 months ago
@unfad1ng if God is un-caused then your argument is invalid..so..It makes sense that in a universe of causality the the orginal cause of it all must be un-caused (hence why God fits that description of an un-caused entity) hence making your argument invalid unless you believe an infinite regression is possible then there is nothing i can say, however, i doubt that you do.
jakry321 2 months ago
@jakry321
what if the universe is uncaused? what if it caused itself?
unfad1ng 2 months ago
@unfad1ng again that is a logical question to ask :) However, something causing itself breaks the law of contradiction and has clear fault in its reasoning. Let me explain, If the universe caused itself it would have to exist before itself in order to create itself. Do you see the problem here? if it existed before itself it wouldnt need to cause itself, it would just exist (already existing means no need to cause itself to exist) lol then you reach square one and reassess, what is its cause? :)
jakry321 2 months ago
@jakry321
yeah but my point is that the first thing has to create itself, so its not a valid argument to just call upon god as an explanation because he also contradicts himself, because he needs to create himself.
and if he needs to create himself he offers no new explanation, since the universe could do the same thing if such a thing is possible.
What if god is the universe and he created himself and we all live inside him :P?
unfad1ng 2 months ago
@unfad1ng "my point is that the first thing has to create itself" I disagree. If that statement was true then there are many logical implications involved. As i showed in previous comments logically nothing creates itself. It either always existed (infinite) or began to exist at some moment (finite). If the universe is infinite it causes many problems; contradicts the law of thermodynamics, it undermines all laws of logic too (nothing is needed to cause anything) Nice question at the end btw :)
jakry321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jakry321 An indefinitely existing universe would actually conform to thermodynamics as well as the conservation of energy.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jakry321 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unfad1ng Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
great work i love ur videos....keep telling the truth...to GOD be the glory great things he has done
theonebosssss 1 year ago
religion, the art of eternal stupidity.
TheRelitard 1 year ago
Keep making the videos and keep spreading the truth
coolvideo28 1 year ago
Uh, this is the most ignorant drivel I've seen in a while son. Wow.
mindsmirror 1 year ago
Wow what a great video!
Thank you!
GOD bless!!!
777alucard 1 year ago
Excellent video, like always. Keep givin'r ma friend
drzip1993 1 year ago
You're an idiot.
MoNsTeRHoGGeR 1 year ago
@MoNsTeRHoGGeR Got him. He's probably changed his mind due to this comment.
drzip1993 1 year ago
@MoNsTeRHoGGeR Haahaa, that makes you look all the dumber.
cathy356 1 year ago
@cathy356 Um, what?
MoNsTeRHoGGeR 1 year ago
How can university say our ancestors are frog? @Aikwood666. Please stay cool...
marcoecolo 1 year ago
hahahahahaa.
reading the comments on this video. is hilarious.
people are soo stubborn.
:) i love listening to you.
MegaSarahelizabeth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OperationOperafox
I love how all your comments are being marked as spam.
Censorship: The second best theistic argument since burning people.
h8uall66 1 year ago
You fucking retard, stod inerupting the fucking debate-vedo with your bullShit.
Aikwood666 1 year ago
Well this guy is proof at least HIS family tree started by a rock
Chaostiger357 1 year ago
So much I want to facepalm about. I'll just say one thing though. Why is the concept of 'millions of years' so alien to you? Yes a frog turning into a prince is inanely ludicrous. However when it happened over millions of years, with billions upon billions of generations of animals between an amphibian and a human, then yes, it makes perfect sense. Kicking a tree, and it turning into a house is a fairy tale. But, over a period of TIME, you can make a house out of it. Understood?
LostSubsForever 1 year ago
@LostSubsForever I wanted to make sure you know that in your last sentcence you say that with outside design something more intelligent can make a house out of a tree. Because evolution would say that, over time that tree would just turn into a house all by itself. I just wanted to make sure you knew that.
dvan15 1 year ago
Sorry for the multiple posts of the exact same thing but youtube is acting strangely again. When I respont and hit POST, there isn't anything there until several minutes later, like it isn't posting. so I post again. Then there ends up being 3 posts of the same thing.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Watch the crevo rant video about DNA mutations and alleged 'beneficial mutations'. Similar design would point to a similar designer. No problem there. Vestiges? Such as? Don't tell me you still think that the appendix is a vestigial organ, or the tailbone. 'poor design'? Before anyone can say anything about the human body is a 'poor' design they need to come up with something better and show how it is created. Again with fossil record - see earlier.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes
Similar design would point to a similar designer? Would the reverse be true? Would differences in design point to different designers? Because if that is the case, then that would mean that not all life on Earth has the same designer wouldn't it?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 One line of thinking says the similarlities mean everything came from one single celled organism a gazillion years ago. However we see similar design in nature, similar repeatable patterns that aren't random, such as fibonacci sequence, binary sequence, divine proportion - even some of these patterns that shows up in the universe. Everything doesn't look EXACTLY the same. I wasn't saying that.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
@CiscoWes
OK, so if we see these qualities expressed in nature then why propose a designer? Nature accounts for the appearance of design according to you.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@CiscoWes
Also, you didn't really answer the question. Would differences in design point to different designers? Because if the answer is no, then your point about similar designs indicating similar designers actually explains nothing. By definition, an unfalsifiable explanation that explains everything explains nothing.
h8uall66 1 year ago
...evidence would scarcely fill a single coffin. What we find is a huge imagination and loads of plaster of paris come up with so called 'transitionals'.
Yes the nonsense belief that everything came from a single celled organism is not only nonsense but it is an embarassment that some would associate science with such a belief. There isn't any evidence that everything came from a single celled organism. It exists as a belief only.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
It depends on who you ask regarding evolutionism. It has been said, that it is easier to nail jello to a tree than to get a consistent definition of just what evolution assumes. DNA does away with alleged genetic evidence for evolution. Fossil evidence - the problem with using fossils as a defense of evolutionism is this - basically 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. No evidence of transitionals. The less than 1% that is used as...
CiscoWes 1 year ago
...observations. Even some evolutionists have done away with some hierarchial tree of life. Such a 'tree of life' would imply that everything traced back to some single celled organism again, which is nonsense.
Evolutionism is a supernatural belief and it is not scientific.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Apparently you aren't familiar with all of the objections and problems with the evolutionary theory. All living things do NOT share a common ancestor. We do not have any evidence of this nor do we have any evidence of your just-so story that things just kept evolving over time. In these crevo rants he explains how there are problems with genetic evidence, specifically DNA. Also fossil evidence demonstrates that things didn't evolved either. This isn't faith based objections, this is...
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Ian is a homosexual, i reckon
jk28416 1 year ago
What will you say when you meant the real creators of life, Prometheus and Epimetheus? When they tell you that Jesus is a devil pretending to be god?
HConstantine 1 year ago
You have created a god of the gaps argument by stating that we do not know how life started therefore it must be supernatural. We do not know how life started, but we both agree with abiogenesis. The only difference is that scientists are looking for natural explanations for abiogenesis and you want there to be a supernatural one.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Where to start.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. That is a different field of science. If you knew the biological definition of evolution, this would be apparent.
Furthermore, evolution is testable, observable, and falsifiable; which is why it is science.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Evolution does not address the origin of life? Well, it depends on what evolutionist you ask. Because some would claim supposedly that things evolved from other things. Well if you follow that pattern then if you go further back then you end up with this alleged single celled organism that everything "evolved" from. That isn't a different field of science, that just isn't science.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Evolutionist? I think you mean scientist.
Tell me, can you even define evolution in a biological context? In addition, yes, evolution is science. Just as I said, it is testable, observable, and falsifiable. Simply because you do not want to accept that fact will not make it go away.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Comment removed
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Comment removed
CiscoWes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jebus6kryst @jebus6kryst Evolution isn't science. Science is 'knowledge gained by OBSERVATION'. It isn't testable, observable, and it is falsifiable because it is false. Evolution isn't a 'fact'. Something can't 'go away' unless it materializes first. What are the 'facts' of evolution? The just-so stories given to us by evolution don't happen, and there isn't evidence of such happening in the past. Evolution goes against science and physical laws.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Well, by definition, evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. (I see you did not even try to define it. I wonder why?) Therefore, by definition it has been tested and observed in both the lab and the field. If you would like I can cite you evidence of this. It is also a fact by the definition.
Furthermore, inferences about the past can be made using the theory of evolution and other forms of empirical evidence such as fossils, ERV, and atavism.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Here's the problem. You are using a clasic bait and switch. You will say evolution is true, and claim a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor, but then water down the definition to simply 'change'. No one can argue things 'change'. There are OBSERVED changes within a kind. What we don't observe and we don't have evidence for, is changes from one kind to another. That isn't science, not a fact, doesn't happen, and there isn't evidence for such a thing happening.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
First off, what is a kind? The term kind does not carry any meaning in biology. However, if you want you can Google observed speciation events and that will bring up a list of observed speciation events that scientists have documented between species, genera, and even family is some cases. So first define kind, and I will explain further
Again, depending on how you define kinds, there is evidence for it happening. Nevertheless, until you provide a definition we cannot move further on this issue
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Furthermore, the problem with fossils. 99% of the fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates without any 'transitionals'. The other remaining % consists of remains of man or ape that all together would scarcely fill a single coffin. Imagination and plaster of paris is used to come up with 'transitionals'. So this is why the fossil record does not help evolutionism. Check trueorigin org for additional info.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Wrong, simply wrong. A good 90% of fossils discovered are of invertebrate fossils, but the term invertebrate means every other phylum but Chordata. Do you even know how many phyla there are? Second, there are many transitional fossils between different invertebrate phyla and classes. We have very good fossil records for arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, etc take your pick.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
You believe that the only fossils we have are of invertebrates and hominins. What about the countless dinosaurs, reptiles, turtles, fish, and other mammal fossils that can be seen in any natural history museum?
Furthermore, humans are apes. We belong to the superfamily Hominoidea (apes), so any hominin fossil would also belong to the same superfamily. Fill a single coffin? You have to be joking. They just discovered two new hominin fossils in South Africa and published the finds this month.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
There are easily dozens of different hominin species, each represented by one holotype. In addition, that says nothing to the dozens of individuals we have found for some of the species, like H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, Au. africanus, Au. afarensis, etc
A creationists propaganda website does nothing to help your case. It only explains why you are so ill informed.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Please, pick up any scientific journal and read about the discoveries being made in the fossil record. If you like, I can cite you real sources for every hominin I talked about in my last post.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Nevertheless, to get to the heart of the question, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That field of science is called abiogenesis. It has its own hypotheses about how life started. Furthermore, like I said to wazooloo, we both accept that abiogenesis happened, its just that I accept that there is a naturalistic explanation to it (one we do not know about, yet) and you believe it is supernatural.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Again it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists say it does deal with the origin of life. Others say it just deals with life after it got here from who knows what. Now you are saying that abiogenesis happened, you don't know how and there isn't evidence for it, but it just happened. That is also a classic 'just-so' story. That is not science. Life can only come from life. It doesn't arise from non life. Just as evolution doesn't happen.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Evolutionist? I think you mean biologist. No biologist would say it deals with the origin of life. That is a different field of science called abiogenesis. They say it deals with life after it got here from who knows what because it does only deal with life after it got here from who knows what.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Agian it depends on who you ask. Some evolutionists claim literally life came from a rock while others only claim it deals with change. Change could be anything, therefore nobody could argue change doesn't happen. But they will sneak in that simple change as anything - literally molecules to man evolutionism.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
You keep using this term evolutionist, which I do not know the meaning of, but if I were to venture a guess, it would mean anyone that accepts the theory of evolution (layperson to expert). If that were the case then I would also venture a guess that the only evolutionists that say that are lay people who do not fully understand what evolution is. No biologists would ever say that evolution, as it is defined in biology, deals with the origin of life.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
I will explain this to you one more time: evolution is the change in allelic (do you know what those are) frequencies in a population over time. This means that it is well defined, and that change does not mean anything, as you put it, it means a specific thing. This is a very specific definition. Since living organisms and only living organisms possess alleles, evolution, in a biological context, cannot happen to non-living matter.
Do you get it yet?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Comment removed
marcoecolo 1 year ago
We both accept that abiogenesis happened. Life cannot always come from life because that would equal an infinite regress. A god(s) starting life would be considered abiogenesis since a god(s) would not be alive based on the definition of life. Right now, abiogenesis is a field of science made up of competing hypotheses for how life started. Your idea of a god(s) starting life is just another one of those competing hypotheses.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Life always comes from life. That is observed. The contrary is never observed. I wasn't talking about god(s) starting life. God the Creator of the heavens and the earth Created life in the beginning. In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). Here we have an accounting of the time/space/matter continuum. Some evolutionists claim abiogenesis isn't evolution while others claim it is evolution.
CiscoWes 1 year ago
Again, you seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. If life always comes from life then we would have an infinite regress (do you understand what that is?). This means that life had to have arisen from non-life sometime in the past. In addition, your so-so story of a god creating it is just another hypothesis to be tested.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Why would that be?We have proof that God exists...Jesus,Bible,Prophesies,healings,ect......We need not test anything anymore...Christ and the Cross finished all that for man ;-)
paraglidermx 1 year ago
Tell me, how did this god(s) create matter, space, and time? Because that is the next logical question to ask after we discover that a god(s) created matter, space, and time. Simply saying GodDidIt is not an answer, you have to explain how a god(s) did it.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
marcoecolo 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Abiogenesis and evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists. Abiogenesis and evolution are both not testable or observable!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Not at all. As an agnostic, I can believe that a certain entity (NON-CHRISTIAN) sparked life and started the whole chain of evolution. When debating evolution, you cannot tie in other subjects that are only slightly connected because that subject is NOT the target of debate.
And when you say evolution is not testable or observable...just because we did not see it happen with our own eyes doesn't mean we can't find evidence that it did.
NoNameLikeThisOne 10 months ago
@NoNameLikeThisOne No not at all.Iam a former atheist and abiogenesis is not testable repeatable or observable in any way , there is NO WAY to make a simple cell from chemicals and there are major problems with it happening on a primordial earth like homochirality .and at 17 your not even worth debating with kid.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv At your age, I didn't expect you would make a logical fallacy. But you did. And since you're so stubborn and unwilling to open up your mind, I won't even argue. It's not that I'm not good enough for you, but you're not good enough for ME.
NoNameLikeThisOne 10 months ago
@NoNameLikeThisOne You have been indoctrinated to believe Abiogenesis and evolution is fact..ok a pool of chemicals could produce life..LOL...thats like saying you have a brain!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv The scientific community never called abiogenesis a fact, because all we have so far are conjectures. Thanks.
And if you're not open-minded enough, then leave.
NoNameLikeThisOne 9 months ago
@jebus6kryst Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@jebus6kryst "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell. there not plausible conditions
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
So start unpacking! Let's start with the first premise then, the point of this video. Life is a bit more than an arrangement of matter. Science tells us you cannot get life from non-life. If we have not been able to recreate this WITH all of our intelligence then how in the world did it happen just because with no guidance whatsoever? And why can we not replicate this?
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Let's start with your first premise: "Life is a bit more than an arrangement of matter." How so?
h8uall66 1 year ago
If it is as simple as an arrangement of matter then why can YOU, with intelligence, not create life from non-life?
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
You didn't answer my question. How is it any more than an arrangement of matter?
h8uall66 1 year ago
lol, you never answered mine and I asked first! How do you get life from non-life? :)
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Actually you didn't ask a question, you made an assertion. I responded to your assertion by asking "why not" and then asserting that life is just an arrangement of matter. To which you simply denied, so I asked how so? I will not allow you to change the subject. How so?
h8uall66 1 year ago
You have no answer! My question is how do you get life from non-life, the point of the video. This has been my question all along. Are you going to play games or are you going to "flatten" me with your awesome knowledge? It is YOU who needs to change the subject because you have no answer for this.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
But to answer, the first criteria is it needs to be self replicating. In fact, just looking at DNA life is so far beyond our understanding that we could never hope to fully understand it.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Sure, self replication is obviously the key component. But even self replication is facilitated by the arrangement of matter in an organism. So we're still talking about an arrangement of matter. You've not made your case yet that life is more than an arrangement of matter.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I am not making a case! Science says you cannot get life from non-life. I did not make that rule up, it has nothing to do with me, it is a scientific FACT. You need to prove how you can create life from non-life. THAT is the subject. Your little game does not play here. If you are stating that a living organism is made up of matter then I agree. But a living organism is more than just a collection of elements. Otherwise you could create life. You cannot. :)
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Your point is utterly absurd. A star is an arrangement of matter, but I can't create one of those either. All I am asking you to do is justify your base assertion that life is more than an arrangement of matter. It's a really easy question. If you have an answer then give it. We'll get to the life from non-life thing, but first we need to establish what life is. So for the last time, how is life more than an arrangement of matter?
h8uall66 1 year ago
You sure are thick headed! The question is how do you get life from non-life? You may define life as an organism that can replicate itself. That should suffice. I am about to go out for dinner, feel free to explain how you get life from non-life any time now.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Oh, is that all life is? Easy, the Spiegelman Monster, a self replicating evolving RNA molecule that can be created simple by dropping nucleobases into Q-beta replicase. So I guess I could create life if I wanted to. Enjoy your dinner.
h8uall66 1 year ago
lol, you got me! :) But is it an organism? We are starting with RNA from a virus, is that non-life? And even though the RNA is replicating can you define that as life? I suppose by MY definition you would have a case, but my mistake does not change the law of biogenesis.
But I do give the point to you.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
You surprise me jn4oldschool. Pleasantly. Perhaps I misjudged you. You are correct, in the Spiegelman experiments he used viral RNA as the basis, but in the Sumpter & Luce experiments they simply used raw nucleobases and Q-beta replicase.
h8uall66 1 year ago
It still changes nothing you are not getting life from non-life. The law of biogenesis stands. Not to mention the fact that it takes intelligence to do this.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Wait a minute, you just defined life as being something that can replicate itself, how does this not count? Is there more to life? If so, what? Bear in mind, this is exactly what I have been asking you this whole time.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Okay, how about things with a self-sustaining biological process? It must be able to grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
OK, the classic biological definition of life. I'm fine with that. But do keep in mind that that definition rules out viruses. OK, so now we have a list of attributes. How do these attributes indicate that life is more than an arrangement of matter?
h8uall66 1 year ago
Because it is a working machine. It is more than simply a collection of parts, the parts all work together in an organized manner.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
But isn't that still a collection of matter? Also, how organized are we talking here? Microbiologists remove and organelles from cells all the time. It doesn't cause them to break down or stop working. I can't just add or remove parts from my car and expect it to work.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I fail to see the point? You could certainly remove many parts from your car and it would still work. Likewise, I could lose an arm, a leg, or an eye and still have a complete and fulfilling life.
No, life goes beyond just a collection of parts. The parts must interrelate to each other. The organism must fulfill the definition of life. It is a collection of matter but the sum is much greater than the parts. I can put all the parts of a car in a pile but unless assembled it is not a car.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
I don't disagree, a pile of parts is not a car. But when the parts are in a specific "arrangement" they are. And when matter is in another arrangement it's called life. See what I mean? We're still talking about arrangements of matter. If you just want to skip ahead and say that matter can not arrange itself into life that would be a lot faster for both of us. But make no mistake, you've not demonstrated that life is anything more than an arrangement of matter.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Well, you have hit on the crux of the matter. There is no way car parts, imagining that the parts themselves were not designed with a purpose, so it is admittedly a bad analogy, bit there is no way the parts would EVER form naturally into a car without intelligent design. And a car is DEAD SIMPLE compared to a living organism.
I do not need to demonstrate life is anything more. The whole argument is that you cannot form life from non-life. Even a virus.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Just to be clear, are you abandoning the "Life is more than an arrangement of matter" argument in favor of the "Life is too complex to form naturally argument"?
h8uall66 1 year ago
Just to be clear, I am not the one arguing. :) I would say BOTH are pretty solid facts. That life is more than an arrangement of matter is born out by the fact that no matter how much man arranges matter he cannot create life from it. That life is too complex to form naturally is born out by the fact that even man, with all our intelligence, cannot even create the simplest life.
The law of biogenesis stands today. As long as it stands it rules out life accidentally forming from nothing.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Woah, wait a minute. There is a reason why I asked that question. If matter can not be arranged, not even with advanced technology, to create a living thing, then the complexity argument actually becomes incoherent. You can not actually have both. If life is somehow not an merely an arrangement of matter then it doesn't really matter how complex it is because there is still an undefined quality to it. If it is an arrangement then complexity is important.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Hmmm...I see your point. If it is simply a matter of complexity then it is just a matter of man learning the full details to be able to create it himself. If it is a matter of something undefined beyond the actual matter and the arrangement then man may not ever be able to create it himself.
Interesting thought. I can tell you for a fact that we are not even close to understanding the complexity. Manipulate life? Sure, we can manipulate it. But we do not fully understand it.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Oh good, I wasn't sure you would understand what I meant. I only realized how poorly written my comment was after I sent it. But you do understand. Cool! OK, so it seems that you are sticking with the idea that life is more than an arrangement of matter, correct? I don't want to mischaracterize your position.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Listen, I stand by both comments. But it does not matter. If you are going somewhere with all this then you better get there fast because i am going to bed soon and I am not going to be available again until Wed.
I will admit that in the future it may become possible that man creates life from non-life. Doubtful, but possible. What does that prove? Intelligent design, after all, we are created in God's image.
But for now biogenesis stands. Unless you can prove otherwise.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Well I see life as simply an arrangement of matter. There is no evidence of any sort of "animus" but if there is in the future I will change my view to accommodate it. As merely an arrangement of mater, what possible barrier could there be for abiogenesis? As I demonstrated, self replicating, evolving RNA chains spontaneously form under the right conditions. The only barrier would be complexity, but natural selection takes care of that. As for the law of biogenesis well what is a scientific law?
h8uall66 1 year ago
self replicating RNA is merely manipulating existing life (even Sumpter and Luce used Q-Beta Replicase). Let's see someone repeat this building everything from the basic elements.
But I will grant you what you say. But even if complexity were the only barrier you are still looking at an impossibility that "nature" did by accident what we cannot figure out with intelligence. But that is an argument for another day and another thread.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Well I hope we can pick this up again on Wednesday. I've enjoyed our conversation. And more importantly I would like to apologize for being hostile in the beginning. I really judged you wrongly. You've been an absolutely great person to talk to about this issue. I'm not used to that. I'm looking forward to Wednesday.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I have enjoyed it also, thank you. Like you, I am used to dealing with trolling parrots that refuse to be reasonable. People are people I suppose.
Maybe Ian will do a rant on RNA World. That would be a most interesting conversation. :)
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
The point here is that, as it stands today, life forming on this planet from non-life goes against scientific law. You are free to theorize all you like, but please do not call it fact and allow others the same freedom to their theories. I have no reason to doubt what the Bible says, every scientific fact fits in very well with a creation belief. Your beliefs are just as much a fairy tale to me as mine are to you.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Of course I believe in God so I believe that there is an aspect to life beyond the ingredients and arrangement. You can give anyone a box of paints and an empty canvas. You can even have them perform the exact techniques and follow the same steps but the true artist's work will stand out. I do not think we will ever duplicate God's work. Manipulate it yes, but never duplicate it.
But that is just me, and that is belief and faith. I do not need to prove God.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Hmmm...2 hours. What happened Hate? h8? I thought you had something to say? I replied as you requested and you turn tail and run?
Maybe I am speaking too soon. It is Saturday, maybe you went to the beach or something. Maybe snow boarding? Lol. I hope so, I am looking forward to an answer on how life could have possibly came from non-life...Except through the hand of God.
Or maybe you are just a troll?
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Come on h8Can I call you h8? I want to help you, really I do. But you will not let me! You keep striking out. I cannot keep wasting my time here, if you are not going to say anything then I cannot show you the truth. Why not just admit that you have no argument for biogenesis?
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
You should really watch Ian Jubys videos! You say he lies, but can you tell me what the lies are? Is not the law of biogenesis true? Do not animals adapt by suppressing genetic traits and not adding them? This is accepted, proven science. Really, I am trying not to be stupid here, for YEARS I have waited for someone to FINALLY explain to me how evolution can possibly work! I thought you might have been the hero I have been waiting on. Guess not...
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Just use the reply button dude. That's all I ask. When you do so the discussion will begin. It's not much to ask, really. Unless of course you just don't want a discussion. I'm ignoring you now. I'll stop ignoring you as soon as you take your little mouse over to the reply link. The ball is now in your court. You wont though. So bye!
h8uall66 1 year ago
I was once an evolutionist h8, can you believe that? I always believed in God, but I was not saved. I was taught evolution, I thought it was a proven fact. This is what public school and college taught me.
It is wrong h8! Evolution does not work! It is wrong at every corner.
H8, I like you! You have spunk! I wonder if you are just a young college troll or if you really have something to say?
Okay h8, I will concede our little game. I will reply just to see what you have.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
OK jn4, let's hear what you have to say. How does evolution "not work?" How is it wrong at every corner? By the way, I didn't expect you to respond so I started taking care of things around the house and in the neighborhood. But I am back now.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I do not have much to say really. I agree with this video. You cannot get life from nonlife.
I do accept the answer that we just may not understand how this happened, that is a relevant answer. But you can hardly get to point B without point A.
The whole question of origin without intelligence behind it is impossible by all the hard facts we do have. You need a first cause which, by definition, can only be God.
Until you can show how life began evolution is hardly proven.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
There is a lot to unpack here. A lot of misconceptions. First you say you can not get life from non-life. Why not? Life is just an arrangement of matter, it's not magical.
Then you assert that origin without intelligence is impossible. What do you base this assertion on?
You assert that a first cause can only be God. This assumes so much that it isn't even worth mentioning.
Last, evolution isn't a theory about how life began and it never will be.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I did not reply, I was waiting to see if you were going to continue.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Ah, you still cannot answer the question! Come on, at least give it the old, predictable try. How about Urey/Miller? Maybe the law of biogenesis is wrong? Maybe it is like your high priest, Richard Dawkins, got suckered into speculating, maybe little green men from Uranus (get it? lol) planted one celled organisms on this planet for some reason? But wait...er...Where did THEY come from?...
You answer, you say something of substance and I will hit the reply button.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
No, I think I've given you enough slack. Sorry, but I am not going to treat you special. You can either use the protocol that EVERYONE on YouTube uses and respond with the reply button like a normal human being or you can get lost.
h8uall66 1 year ago
By the way, my request that you use the reply button is not unreasonable. Or maybe you just don't understand reason.
h8uall66 1 year ago
I will make a deal with you though, if you actually write anything WORTH REPLYING TO then I will be sure to hit the reply button. Otherwise, you are just wasting a lot of space saying absolutely nothing. :)
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
So flatten me! :) You have no reply, all you can do is sling mud. You make up irrelevant insults and ad hominem attacks that make no sense. Dishonest? How so? What does post modernism have to do with anything? Creation is opposed to post modernism, check your definitions.
Cowardly? I am replying to YOU! I am not tucking tail and running!
Once again, stop babbling and ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Biogenesis says you do not get life from non-life, the point of the video. Prove otherwise.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Actually no, you are not replying to me. To reply to me you would hit the "Reply" link. If you can't figure that out then you are simply too stupid to talk to. But we both know you are doing it on purpose. Use the link so that I will be notified that you have replied to me like an honest person and I will happily discuss anything you want. Can you handle that?
h8uall66 1 year ago
Oh, as far as the reply goes, I think I will remain "dishonest!" The thread is old, there will not be much traffic. If you have anything to actually say to me then you check back in. I do not think you have anything to say you are just full of hot air. After all, you think you came from a monkey and I am sure your IQ backs that theory up! :)
Happy research, do not wear yourself out on "Evolution for Dummies."
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
h8uall66, Google is YOUR friend! I really do not care if you demean yourself to have a conversation with little old me. Your tactics are old, and I am unimpressed.
Please answer me how life could have formed from non-life or how like can beget unlike.
I am fully aware that a biological evolutionist will ALWAYS beg this question on the grounds that evolution only addresses the formation of new species and not origin of life. Unfortunately for you, life has to come from somewhere. :)
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Yep, once again you refuse to use the reply button. Typical dishonest, creationist low-life. Have fun with your post modernism. I refuse to have any dealings with someone so dishonest and cowardly. By the way, I'm sure you think not using the reply button is pretty clever, but all you are showing is that you know you will get flattened by me. Thanks!
h8uall66 1 year ago
h8uall66 the claim here is that evolution goes against the scientific law of biogenesis. You can not prove this law false. Otherwise it would not be a scientific law. If biogenesis is true then the origin of life from non-life, as defined by the theory of evolution, can not be true.
You are so busy attacking us stupid, lying creationists that you forgot to defend evolution. Once again, I am not proving creation to you, I do not need to. :) You prove evolution to me.
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
You need to use the reply button if you want me to know you have something to say to me. Looks like someone is trying to make it look like I was without rejoinder. How dishonest. That's strike one. Here's your chance to earn strike two: Recite exactly what the law of biogenesis states. If you lie, you get a strike. Tell the truth and you can win my respect. I'm really hoping you will tell the truth, but I know you won't. Last, you don't even know what evolution is, so how can I prove it to you?
h8uall66 1 year ago
Also, please provide the definition of a scientific law, and an explanation of what the theory of evolution concerns itself with. Demonstrate that you can actually do these things and I will entertain the notion of having a discussion with you. I will not waste my time with some village idiot that thinks that evolutionary theory has something to do with the Big Bang. If you're that ignorant no YouTube comment section can help you.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Why is it that evos always ignore the point of the argument and get into the "can't prove God" dribble? Actually, I CAN prove God, you just will not accept that proof.
Never mind God, or creation. We will never prove creation, it is a moot point. As h8uall66 points out, the idea is to show that evolution is impossible. The point of this video was to show the SCIENTIFIC LAWS that refute evolution. Never mind diverting the argument to refuting God, YOU PROVE how evolution can be true!
jn4oldschool 1 year ago
Most excellent video, dude!
Don't stop doing these!!
theTRUTHgroup 1 year ago
Exactly, accept what he says uncritically, just as he accepted it from the person he got it from, or you are blind. Apparently blindness = not being gullible.
h8uall66 2 years ago
This man needs an education.
ZachToFakie 2 years ago
I don't think you understand how the process of Evolution works.
NavinJohnson90 2 years ago
of course he doesn't. no creationist does.
GallusSapien 2 years ago
Actually neither do I. Could somebody who does please enlighten me on the difference between Derived and Ancestral characteristics? This hw is due in like 7 hours.
NavinJohnson90 2 years ago
It's not that creationists don't know how it works, it's that creationists know it doesn't work. You had all the words right, just not in the correct order.
Vertisai 2 years ago
I have yet to meet a single creationist who could accurately describe the process in full. Nor have I ever met one who didnt make up ridiculous shit that had nothing to do with it. And I have yet to read or hear a creationist who didnt have to lie, as you just have, to support their view.
GallusSapien 2 years ago
I wouldn't bother GallusSapien. I was fine with talking to Vertisai until yesterday. He told a bold faced lie (the etymology of the word "Universe") and when caught refused to admit that he was wrong. There is no point in having a conversation with someone so dishonest. Like children, creationists actually think that admitting when they have made a mistake, no matter how trivial, will make them lose credibility. They don't seem to understand that by admitting your mistakes you gain credibility.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Yeah I know. I keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I keep thinking maybe I will run across an honest creationist one of these days. So far its been pretty much zilch. (with one exception, a 15 yr old kid I managed to convince that Hovind was a liar)
GallusSapien 2 years ago
So the only honest creatioinists are the ones that you can get to believe in evolution? There's a nice way of staging the debate in your favor.
Vertisai 2 years ago
Now you are lying about what I said. Gee you are really convincing me of creationist honesty. No. As was said before creationists will never admit mistakes. You cannot even admit your own, from the very site you cited! Try typing "universe" into the search engine, and subsequently admitting that even your own source says that you are wrong. But of course you wont admit wrong because you are a creationist, which is why I have no