I don't understand how preachers like this can tell lies to confuse the mass. There are those that trust him yet he patronizes them and lies to them. If there was a hell he would go there for being a terrible person.
hmm, I thought there was some RNA based life in single celled organisms. I see , to refute all of SCIENCE (methodological naturalism) , carry on. Oh dear, proving through science a supernatural being , that should be fun, did I mention science is methodological naturalism ? OK, so Bible verse that says 'its obvious' and 'there it is' er, not very sciency. Mans wisdom really says Man created Gods (plural) as each culture sought explanations. All that can be shown through science yes.
But wait, does the bible claim to be inerrant? Perhaps the God is not telling us what is what, rather the way to salvation. I really want to find a verse where the bible claims accuracy, so someone should help me out here!
The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. God reasons w/ man. If it is good enough for him to use with us, certainly we should do the same with one another. If you spend the whole time speaking at the top of my voice, your audience stops listening.
The average evolutionist did not choose he was taught in schools to believe in it., Jesus was harsh with the Pharisees, not the lay people.
People will change their minds when the facts are presented without emotionalism..
Christians are stupid enough to believe in superstitious nonsense so the con-men sell their credulous minds this easily debunked dribble. I bet the DVD set is $100, the one from Way Of The Master is.
DNA is a ANALOG chemical reaction NOT a digital computer program. This is a old misconception.....
This should be moved to the Comedy Category LOL its Anti-Education
In short this video says: Stop thinking! believe in God, be a zombie! Education is EVIL!
I guess you are supposing time existed before the Big Bang? Some people do not think there was time before the big bang Others like proponents of string theory believe that all space came together from Brains like massive sponges of powerful energy existing all around us but on a single dimension spinning and buzzing with energy pulsating near each other they think 2 of the brains struck each other creating a massive expansion of space in every direction and some of the energy made matter
No since there is no proof for your spiritual hypotheses unlike Psychical Theories that are supported by many facts.
You do know the word spirit means the air? Primitive people couldn't understand why something pushed on them that could not be seen They thought the spirit was inside of them since they could feel wind when they exhaled. Ever hear of the breath of life? all just superstitious mumbo jumbo.
We are lucky to have any fossils as they are very rare. To answer your question.
We would need each and every one of the offspring from every species to not have a missing transitional fossil. The idea of the missing link was debunked in the 30's you need to take a basic science class and figure out how evolution works instead of letting some preacher con you out of $100 for a few dvd's he made in his church gym.
Even if you destroy science you don't scratch the personal belief of Atheism.
Your analogy of missing link is incorrect logically. first it supposes that each species is a decedent of each obviously different species but in reality each individual is slightly different this is how evolution works it doesn't stop working. Your comment supposes that evolution functions by a on off process when it doesn't
Stated simply the idea of a missing link is an error since all offspring would need to be fossilized We know by Genetics that evolution works we don't need fossils
To argue that would be very dishonest. Are you a dishonest person? We don't need fossils for a few facts
#1 fossils don't have DNA
#2 DNA shows how Life evolved in more then one way.
The only cheap excuse is religious magic that can't be proven even if it wished it could. Life forms are not magicked into existence from nothing. That is what you are arguing friend.
For you to be right you must Coherently and undeniably Prove God.
An acumuliation of all the mass in a very small point, when there was no more empty space betwen particles the density was so high it created an explosion.
Density is an inherent property of atoms. And before you ask the next question let me tell you something, even if you get me to a point where I just have to answer "I don´t know" that wouldn´t give you the right to say "god did it".
And my questions stand.
What caused god? and, How do you explain atavism if evolution is wrong? I already aswered to several of your quetions and I want straight answers.
Actually, no. Evolution is true because it is extremely well supported by reality, including making very precise and unlikely predictions that happen to be right. Also, new information is observed all the time in DNA.
What do you Biblical literalists think about the fact that the Bible claims insects have 4 legs, rabbits chew cud, and bats are a type of bird?
Have you seen the fossils of those early Cambrian phyla? They are themselves transitional between ancient segmented worms and modern members of those phyla. We have plenty of worm fossils and fossilized aquatic worm burrows from several 10s of millions of years before the Cambrian. Pretty impressive, actually, considering we're talking about soft-bodied organisms that don't tend to fossilize easily.
Still, that's not a very good classification system, and it's a pretty silly set of dietary rules. Why are certain birds and all bats restricted from eating? Eating a bat or heron could save you from starving.
Okay, when I meet God, I will ask him about the dietary restrictions of Leviticus. Until then, I'll just assume that since they seem to be so nonsensical and arbitrary that they were actually written by humans and not by an omniscient being.
No, I'm not Jewish. Regardless of who the restrictions were for, my point is unchanged.
Your quote is even more confusing in light of this one:
"...God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. THERE IS NO FEAR IN LOVE; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
Did you miss the contradiction between Pro 1:7 & 1 John 4:16-18, or did you just decide to concede the point to me by ignoring it?
I was a real Christian until I was 18. I have no problem with Christians, and am very close to several. My only problem is with the idea that the Bible is the literal God given truth when is so contradictory to itself and reality and terribly immoral in places.
If God exists, then He is too smart and too good to have written the Bible. Otherwise, why worship Him?
Ahora que dijiste que "la microevolución es un maravilloso don que dios nos dió" ¿Que vas a hacer Texoki? Canviar el titulo de los videos y disculparte, borrar tu comentario o ignorar todo y fingir que no ocurrió?
y nunca me respondiste¿Según que significa "macroevolución"?
God is smart and good. But what does that have to do with writing or not writing the Bible?
When you say the Word is contradictory, I think you're missing the point: the Bible shows us the character of God and all of it is one linear story (from Old to New Testament) of God redeeming his people through Christ. All of Old Testament points to Christ - how He was the one and ONLY being who could redeem Isreal and could justify ALL of us to having a relationship with God. THIS is
"real" Christianity. Not the legalistic group of ppl that dominate modern churches.
Also, I'm not sure where you see the immorality in Scripture - but I will presume that it is b/c you think that the God Christians believe in is a man-centered God. However, He is a loving God-centered God, and all was/is created to glorify &magnify Himself.
Now I must warn you that me saying this may turn you even further away - b/c you want a God who serves to better you. But I want you to know this truth.
The immorality I speak of is things like genocide performed by God or on His orders, or the creation of a place to torture all sinners for eternity.
If you believe that God exists & did these things, then why worship Him? By His own moral codes, the God of the Bible is demonic. Isn't it evil to worship a being that does evil things? If we cannot determine if God is good by His own moral code then how can we avoid worshiping Satan by accident?
Like I said, u think it's immoral b/c u're going by ur (human) definition of immorality not God's. U say, if he destroys humans then it is immoral b/c u believe he is a God who exists to bless humanity. However, to me -a Christian- God serves Himself, and we were made to serve Him -which is how I'm most peaceful & joyful. (Unlike when humans strive to serve the self -self gain/leverage, self blessing- it's NOT peaceful. We're not wired that way). God IS "morality" & therefore cannot be immoral.
Thanks for explaining your view of God. I only have my own God given conscience to judge the morality of a behavior. I do not believe that it is morally just to obey an immoral being, no matter how powerful He is or what He created.
If you feel differently, then I guess we will never see eye to eye on this, but maybe you understand why a moral person might be justifiably turned away from Yahweh by some things in the Bible.
It's not about getting into heaven to avoid eternal torture; a heaven vs hell. It's about heaven -a place of eternal communion with God- vs God's JUST wrath.
Why worship a God of wrath? B/c he is eternally good, & sin is rebelling against Him. I worship a God who is a just Judge, who MUST punish this crime of sin B/C he is ALL righteous. (Don't you want a judge to punish crime for its measure?) Well, the crime of going against an eternal God is eternal wrath.
I love this God who is never changing (never wishy-washy) - I am secure in Him.
That's the story of Christ. Christ didn't just go through human torture and cruxifiction - he suffered the ETERNITY of GOD's WRATH, the WRATH of his Father (the essense of Himself) for us. And thus, our eternal wrath was poured on him so that GOD can be justified in letting us worship Him in his presense for all eternity. Christ was for Him(self), and we are for Himself. And I love that. :)
If you'd like to watch, here's a vid of Pastor Paul Washer who explains this concept. I'll give you both the short and long versions. And I must say, although I grew up in a Christian home, Washer's messages totally revolutionized all that I've heard since birth; his shocking msg to 5000 -youth really woke me up- I started walking with Christ and I noticed a change in my life.
Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Locusts, bald locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are the 4 types of insects listed in Leviticus as "going upon all 4" All 4 of these insects walk on 6 legs.
By the way, know of any birds that go upon all 4? Apparently you can't eat them either - Lev 11:20
EvoBiologist : Locusts, bald locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are the 4 types of insects listed in Leviticus as "going upon all 4" All 4 of these insects walk on 6 legs.
I don't think you understand what Lev 11 is saying about the insects.
It says that you may "eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four... Even these [the 4 types I mentioned] of them ye may eat"
So, even though these 4 insects walk on 6 legs, Leviticus claims that they are "of them" "that goeth upon all 4".
As for the birds, I was referring to Lev 11:20, which says, "All FOWLS that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." See, it is referring to FOWLS.
Maybe there's a language barrier here preventing you from understanding what I'm saying.
There ARE insects that walk on 4 legs, like the praying mantis. However, none of the 4 insects listed in Leviticus do, even though it clearly says that these 4 are "of them" "that goeth upon all 4".
Now do you understand what I'm saying?
With Lev 11:20, you're saying that "fowl" is a mistranslation in the King James version. You're probably right in that case, given the context.
Let me ask you for proof beyond what evolution can offer then since you seem to only offer contempt of it without sufficiant explanation besides saying wrong wrong wrong to every post.
Please explain to us misguided science and logic loving folk how magic functions so that we may better understand its properties. thanks!
pseudo science glasses? I'm not the creationist. I don't believe the superstitious myth that cannot be backed up with reality.
What you really mean is, when I take off my reality glasses or simply remove my brain and replace it with a can of peas. Then I will agree with your nonsense?
Sorry but you haven't even attempted to offer any proof of your invisible sky zombies magical powers.
You are using science to talk to me now if you don't like it stop using technology and go live in a hole.
I don't know everything but you claim to know everything through a telepathic sky zombie. I can show you my proof can you show me yours?
Look if your God was provable no one could deny it in the least amount
Religion always has opposed new ideas and in the end it has always jumped on the band wagon in 100 years all churches will think the earth is made of atoms and goes around the sun..oh wait they do!
Why does Jeremia want me to call him? If I really want vague things known to me I can research them and make them not vague through real knowledge, not superstition. Anything that remains vague is nonsense.
Why can't you see the difference The cult book you read is no better then any other fairy tale, But anything I tell you is deflected by its dogmatic ignorance that has only dumbed down society for the last 2000 years
You are a worshiper of lies, that is your true christian God
18 years of fundamentalist christian life never showed me anything it actually hurt my understanding of many things I may never get a chance to learn because of dogmatic ignorance.
There is no answers in cults like yours, I know I've been there. You are shutting your eyes to real answers that you are afraid of because you fear annihilation and reality.
Your vague passage is no different then a tarot card or magic 8 ball..
GodKillerAtheist : 18 years of fundamentalist christian life never showed me anything it actually hurt my understanding of many things I may never get a chance to learn because of dogmatic ignorance.
"Pero todos los insectos que tienen cuatro pies iguales, seran para vosotros execrables". Like they have more than 4 feet. Still no answer on the atavismo issue uh?
¿Como explicas el atavismo si la evolución no es cierta?
.
Solo la Macroevolucion no es cierta.
Microevolucion o Adaptacion al medioambiente es un maravilloso don que Dios ha dado a su creacion, y es lo unico que la ciencia puede aportar evidencias empiricas
La Biologia no se hundiria si la macroevolucion no fuese cierta
pues todo lo que cientificamente saben es solo microevolucion, lo demas solo son prejuiciadas deducciones por analogia.
Me parece que no entiendes lo que significa "atavismo". De cualquier modo no se que entiendas tu por macroevolución, pero existen bastantes evidencias de cualquier tipo de evolución, tanto en el registro fósil, como en los laboratorios y sí, en el ADN.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, and is the only thing that science can provide empirical evidence
The Biology would not sink if macroevolution were true because everything that science knows is just microevolution, the rest are just prejudices deductions by analogy.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, and is the only thing that science can provide empirical evidence
The Biology would not sink if macroevolution were not true because everything that science knows is just microevolution, the rest are just prejudices deductions by analogy.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, " Funny, why did you called the video "How DNA Destroys Evolution" If you think evolution is possible? You are either decieving people or moving the goal.
Como ya te he dicho en otra ocasión, la ciencia no trabaja con verdades absolutas sino con teorias probadas lejos de toda duda razonable, de hecho, gran parte de las nuevas hipotesis (sobre todo en tesis) son "juzgadas" frente a un tribunal antes de considerarlas teorias.
For you evolutionists holding onto the fossil record as proof of evolution, search Mike riddle Exposes the Fossil Record that Support Evolution . I have his talks in my playlist. The fossil evidence supports creation.
No, estoy profetizando, la ciencia hace predicciones basandose en la informacion que posee, se creia que las aves venian de los reptiles pero no se tenian pruebas, se dijo que tarde o temprano apareceria un fosil que lo demostrara, unos 5 años despues, se encontro ese fosil (archaeopterix)
Tambien hago la prediccion de que si suelto una bila de un kg de masa a una altura del suelo de un metro golpeara el suelo con una fuerza de 9,8*1 = 9,8 Neutons, y eso NO es FE
Que dejes de citar libros antiguos, desde que se descubrio el iberomesornis esta claro que hay una transicion dinosaurio->ave, por favor, si el archaepterix casi parece mas un dinosaurio que un ave, como ostias me vas a decir que eso no demuestra que las aves vienen de los dinosaurios (pico con dientes, cola larga (dinos) plumas y alas (aves)) eso, o aceptas eso como especie intermedia o no se que coño quieres ver.
La evolución no tiene explicación para la fotosíntesis.
La evolución no tiene explicación para la metamorfosis.
La evolución tiene un punto de vista limitado ya que solamente intenta explicar el origen de las especies una vez que la vida ya este presente en el planeta e ignora el proceso total de la creación del universo.
La evolución no tiene explicación de como el hombre adquirió su estado conciente e inteligencia.
El ojo y el oido humano tiene un complejidad irreducible para ser un producto de la casualidad. El ojo sin retina, o sin nervios opticos, o sin cornea, o sin iris, etc. es inservible. Es imposible "evolucionar" este organo gradualmente.
La evolución no tiene explicación para el proceso de cuagulación de la sangre.
Afirmo con un intervalo de confianza del 95% y una p<0.05 sobre la Normal estandarizada de media mu y desviacion tipica sigma, que la esperanza matematica (media mas probable) es que los nuevos descubrimientos apoyen la teoria de la evolucion.
Bueno esto es una broma (ya que solo se aplica para hipoteis "numericas"), pero mas o menos lo que digo es verdad, la ciencia no hace predicciones absolutas, solo probabilisticas.
Ninguno, porque las lagartijas son reptiles actuales y los pajaros evolucionaron de reptiles de hace 65ma, no de lagartijas. Lo siento, pero creo que tu concepto de evolucion es erroneo si pides esa clase de pruebas.
Y por cierto se dice esternon y los dromeosaurios tambien lo tenian.
I have a nice question to anyone who descredit in any way evolution. What do fossils are? God buried them into the ground? if we have a record of how adan, the first human, was made, why we dont have any record of that strange animals who came into fossils?
4) las celulas sans cercana producen señales de muerte (TNF)
5)algunas celulas cancerigenas tienen mutado el TNFreceptor, otras el P53 y la mayoria no tienen mutado ningun gen de muerte. La que tienen mutado TNFr o P53 sobreviven a las señales de muerte, el resto mueren.
6)el tumor continua creciendo y tiene descendientes de ambas lineas de celulas (las de la mutacion de TNFr y las de la mutacion en P53)
La acumulacion de errores es tal que se inicia la muerte celular endogena, las de TNFr mueren, las de P53 sobreviven
7) el tumor crece enormemente, se actinan genes al azar, las celulas tumorales comienzan a envejecer salvo las que tienen activodo el gen de la telomerasa
8)solo sobreviven las que tienen la telomerasa activa. A partir de aqui diferentes mutaciones dan a las celulas cancerigenas la posibilidad de metastatizar, producir nuevos vasos sanguineos , producir hormonas...
Resumen, de una celula normal, a partir de mutaciones aleatorias causadas por una mutacion en genes reparadores del DNA, se producen muchas celulas que acumulan mutaciones diferentes, pueto que el tumor se desarrolla en un entorno hostil, solo sobreviben las celulas con las mutacines mas beneficiosas, acumulando asi ventajas a lo largo del tiempo.
Ejemplo 2:
De cannis lupus a canis familaris:
Unos humanos tomaron de una manada de lobos los mas mansos y pequeños
Tras cientos de años de reproduccion selectiva (la evolucion es mas rapida si no se deja el apareamiento al azar), dejan de nacer individuos agresivos.
Se comienzan a aparear los perros con caracteristicas similares (tamaño color etc) entre si. Esto produce divergencia en razas.
Ejemplo3
Bacterias resistentes a antibioticos:
Una poblacion de bacterias es tratada con antibioticos, su poblacion se reduce poco a poco
Por por procesos naturales ayudados por el daño causado por los antibioticos , mutan genes puntuales, la mayoria de las celulas arrastran mutaciones perniciosas y mueren, una pequeña parte obtienen mutaciones protectoras, por ejemplo, muta el gen de una proteina de transporte, haciendola mas pequeña y asi impidiendo la entrada del antibiotico.
Todas las bacterias hijas de la que tenia la mutacion beneficiosa nacen con ella y son inmunes al antibiotico.
Bueno espero que estos tres ejemplos de evolucion observable (u observada en el caso de los perros) sean suficientes para ti, no dudes responder a estos comentarios para darme la razon si es que te he convencido o para exponer tus argumentos en contra si no
todo es microevolucion MENTIRA, sabia que lo ibas a decir y por eso he puesto el ejemplo 2:
de canis lupus a canis familiaris: ESPECIACION: los perros y los lobos son especies diferentes ya que no pueden procrear y tener descendencia fertil (al igual que burros y caballos)
No te niego que es dificil ver procesos de especiacion porque normalmente tardan millones de años pero cuando hay aislamiento de individuos (ya sea natural o artificial ) puede ocurrir mucho mas rapido en varios cientos de generaciones (especialmente si los individuos aislados poseian muchos genes recesivos)
canis es el genero, no la especie, la especie es canis lupus y canis familiaris!
para ti un caballo (equus caballus) y un burro (equus asnus) son la misma especie porque los dos son "equus". Si te has quedado sin argumentos, no digas estupideces.
Lo que tu pides es imposible, para pasar de un genero a otro se necesitan varios cientos de miles de años, no se puede observar en una generacion, lo que se puede hacer es observar las especies antiguas incluso secuenciando su genoma y compararlas con las modernas lo cual muestra el paulatino proceso evolutivo.
Por hacer un simil, si la evolucion fuera un crimen, no tendriamos testigos, pero habriamos encontrado a un hombre ensangrentado al lado del cadaver con un el arma homicida humeante en la mano... ese hombre es la evolucion y su arma la seleccion natural.
No lo sabriamos todo, pero sabriamos mas que suficiente para reconstruir la escena del crimen, eso es lo que hace la ciencia con todo lo que no es directamente observable:
- analisis de la composicion del sol por espectrofotometria y no trayendo un trozo del sol al laboratorio
- analisis de proteinas con difraccion de rayos x y no con una lupa
- observar al enfermo con un tac en vez de abrirle el canal
La observacion indirecta bien planteada es tan valida como la directa.
La bacteria flavobacterium, Sp. K172. Que "come" nylon, es una bacteria a la que se le "añadió" información genética naturalmente, ya que en el jardín del edén no creo que Eva tuviera calzones de nylon. Fue descubierta (la bacteria ,no a Eva) en Japón en los '70s.
Mira eso no lo sabia, gracias por apollarme, pero de todas formas eso no les va a valer porque tambien es macro evolucion de lobo a perro, de mesohippus a caballo y me han hecho oidos sordos...
Esta bacteria evoluciono porque no tenía otra cosa que comer. En este caso la naturaleza añadió información para que pudiera digerir el nylon. Esto es lo que estabas buscando no? evidencia de la macroevolución. Pues SORPRESA!
Fe!!! sabes lo que es la observacion indirecta? La proxima vez que vayas a sacarte una radriogafia dile al radiologo a ver si se necesita fe para interpretarla, como es una observacion indirecta... segun tu se necesitaria fe, no?
Pues mira, que lo sepas, lo que se necesita para entender las observaciones indirectas, ya sean radriografias o fosiles, secuencias de DNA, regiones homologas en proteinas y rutas metabolicas derivadas, son muchos años de estudio, cosa que tu has demostrado no tener.
Voy a callarte la boca ya de una vez para que dejes de decir lo de los 50 filos:
1) son 20 de los cuales solo 11 parecen haber surgido en la "explosion cambrica", los otros 8 son mas recientes
2)la explosion cambrica duro unos 12 millones de años
3)SI se han encontrado fosiles de ancestros, pero pocos, ya que los organismos unicelulares es dificil que se fosilicen y nustra tecnologia actual es precaria para distinguir bien esos fosiles, pero tranquilo que en unos pocos años se encuntraran mas
y por ultimo, que sepas que los fosiles no son las evidencias mas fiables que tenemos, tu estas anclado en el siglo 19! La demostracion de un origen comun por comparacion de secuencias de DNA o el establecimiento de secuencias homologas en proteinas, es mucho mas fiable que un fosil.
Lo que tu llamas "La demostracion de un origen comun " es la interpretacion de la evidencia "La demostracion de un Creador comun", solo que interpretado segun tus prejuicios.
.
Como los fosiles no aparecen os agarais a un clavo ardiendo.
Pero tu eres idiota o un fanatico de mierda. He desmontado tu hipotesis, ya te he dicho que los fosiles no es lo mas importane, una secuencia de rutas metabolicas da muchisima mas informacion, un orden de proteinas de simple a complejo con una secuenciacion genomica dan mucha mas informacion que un fosil, que solo informa del aspecto fisico de una especie y no de su bioquimica que es lo que de verdad importa ¿Por que crees que el Boom de la paleontologia pasó ya en los 90?
No, reconozco que no se puede poner a una rana en una placa de petri y ver como se convierte en un lagarto, porque la evolucion no funciona asi.
Como la evolucion es un proceso tan lento, no se puede observar directamente en el laboratorio a la escala que tu pides, pero si se puede observar indirectamente lo cual es igual de valido, por ejemplo, el hecho de que la tierra es esferica se demostro por observacion indirecta mucho antes de que se mandara un hombre al espacio y la viera!!!
That's called circular logic Texoki, it doesn't work. As it can be applied to anything. I could say that a giant unicorn who lives in the stars created the universe and humans. The proof being everything you see! When it comes down to it, religion is based on blind faith, while Science is about looking at physical evidence, doing test's and creating hypotheses.
No, that's merely the strongest supported theory so far. There's a difference between a theory and claiming as a fact..
Good Scientist's don't claim truths, they bring forth theories, and they stay theories until they can be proven to be true or false.
Personally I would think that matter/energy has always existed, that the "Big Bang" was merely an exponential convergence and then explosion of all matter/energy due to forces such as gravity, magnetism, etc..But that's just my theory.
I don't understand how preachers like this can tell lies to confuse the mass. There are those that trust him yet he patronizes them and lies to them. If there was a hell he would go there for being a terrible person.
mtbers 10 months ago
hmm, I thought there was some RNA based life in single celled organisms. I see , to refute all of SCIENCE (methodological naturalism) , carry on. Oh dear, proving through science a supernatural being , that should be fun, did I mention science is methodological naturalism ? OK, so Bible verse that says 'its obvious' and 'there it is' er, not very sciency. Mans wisdom really says Man created Gods (plural) as each culture sought explanations. All that can be shown through science yes.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Once again, a bunch of bullshit rife with logical fallacy from the start.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
They should be entitled "stealing" the mind.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
But wait, does the bible claim to be inerrant? Perhaps the God is not telling us what is what, rather the way to salvation. I really want to find a verse where the bible claims accuracy, so someone should help me out here!
CHICHICHICHIZ 1 year ago
The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. God reasons w/ man. If it is good enough for him to use with us, certainly we should do the same with one another. If you spend the whole time speaking at the top of my voice, your audience stops listening.
The average evolutionist did not choose he was taught in schools to believe in it., Jesus was harsh with the Pharisees, not the lay people.
People will change their minds when the facts are presented without emotionalism..
courag1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
.
You'll have to admit that he required an intelligent being to make it
.
Thanks for providing support to intelligent design.
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@gregrutz
absolutely not true.
smitpr1 1 year ago
Comment removed
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
Human DNA is 1.2% different from chimps, not counting repeats.
DNA is not software.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism or secular humanism, it is science.
gregrutz 2 years ago
GodKillerAtheist
Even if you destroy science you don't scratch the personal belief of Atheism.
.
You can not convince a believer (in Atheism) of anything,
because their beliefs are not evidence based
are based on the deep-rooted need to believe (in Atheism)
Carl Sagan
Texoki 2 years ago
Eureka! I just figured it out!!!!!
Christians are stupid enough to believe in superstitious nonsense so the con-men sell their credulous minds this easily debunked dribble. I bet the DVD set is $100, the one from Way Of The Master is.
DNA is a ANALOG chemical reaction NOT a digital computer program. This is a old misconception.....
This should be moved to the Comedy Category LOL its Anti-Education
In short this video says: Stop thinking! believe in God, be a zombie! Education is EVIL!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 3
What is the cause of the Efect Big Bang?
Texoki 2 years ago
I guess you are supposing time existed before the Big Bang? Some people do not think there was time before the big bang Others like proponents of string theory believe that all space came together from Brains like massive sponges of powerful energy existing all around us but on a single dimension spinning and buzzing with energy pulsating near each other they think 2 of the brains struck each other creating a massive expansion of space in every direction and some of the energy made matter
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
I could be more detailed and probably more accurate, but I'm sure you can just look up "M Theory" for yourself its very well known in physics
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
If I accept your metafisic theories
Would you accept my Espiritual theories?
Texoki 2 years ago
No since there is no proof for your spiritual hypotheses unlike Psychical Theories that are supported by many facts.
You do know the word spirit means the air? Primitive people couldn't understand why something pushed on them that could not be seen They thought the spirit was inside of them since they could feel wind when they exhaled. Ever hear of the breath of life? all just superstitious mumbo jumbo.
In regards to "accepting theories".
Why choose Jesus magic over obvious reality?
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
GodKillerAtheist : Why choose Jesus magic over obvious reality?
.
I choose Jesus reality over magical Theories of Macroevolution.
.
Where are the transitional fossils ancestors of more than 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
Keep talking of obvious reality.
Texoki 2 years ago
We are lucky to have any fossils as they are very rare. To answer your question.
We would need each and every one of the offspring from every species to not have a missing transitional fossil. The idea of the missing link was debunked in the 30's you need to take a basic science class and figure out how evolution works instead of letting some preacher con you out of $100 for a few dvd's he made in his church gym.
Even if you destroy science you don't scratch the personal belief of Atheism.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
GodKillerAtheist
The idea of the missing link was debunked in the 30's
.
Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors of the more than 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Your analogy of missing link is incorrect logically. first it supposes that each species is a decedent of each obviously different species but in reality each individual is slightly different this is how evolution works it doesn't stop working. Your comment supposes that evolution functions by a on off process when it doesn't
Stated simply the idea of a missing link is an error since all offspring would need to be fossilized We know by Genetics that evolution works we don't need fossils
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
To say "we don't need fossils"
when you have not been able to find them,
is a very cheap excuse.
Texoki 2 years ago
To argue that would be very dishonest. Are you a dishonest person? We don't need fossils for a few facts
#1 fossils don't have DNA
#2 DNA shows how Life evolved in more then one way.
The only cheap excuse is religious magic that can't be proven even if it wished it could. Life forms are not magicked into existence from nothing. That is what you are arguing friend.
For you to be right you must Coherently and undeniably Prove God.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
An acumuliation of all the mass in a very small point, when there was no more empty space betwen particles the density was so high it created an explosion.
Cuythulu 2 years ago
What caused that?
Texoki 2 years ago
density.
Cuythulu 2 years ago
What caused density?
Texoki 2 years ago
Is your turn to answer some questions now. What caused god?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Since Time and space started in the Big Bang,
the Cause of the Big Bang is Timeless and spaceless.
What caused God?
Where(spaceless) and when(timeless)?
.
What caused density?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
What?
Density is an inherent property of atoms. And before you ask the next question let me tell you something, even if you get me to a point where I just have to answer "I don´t know" that wouldn´t give you the right to say "god did it".
And my questions stand.
What caused god? and, How do you explain atavism if evolution is wrong? I already aswered to several of your quetions and I want straight answers.
Cuythulu 2 years ago 3
I have answered you already
The Cause of the Big bag has to be Timeless and Spaceless, since Time and Space started in the BB
What is Timeless and Spaceless?
I call it God.
the law of cause and effect is applicable only to matter.
Whatever is timeless & Spaceles is causeless,
Where & When?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
No one knows, but why default to a God done it?
Why not take the more logical step and ask What then caused God to be?
DNA actually proves evolution that's why this video is so hilarious.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
you mean expansion not explosion
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
"Evolution is true because evolution is true"
Actually, no. Evolution is true because it is extremely well supported by reality, including making very precise and unlikely predictions that happen to be right. Also, new information is observed all the time in DNA.
What do you Biblical literalists think about the fact that the Bible claims insects have 4 legs, rabbits chew cud, and bats are a type of bird?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 3
where are the transitional fossils ancestors of the more than 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
Texoki 2 years ago
Have you seen the fossils of those early Cambrian phyla? They are themselves transitional between ancient segmented worms and modern members of those phyla. We have plenty of worm fossils and fossilized aquatic worm burrows from several 10s of millions of years before the Cambrian. Pretty impressive, actually, considering we're talking about soft-bodied organisms that don't tend to fossilize easily.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 5
Evidence is that in pre-cambrian where sponges and jellyfish, and The cambrian Explosion more than 70 Phyla.
.
where are the transitional fossils between sponges and jellyfish and the 70 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
Texoki 2 years ago
Where does it say in the bible that insects have only 4 legs?
Texoki 2 years ago
Leviticus 11:21-23
The other bits about rabbits chewing cud and bats being a type of bird are also from Leviticus 11.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
In Moses language Flying animals where birds
Texoki 2 years ago
You mean "non-insect flying animals".
Still, that's not a very good classification system, and it's a pretty silly set of dietary rules. Why are certain birds and all bats restricted from eating? Eating a bat or heron could save you from starving.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
That's a question you can ask God someday
I am shure that He will give the right answer
Texoki 2 years ago
Okay, when I meet God, I will ask him about the dietary restrictions of Leviticus. Until then, I'll just assume that since they seem to be so nonsensical and arbitrary that they were actually written by humans and not by an omniscient being.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
Are you a Jew?
Those restriction where for them.
Rather than look out for what you do not understand
why don't you look at what you can understand
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Texoki 2 years ago
No, I'm not Jewish. Regardless of who the restrictions were for, my point is unchanged.
Your quote is even more confusing in light of this one:
"...God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. THERE IS NO FEAR IN LOVE; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
1 John 4:16-18
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
So you know that God loves you.
What is your problem then?
Christians?
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Have you never meet a real Christian?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Did you miss the contradiction between Pro 1:7 & 1 John 4:16-18, or did you just decide to concede the point to me by ignoring it?
I was a real Christian until I was 18. I have no problem with Christians, and am very close to several. My only problem is with the idea that the Bible is the literal God given truth when is so contradictory to itself and reality and terribly immoral in places.
If God exists, then He is too smart and too good to have written the Bible. Otherwise, why worship Him?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
EvoBiologist : Did you miss the contradiction between Pro 1:7 & 1 John 4:16-18, or did you just decide to concede the point to me by ignoring it?
.
Where is the contradiction?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
So you did miss the contradiction:
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge"
"THERE IS NO FEAR IN LOVE"
Understand now? To dwell in God we must dwell in love, and there is no fear in love. So how is it possible to both love and fear God?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
You can have fear and love
Texoki 2 years ago
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
So you think 1 John 4 is wrong?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Ahora que dijiste que "la microevolución es un maravilloso don que dios nos dió" ¿Que vas a hacer Texoki? Canviar el titulo de los videos y disculparte, borrar tu comentario o ignorar todo y fingir que no ocurrió?
y nunca me respondiste¿Según que significa "macroevolución"?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
@EvoBiologist
God is smart and good. But what does that have to do with writing or not writing the Bible?
When you say the Word is contradictory, I think you're missing the point: the Bible shows us the character of God and all of it is one linear story (from Old to New Testament) of God redeeming his people through Christ. All of Old Testament points to Christ - how He was the one and ONLY being who could redeem Isreal and could justify ALL of us to having a relationship with God. THIS is
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
"real" Christianity. Not the legalistic group of ppl that dominate modern churches.
Also, I'm not sure where you see the immorality in Scripture - but I will presume that it is b/c you think that the God Christians believe in is a man-centered God. However, He is a loving God-centered God, and all was/is created to glorify &magnify Himself.
Now I must warn you that me saying this may turn you even further away - b/c you want a God who serves to better you. But I want you to know this truth.
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
The immorality I speak of is things like genocide performed by God or on His orders, or the creation of a place to torture all sinners for eternity.
If you believe that God exists & did these things, then why worship Him? By His own moral codes, the God of the Bible is demonic. Isn't it evil to worship a being that does evil things? If we cannot determine if God is good by His own moral code then how can we avoid worshiping Satan by accident?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Like I said, u think it's immoral b/c u're going by ur (human) definition of immorality not God's. U say, if he destroys humans then it is immoral b/c u believe he is a God who exists to bless humanity. However, to me -a Christian- God serves Himself, and we were made to serve Him -which is how I'm most peaceful & joyful. (Unlike when humans strive to serve the self -self gain/leverage, self blessing- it's NOT peaceful. We're not wired that way). God IS "morality" & therefore cannot be immoral.
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
Thanks for explaining your view of God. I only have my own God given conscience to judge the morality of a behavior. I do not believe that it is morally just to obey an immoral being, no matter how powerful He is or what He created.
If you feel differently, then I guess we will never see eye to eye on this, but maybe you understand why a moral person might be justifiably turned away from Yahweh by some things in the Bible.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
About Hell.
It's not about getting into heaven to avoid eternal torture; a heaven vs hell. It's about heaven -a place of eternal communion with God- vs God's JUST wrath.
Why worship a God of wrath? B/c he is eternally good, & sin is rebelling against Him. I worship a God who is a just Judge, who MUST punish this crime of sin B/C he is ALL righteous. (Don't you want a judge to punish crime for its measure?) Well, the crime of going against an eternal God is eternal wrath.
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
I love this God who is never changing (never wishy-washy) - I am secure in Him.
That's the story of Christ. Christ didn't just go through human torture and cruxifiction - he suffered the ETERNITY of GOD's WRATH, the WRATH of his Father (the essense of Himself) for us. And thus, our eternal wrath was poured on him so that GOD can be justified in letting us worship Him in his presense for all eternity. Christ was for Him(self), and we are for Himself. And I love that. :)
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
If you'd like to watch, here's a vid of Pastor Paul Washer who explains this concept. I'll give you both the short and long versions. And I must say, although I grew up in a Christian home, Washer's messages totally revolutionized all that I've heard since birth; his shocking msg to 5000 -youth really woke me up- I started walking with Christ and I noticed a change in my life.
(youtube links)
Short(8min)
/watch?v=lSZeNK0TA80
Long(1+hr)
/watch?v=G7X24_vOWwU
lilbabi1004 2 years ago
Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Walk in four legs does not mean that does not have more
Texoki 2 years ago
Locusts, bald locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are the 4 types of insects listed in Leviticus as "going upon all 4" All 4 of these insects walk on 6 legs.
By the way, know of any birds that go upon all 4? Apparently you can't eat them either - Lev 11:20
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
EvoBiologist : Locusts, bald locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are the 4 types of insects listed in Leviticus as "going upon all 4" All 4 of these insects walk on 6 legs.
.
If they walk on six legs,
that means that Jews can eat them.
.
Have you realized that the birds are not insects?
Texoki 2 years ago
I don't think you understand what Lev 11 is saying about the insects.
It says that you may "eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four... Even these [the 4 types I mentioned] of them ye may eat"
So, even though these 4 insects walk on 6 legs, Leviticus claims that they are "of them" "that goeth upon all 4".
As for the birds, I was referring to Lev 11:20, which says, "All FOWLS that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." See, it is referring to FOWLS.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago 2
If you have not found an insect that walks on four legs
does not mean that does not exist.
.
Lev 11:20 "All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
Texoki 2 years ago
Maybe there's a language barrier here preventing you from understanding what I'm saying.
There ARE insects that walk on 4 legs, like the praying mantis. However, none of the 4 insects listed in Leviticus do, even though it clearly says that these 4 are "of them" "that goeth upon all 4".
Now do you understand what I'm saying?
With Lev 11:20, you're saying that "fowl" is a mistranslation in the King James version. You're probably right in that case, given the context.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Let me ask you for proof beyond what evolution can offer then since you seem to only offer contempt of it without sufficiant explanation besides saying wrong wrong wrong to every post.
Please explain to us misguided science and logic loving folk how magic functions so that we may better understand its properties. thanks!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
When ever you start giving empirical evidences
I'll stop saying "wrong wrong wrong "
.
When ever you stop trying to understand super natural with your pseudo-science-glassses on.
You may understand something.
Texoki 2 years ago
pseudo science glasses? I'm not the creationist. I don't believe the superstitious myth that cannot be backed up with reality.
What you really mean is, when I take off my reality glasses or simply remove my brain and replace it with a can of peas. Then I will agree with your nonsense?
Sorry but you haven't even attempted to offer any proof of your invisible sky zombies magical powers.
You are using science to talk to me now if you don't like it stop using technology and go live in a hole.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
Being smart and intelligent
is no guarantee that you don't get brainwashed.
.
"The Emperor's New Clothes"
Texoki 2 years ago
The Emperor in the story of the emperors new clothes, was rich and powerful but not intelligent.
Don't you even know what the word intelligent means? Perhaps you think it means pompous ass... Here is a hint, You're wrong.
Learn something and you will see how dumb you were.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
You talk like if you knew everything or in possession of the truth
Texoki 2 years ago
I don't know everything but you claim to know everything through a telepathic sky zombie. I can show you my proof can you show me yours?
Look if your God was provable no one could deny it in the least amount
Religion always has opposed new ideas and in the end it has always jumped on the band wagon in 100 years all churches will think the earth is made of atoms and goes around the sun..oh wait they do!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
Whatever I say you will not believe me
so go to the source
Jeremia 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you,
and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.
.
He will give you the personal evidence that will convince you better than I.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Why does Jeremia want me to call him? If I really want vague things known to me I can research them and make them not vague through real knowledge, not superstition. Anything that remains vague is nonsense.
Why can't you see the difference The cult book you read is no better then any other fairy tale, But anything I tell you is deflected by its dogmatic ignorance that has only dumbed down society for the last 2000 years
You are a worshiper of lies, that is your true christian God
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
Jer 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.
.
Are you afraid that He may answer and gives you personal proves of His existence with hidden things you don't know?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
18 years of fundamentalist christian life never showed me anything it actually hurt my understanding of many things I may never get a chance to learn because of dogmatic ignorance.
There is no answers in cults like yours, I know I've been there. You are shutting your eyes to real answers that you are afraid of because you fear annihilation and reality.
Your vague passage is no different then a tarot card or magic 8 ball..
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 2
GodKillerAtheist : 18 years of fundamentalist christian life never showed me anything it actually hurt my understanding of many things I may never get a chance to learn because of dogmatic ignorance.
.
Did you never meet God in 18 years?
very sad
Texoki 2 years ago
Levitico 11;20,23
Cuythulu 2 years ago
have you eaten any insect that walks with four of his feet?
Texoki 2 years ago
No, I haven´t. Whats your point?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
That an insect that walks in 4 feet
can have 6 feet
Texoki 2 years ago
"Pero todos los insectos que tienen cuatro pies iguales, seran para vosotros execrables". Like they have more than 4 feet. Still no answer on the atavismo issue uh?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
¿Crees que algo pueda responder a tus ganas de ser incredulo?
Texoki 2 years ago
Si, si lo creo. Ahora ¿Como explicas el atavismo si la evolución no es cierta?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Cuythulu :
¿Como explicas el atavismo si la evolución no es cierta?
.
Solo la Macroevolucion no es cierta.
Microevolucion o Adaptacion al medioambiente es un maravilloso don que Dios ha dado a su creacion, y es lo unico que la ciencia puede aportar evidencias empiricas
La Biologia no se hundiria si la macroevolucion no fuese cierta
pues todo lo que cientificamente saben es solo microevolucion, lo demas solo son prejuiciadas deducciones por analogia.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Me parece que no entiendes lo que significa "atavismo". De cualquier modo no se que entiendas tu por macroevolución, pero existen bastantes evidencias de cualquier tipo de evolución, tanto en el registro fósil, como en los laboratorios y sí, en el ADN.
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Sigo esperando mi respuesta texoki. ¿Como explicas el atavismo si la evolución no es cierta?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Only macroevolution is not true.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, and is the only thing that science can provide empirical evidence
The Biology would not sink if macroevolution were true because everything that science knows is just microevolution, the rest are just prejudices deductions by analogy.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Only macroevolution is not true.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, and is the only thing that science can provide empirical evidence
The Biology would not sink if macroevolution were not true because everything that science knows is just microevolution, the rest are just prejudices deductions by analogy.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
"Only macroevolution is not true.
Microevolution, or adaptation to environment is a wonderful gift God has given his creation, " Funny, why did you called the video "How DNA Destroys Evolution" If you think evolution is possible? You are either decieving people or moving the goal.
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Ya he repetido hasta la saciedad
de que en el debate Creacion y Evolucion,
no hay evidencias absolutas.
Por lo que cualquier decision es por FE.
Asi lo ha dispuesto Dios, para preservar nuestro libre albedrio,
con todo tambien dice que no tendremos excusa
(Rom 1:17/25)
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Como ya te he dicho en otra ocasión, la ciencia no trabaja con verdades absolutas sino con teorias probadas lejos de toda duda razonable, de hecho, gran parte de las nuevas hipotesis (sobre todo en tesis) son "juzgadas" frente a un tribunal antes de considerarlas teorias.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Tu lo idealizas todo
Miles de teorias han sido probadas como erroneas con el tiempo.
¿Cuales de esas que tu dices :
"teorias probadas lejos de toda duda razonable" seran probadas como erroneas?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
*face-palms*
yap yap...
zodial 2 years ago
For you evolutionists holding onto the fossil record as proof of evolution, search Mike riddle Exposes the Fossil Record that Support Evolution . I have his talks in my playlist. The fossil evidence supports creation.
kdkdieie 2 years ago
¿Por que crees que el Boom de la paleontologia pasó ya en los 90?
.
Porque la evidencia es abrumadora contra la teoria de la evolucion.
.
entonces :
¿Porque sigues mencionando el archaeopterix?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Porque que no sea la unica evidencia no implica que no sea una buena evidencia.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Evidencia de pajaro, nada mas
Texoki 2 years ago
Fosil de transición diria yo, pero si no te vale con todo lo que te puse en MPs no te va a valer con lo que te ponga aquí.
Abre los ojos y leete el national geographic de julio de 1998 (vol 3 num 1, publicación de españa)
Por cierto, esto se llama citar bibliografia que SI viene al caso y que SI me he leido (no como lo que haces tu)
yukilastro 2 years ago
yukilastro : Fosil de transición diria yo
.
Por tu desesperante necesidad de creer en la evolucion.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
yukilastro : pero tranquilo que en unos pocos años se encuntraran mas.
.
¿Eres consciente de lo que escribes?
estas profetizando lo que se encontrara
Es un acto de Fe muy grande.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
No, estoy profetizando, la ciencia hace predicciones basandose en la informacion que posee, se creia que las aves venian de los reptiles pero no se tenian pruebas, se dijo que tarde o temprano apareceria un fosil que lo demostrara, unos 5 años despues, se encontro ese fosil (archaeopterix)
Tambien hago la prediccion de que si suelto una bila de un kg de masa a una altura del suelo de un metro golpeara el suelo con una fuerza de 9,8*1 = 9,8 Neutons, y eso NO es FE
yukilastro 2 years ago
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:
There is no way of answering the question.
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another,
and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection.
But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
Sunderland, Luther D. (1984)
Darwin's Enigma
San Diego, Master Books, p.89
Texoki 2 years ago
Que dejes de citar libros antiguos, desde que se descubrio el iberomesornis esta claro que hay una transicion dinosaurio->ave, por favor, si el archaepterix casi parece mas un dinosaurio que un ave, como ostias me vas a decir que eso no demuestra que las aves vienen de los dinosaurios (pico con dientes, cola larga (dinos) plumas y alas (aves)) eso, o aceptas eso como especie intermedia o no se que coño quieres ver.
yukilastro 2 years ago
La evolución no tiene explicación para la fotosíntesis.
La evolución no tiene explicación para la metamorfosis.
La evolución tiene un punto de vista limitado ya que solamente intenta explicar el origen de las especies una vez que la vida ya este presente en el planeta e ignora el proceso total de la creación del universo.
Texoki 2 years ago
La evolución no tiene explicación de como el hombre adquirió su estado conciente e inteligencia.
El ojo y el oido humano tiene un complejidad irreducible para ser un producto de la casualidad. El ojo sin retina, o sin nervios opticos, o sin cornea, o sin iris, etc. es inservible. Es imposible "evolucionar" este organo gradualmente.
La evolución no tiene explicación para el proceso de cuagulación de la sangre.
.
No tengo tu FE
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Paleontologos han intentado convertir el archaeopteryx en un dinosaurio con plumas
pero no es, es un pajaro. y toda la "paleovervorrea" no va a cambiar esto
Alan Feduccia
Texoki 2 years ago
Profetizas que las evidencias que se encontraran afirmaran la evolucion
dando por sentado que que tienes que demostrar.
Es lo mismo que si yo digo que ire al cielo.
Es por FE, igual que tu.
Texoki 2 years ago
Afirmo con un intervalo de confianza del 95% y una p<0.05 sobre la Normal estandarizada de media mu y desviacion tipica sigma, que la esperanza matematica (media mas probable) es que los nuevos descubrimientos apoyen la teoria de la evolucion.
Bueno esto es una broma (ya que solo se aplica para hipoteis "numericas"), pero mas o menos lo que digo es verdad, la ciencia no hace predicciones absolutas, solo probabilisticas.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Para desgracia vuestra el ultimo archaeopterix encontrado tiene externon
Clarisima evidencia de que es un pajaro
.
Te lo pondre de una forma simple :
.
¿Cuantos cambios morfologicos son necesarios para que una lagartija se convierta en un gorrion?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Ninguno, porque las lagartijas son reptiles actuales y los pajaros evolucionaron de reptiles de hace 65ma, no de lagartijas. Lo siento, pero creo que tu concepto de evolucion es erroneo si pides esa clase de pruebas.
Y por cierto se dice esternon y los dromeosaurios tambien lo tenian.
yukilastro 2 years ago
yukilastro
LIFE, EARTH, UNIVERSE ARE NOT CREATION.
.
Any evidence for that?
,
Texoki 2 years ago
the same evidence that you have to prove thar they're creation but my hypotesys sustented by occam razor principle
yukilastro 2 years ago
I see you have nothing to say when I have shown you that you have no evidence of your belief ¬¬
yukilastro 2 years ago
This guy, Mike Riddle, really needs to do his homework!
Pluss, we are on the edge of killing and destroying the entire human race, and everything on our planet!
If we where models of God, what does that tell you about him?
A good quote from a great movie!
Leonarddavis0321 2 years ago
Leonarddavis0321 :
If we where models of God, what does that tell you about him?
.
Is not what you are,
is what you can be.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
I have a nice question to anyone who descredit in any way evolution. What do fossils are? God buried them into the ground? if we have a record of how adan, the first human, was made, why we dont have any record of that strange animals who came into fossils?
oldakustikblues 2 years ago
I do not discredid evolution
I only ask for empirical evidences to consider it as scientific.
Texoki 2 years ago
there are thousands of evidences but you don't want to see them.
yukilastro 2 years ago
There are Billions of evidences of God but you don't want to see them.
Texoki 2 years ago
Tell me one, without quoting the biblie
yukilastro 2 years ago
Creation
Anything you see
Texoki 2 years ago
I can say the same thing to prove evolution!
that was just stupid!
World doesn't proove the existence of god unless you prove that god created the world!
you are using fallacious circular logic!
yukilastro 2 years ago
you call evolution to be scientific
To be science has to give empirical evidences
Do you have them?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Yes I do! But it is to difficult to expalin in english (im spanish as you'll probabli know) Send me a MP and I'll explain you all evidence.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Ponlo es español
Texoki 2 years ago
De acuerdo, pero con solo 500 letras mal se puede entender:
Ejemplo 1: Mutaciones en celulas cancerigenas
1a generacion) Un a celula normal sufre daño en el DNA, aumentando la inestabilidad genetica. La celula se divide a ritmo normal
2a generacion)El gen p25 muta, inactvandose, la reparacion del DNA ya no se puede llevar a cabo
3a) Mutan los genes implicados en la regulacion del ciclo celular, las celulas cncerigenas se dividen sin control
yukilastro 2 years ago
4) las celulas sans cercana producen señales de muerte (TNF)
5)algunas celulas cancerigenas tienen mutado el TNFreceptor, otras el P53 y la mayoria no tienen mutado ningun gen de muerte. La que tienen mutado TNFr o P53 sobreviven a las señales de muerte, el resto mueren.
6)el tumor continua creciendo y tiene descendientes de ambas lineas de celulas (las de la mutacion de TNFr y las de la mutacion en P53)
yukilastro 2 years ago
La acumulacion de errores es tal que se inicia la muerte celular endogena, las de TNFr mueren, las de P53 sobreviven
7) el tumor crece enormemente, se actinan genes al azar, las celulas tumorales comienzan a envejecer salvo las que tienen activodo el gen de la telomerasa
8)solo sobreviven las que tienen la telomerasa activa. A partir de aqui diferentes mutaciones dan a las celulas cancerigenas la posibilidad de metastatizar, producir nuevos vasos sanguineos , producir hormonas...
yukilastro 2 years ago
Resumen, de una celula normal, a partir de mutaciones aleatorias causadas por una mutacion en genes reparadores del DNA, se producen muchas celulas que acumulan mutaciones diferentes, pueto que el tumor se desarrolla en un entorno hostil, solo sobreviben las celulas con las mutacines mas beneficiosas, acumulando asi ventajas a lo largo del tiempo.
Ejemplo 2:
De cannis lupus a canis familaris:
Unos humanos tomaron de una manada de lobos los mas mansos y pequeños
yukilastro 2 years ago
Tras cientos de años de reproduccion selectiva (la evolucion es mas rapida si no se deja el apareamiento al azar), dejan de nacer individuos agresivos.
Se comienzan a aparear los perros con caracteristicas similares (tamaño color etc) entre si. Esto produce divergencia en razas.
Ejemplo3
Bacterias resistentes a antibioticos:
Una poblacion de bacterias es tratada con antibioticos, su poblacion se reduce poco a poco
yukilastro 2 years ago
Por por procesos naturales ayudados por el daño causado por los antibioticos , mutan genes puntuales, la mayoria de las celulas arrastran mutaciones perniciosas y mueren, una pequeña parte obtienen mutaciones protectoras, por ejemplo, muta el gen de una proteina de transporte, haciendola mas pequeña y asi impidiendo la entrada del antibiotico.
Todas las bacterias hijas de la que tenia la mutacion beneficiosa nacen con ella y son inmunes al antibiotico.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Bueno espero que estos tres ejemplos de evolucion observable (u observada en el caso de los perros) sean suficientes para ti, no dudes responder a estos comentarios para darme la razon si es que te he convencido o para exponer tus argumentos en contra si no
yukilastro 2 years ago
Todo MICROevolucion
Lo siento todo el trabajo que te has tomado.
Texoki 2 years ago
todo es microevolucion MENTIRA, sabia que lo ibas a decir y por eso he puesto el ejemplo 2:
de canis lupus a canis familiaris: ESPECIACION: los perros y los lobos son especies diferentes ya que no pueden procrear y tener descendencia fertil (al igual que burros y caballos)
yukilastro 2 years ago
No te niego que es dificil ver procesos de especiacion porque normalmente tardan millones de años pero cuando hay aislamiento de individuos (ya sea natural o artificial ) puede ocurrir mucho mas rapido en varios cientos de generaciones (especialmente si los individuos aislados poseian muchos genes recesivos)
yukilastro 2 years ago
Jajaja, son canis, tu mismo lo dices
y aunque no pudiesen procrear,
(que eso lo dices tu)
siguen siendo canis.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
canis es el genero, no la especie, la especie es canis lupus y canis familiaris!
para ti un caballo (equus caballus) y un burro (equus asnus) son la misma especie porque los dos son "equus". Si te has quedado sin argumentos, no digas estupideces.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Para que exista Macroevolucion tendria que pasar de un genero a otro genero taxonomico superior.
¿Alguna evidencia empirica de ello?
Texoki 2 years ago
Lo que tu pides es imposible, para pasar de un genero a otro se necesitan varios cientos de miles de años, no se puede observar en una generacion, lo que se puede hacer es observar las especies antiguas incluso secuenciando su genoma y compararlas con las modernas lo cual muestra el paulatino proceso evolutivo.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Por hacer un simil, si la evolucion fuera un crimen, no tendriamos testigos, pero habriamos encontrado a un hombre ensangrentado al lado del cadaver con un el arma homicida humeante en la mano... ese hombre es la evolucion y su arma la seleccion natural.
yukilastro 2 years ago
No lo sabriamos todo, pero sabriamos mas que suficiente para reconstruir la escena del crimen, eso es lo que hace la ciencia con todo lo que no es directamente observable:
- analisis de la composicion del sol por espectrofotometria y no trayendo un trozo del sol al laboratorio
- analisis de proteinas con difraccion de rayos x y no con una lupa
- observar al enfermo con un tac en vez de abrirle el canal
La observacion indirecta bien planteada es tan valida como la directa.
yukilastro 2 years ago
La bacteria flavobacterium, Sp. K172. Que "come" nylon, es una bacteria a la que se le "añadió" información genética naturalmente, ya que en el jardín del edén no creo que Eva tuviera calzones de nylon. Fue descubierta (la bacteria ,no a Eva) en Japón en los '70s.
Y eso se llama MACROEVOLUCIÓN!
samuraidracula 2 years ago
Mira eso no lo sabia, gracias por apollarme, pero de todas formas eso no les va a valer porque tambien es macro evolucion de lobo a perro, de mesohippus a caballo y me han hecho oidos sordos...
yukilastro 2 years ago
Dejate de chorradas y aporta los fosiles transitivos antecesores de los mas de 50 filos de la Explosion Cambrica
.
Texoki 2 years ago
¿Ha dejado de ser bacteria?
Texoki 2 years ago
Quien dijo que dejo de ser bacteria?
Tu?
Esta bacteria evoluciono porque no tenía otra cosa que comer. En este caso la naturaleza añadió información para que pudiera digerir el nylon. Esto es lo que estabas buscando no? evidencia de la macroevolución. Pues SORPRESA!
samuraidracula 2 years ago
Asi que reconoces que no teneis evidencias empiricas y todo lo que os queda solo son por analogias prejuiciadas y mucha FE
Tanto gritar que teneis evidencias y cuando se rasca la superficie os quedais en simples credulopatas
Texoki 2 years ago
Fe!!! sabes lo que es la observacion indirecta? La proxima vez que vayas a sacarte una radriogafia dile al radiologo a ver si se necesita fe para interpretarla, como es una observacion indirecta... segun tu se necesitaria fe, no?
Pues mira, que lo sepas, lo que se necesita para entender las observaciones indirectas, ya sean radriografias o fosiles, secuencias de DNA, regiones homologas en proteinas y rutas metabolicas derivadas, son muchos años de estudio, cosa que tu has demostrado no tener.
yukilastro 2 years ago
.
Evidencias de fosiles, eso es lo que pido,
.
Como los fosiles transitivos antecesores de los mas de 50 filos de la Explosion Cambrica.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Voy a callarte la boca ya de una vez para que dejes de decir lo de los 50 filos:
1) son 20 de los cuales solo 11 parecen haber surgido en la "explosion cambrica", los otros 8 son mas recientes
2)la explosion cambrica duro unos 12 millones de años
3)SI se han encontrado fosiles de ancestros, pero pocos, ya que los organismos unicelulares es dificil que se fosilicen y nustra tecnologia actual es precaria para distinguir bien esos fosiles, pero tranquilo que en unos pocos años se encuntraran mas
yukilastro 2 years ago
Veamos, no se conoce el origen de todos pero te puedo decir el de algunos: va
algas rojas -> algas verdes
cnidarios -> cordados -> peces sin mandibula(vertebrados)
gusanos lisos -> annelidos -> artropodos -> trilobites (son artropodos pero para que me entiendas)
etc etc
y me rectifico, si son unos 50 filos, 20 son los filos de los cuales se conoce el origen
yukilastro 2 years ago
No vas a callar nada, porque no estas al dia.
En Chenjiang (china) estan proponiendo que los filos podrian aumentar entre 100 hasta 135 segun los descubrimientos que estan haciendo.
Siendo avalado esto por los paleontologos Valentine, Erwin, Lewin, Chien, Chang.
Ponte al dia.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
y por ultimo, que sepas que los fosiles no son las evidencias mas fiables que tenemos, tu estas anclado en el siglo 19! La demostracion de un origen comun por comparacion de secuencias de DNA o el establecimiento de secuencias homologas en proteinas, es mucho mas fiable que un fosil.
yukilastro 2 years ago
Lo que tu llamas "La demostracion de un origen comun " es la interpretacion de la evidencia "La demostracion de un Creador comun", solo que interpretado segun tus prejuicios.
.
Como los fosiles no aparecen os agarais a un clavo ardiendo.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
Pero tu eres idiota o un fanatico de mierda. He desmontado tu hipotesis, ya te he dicho que los fosiles no es lo mas importane, una secuencia de rutas metabolicas da muchisima mas informacion, un orden de proteinas de simple a complejo con una secuenciacion genomica dan mucha mas informacion que un fosil, que solo informa del aspecto fisico de una especie y no de su bioquimica que es lo que de verdad importa ¿Por que crees que el Boom de la paleontologia pasó ya en los 90?
yukilastro 2 years ago
Porque la evidencia es abrumadora contra la teoria de la evolucion.
.
entonces :
¿Porque sigues mencionando el archaeopterix?
.
Texoki 2 years ago
No, reconozco que no se puede poner a una rana en una placa de petri y ver como se convierte en un lagarto, porque la evolucion no funciona asi.
Como la evolucion es un proceso tan lento, no se puede observar directamente en el laboratorio a la escala que tu pides, pero si se puede observar indirectamente lo cual es igual de valido, por ejemplo, el hecho de que la tierra es esferica se demostro por observacion indirecta mucho antes de que se mandara un hombre al espacio y la viera!!!
yukilastro 2 years ago
That's called circular logic Texoki, it doesn't work. As it can be applied to anything. I could say that a giant unicorn who lives in the stars created the universe and humans. The proof being everything you see! When it comes down to it, religion is based on blind faith, while Science is about looking at physical evidence, doing test's and creating hypotheses.
kakkoister 2 years ago
The Creation was done by the Creator.
whenever you agree on that,
we' can start talking of other things.
Texoki 2 years ago
If God exists, then he too requires a creator. For if he doesn't, than your argument for everything else fails.
kakkoister 2 years ago
Your wise scientist say that in the Big Bang started Time/Space/Matter.
So before the Big Bang there was no Time, no space, no matter
Then the Creator is in no time, no space, no matter, that is a good defenition for eternal, this is called Spirit
If there is no time/space/matter,
there is no posibility of a cause
Without time there is no "when"
Without space there is no "where"
Excuse my English.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
No, that's merely the strongest supported theory so far. There's a difference between a theory and claiming as a fact..
Good Scientist's don't claim truths, they bring forth theories, and they stay theories until they can be proven to be true or false.
Personally I would think that matter/energy has always existed, that the "Big Bang" was merely an exponential convergence and then explosion of all matter/energy due to forces such as gravity, magnetism, etc..But that's just my theory.
kakkoister