There are many who claim that they have become christians on the basis of creation science evidence. Creation science in essence, however, can neither make anyone believe in God nor affirm the truth of the Holy Scriptures. 1Cor.2:5 along with Rom.1:20 says that the origins and roots of christian faith are in God's power within humans. True Christianity is based not on scientific observation but on inner spiritual experiences of the Father and the Son which give authority to the Holy Scriptures.
Yes they found collagen that hasn't completely petrified.But no bloocells(lie).I have seen the documentary of that discovery. They should be ashamed....
3.30 and they just ignore the fact that mutations happens(for example the drug resistance) and then selection is picking.Are they really that ignorant?
They do have hypothesis of chemical evolution, that can to some degree by now be reproduced in lab.And no, it does not need to happen instantly and everything fully functional(I don't even know what they mean by fully functional...are we fully functional? And if to what?)So much nonsense and this just in the first 24 seconds....
I dont want richard dawkins teaching about brain surgery either.. There are 45 % of scientist who dont believe in evolution..... reality is catching up as we go along... by 2030 i predict the number will be 80 % in favor of intelligent design
Very questionable (not theories, it’s not that clever) guess work! And what’s with the 1980’s suits and hair – don’t creationists update their silly ideas over time like proper scientific researchers and theorists. Christians are the dumbest creature walking, using up resources that would be better used.... now that’s a crime against humanity!
From what I'm seeing, your research has been revolving around what the creationists sites say about evolution. You are learning from idiots who have been debunked. You don't go to a washing machine salesman to buy a computer.
Why do birds have DNA for teeth and whales for legs? Why don't we find every type of creature fossilized in the same layer if there was a flood?
The bible stays the same because it's DOGMA. Science adds information as new things are discovered.
i find is very hypocritical that evolutionists beg and plead for scientific evidence for God, and then when creation scientists come along and plop down in front of them they say it isnt valid... If science is so sacred, why is it that when science goes against evolution, it is no longer valid?
@Kezazah We don't beg for anything. You keep saying there defiantly is a god and we keep saying prove it. What scientific evidence have you ever put forward that proves the existence of this being? Creation science (oxymoron) continuously fails to deliver scientifically. You keep whining that you are a valid science but all you've got is faith, personal experience and a desperate need to want it to be true.
@ptango101 creation science continually fails? id bet ive researched it more than you, and it is more than capable of pointing out flaws in evolution and correcting it. What are you talking about when you say it fails?
@Kezazah Your foundation is something you can never scientifically prove. That makes it a religion. It shouldn't be about pointing out the floors in evolution. It should be about proving ID's validity (good luck). Just saying "it looks designed" isn't good enough. All I seem to get from creationists is evolution this and evolution that. Why don't you try putting as much effort into creationism instead of whining about evolution all the time?
@ptango101 i have. ive done more research than you think. the major problem i have withevolution is the assumptions and the major points such as... life starting from non life - macroevolution - irreducible complexity - thermodynamics - DNA - fossils or lack there of - many things that are false such as vestigal organs and gill slits. Im not faulting science, science is good, but it is constantly rewriting evolution. the Bible has stayed the same and is supported by each of these.
@Kezazah i find is very hypocritical that creationists beg and plead for scientific evidence for evolution, and then when real scientists (creationist scientists aren't scientists) come along and plop down in front of them they say it isnt valid... If real science is so sacred to them, why is it that when real science goes against creation, it is no longer valid to them? UMAD BRO?
@theDLVshow I've been reading at TO for at least 10 years. They are extremely biased in favor of evolution, badly distort numerous things and are willing to publish blatant falsehoods and deny even the most obvious proofs for creation. It would be difficult to find a more badly biased site. They are not objective in any sense of the word whatsoever. One of their MANY errors is saying that speciation into another species is evidence for evolution.
@ptango101 The flood was a massive extinction event and there is much scientific as well as historical evidence backing this up. Don't believe the propaganda that all the ancients were just cavemen. That's a willful distortion of history based on evolution thinking that many facts refute (you can even watch some of the episodes of ancient discoveries by Discovery channel that document amazing tech by ancients.) The Chinese millenia ago built ships the size of the ark and sailed them.
If they accept beneficial/symbiotic bacteria as "wonderfully designed", then what about those pathogenic ones?
Mycobacterium tuberculosis alone kills about 2 million ppl per year. What about cholera, and the Black Death? Yersinia pestis killed 30-60% of the european population!
On the subject of bacterial antimicrobial resistance, it does show "microevolution" but what about plasmid transfer with endonucleases (or through gene transposition/transformation) that give bacteria new biochemical signatures? If they develop changes in biochemical signatures, they are a whole new species. Look up Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, as they were previously of the Pseudomonas genera, but through DNA studies, they are all identified as different species.
bacteria possesing imunity to drugs it has not incountered does not disprove evolution. infact evolution states that mutations arise independent of the enviorment. it is the fact that the muatation is already present when the selecting event occurse that gives the organisom the advantage over the others. to think the revirse is to be limarksian and say the giraph grew its neck so it could reach the leaves. instead those with long necks servived better then those without so thay passed on genes
no new genes. realy once again E. coli experament. look it up new genes not in the parent genome arise giving way to a mutation that increases the fitness and servivablity of the species. the gene was not previously in the parant population but arose from a gene duplication error more then likly and gaining the E coli the ability to digest citrate. also look up arizona pocket mice. it is a four point aleal mutation that changed furr from brown to black. new gene as well
wait wait. so you claim no one has a hypothasis on how life arose from nonlife, ie abiogenesis. well no we do two promanent ones is the RNA world theory and the cristolen formation theory. of corse there is the prymordial soup idea but this has ben shown to be false. however there is not a gaiping whole in science here. and in responce to the " you cant see it happaning" claim look up E. coli long-term evolution experiment conducted by Richard Lenski. and ring species.
@theDLVshow HELLO. Most branches of science were pioneered by creationists, as well as the scientific method itself. When people are allowed to examine the evidence for evolution vs. the evidence for creation science using consistent standards, many have become creationists. The problems is that atheists and evolutionists LOVE to set up double standards such as evolution (dealing with change in species) vs. act of creation (dealing with origin of species). VERY duplicitious.
@TruthIsLife7 I would not discredit most branches of science or scientific method because who it was founded by, that's like me saying we shouldn't use a lot of rocket technology because it was founded by Nazis. As for people who study then become creationists, where are your numbers? Are you counting children being taught by their parents (they should not count, for instance children also believe in Santa Claus because of their parents). Your last point double standards, (see next)
god is all loving, and is all knowing, - Please see your current bible, if you need assistance please google bible contradictions, murder rape incest genocide in the bible. Because evolution does not deal with origins that = a double standard, no sorry it doesn't. Before you think this is some evil atheist evolutionist know this. I believe church can be beneficial to communities they are in, just leave faith at the door when you enter public domain (i.e. science and teaching children) Thanks.
He leads people step by step as they are willing to follow. So, some laws He gave were NOT his ideal. They were just significant progress over the status quo.
-
Comparing evolution to creation is a false comparison fallacy,not a double standard(sorry for the typo).But, atheism rests on many double standards as well.
Last,if Christians had left faith out of the public domain, you would know nothing about quite a few branches of science and areas of history that the Bible inspired to start.
I’ve read most of those atheists sites criticizing the Bible for crimes(&BADLY cherry picking it) probably more than you have. 3 points.
1) Do you discard democracy, science, education, govt. because some individuals in these areas do terrible things.No.That would be really stupid. Why do you think it’s OK to use that same fallacious reasoning with religion?
2) God condemns many things that happened in the Bible.
3) God gave us freedom. This means He doesn’t force us to follow His ideal...
@theDLVshow Dr. Wernher Von Braun,a man convinced of creation by science,was the father of rocketry &he did not like the Nazis although he was forced to work with them. But when he figured out a way to escape,he left Germany with ~100s of trainloads of rocket material.
Majorities don't prove truth,but many adults with advanced degrees have become creationists AFTER studying the evidence on both sides. Lee Strobel,Dr. Walter Veith,Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Walter Brown to name a few of MANY.
@TruthIsLife7 Thank you for your response, i think you may have misunderstood my analogy of rockets but that is besides the point. After reviewing the list you have shown above I have a few statements:
Lee Strobel - Degree in Journalism, & Masters in Law. These are impressive I will admit, but where is the part about evidence (science) in his degrees? I would guess conversion based on personal experience.
Dr. Walter Veith - Doctorate in Zoology. Now this one intrigues me, NEXT POST
knowledge of animal and knowledge of evolution and still a creationist? Any recommendations of his work, I'd like to hear his thoughts.
Dr. Robert Gentry - Nuclear Physicist - I'm intrigued, but it seems even his own party (7th Adventists) disagree with his views. Which is fine but when readings his claims (about a world flood) they are destroyed by other scientists that study geology (which wasn't his field) and facts we have.
Dr. Walter Brown - Ph.D. in mechanical engineering SEE NEXT POST
not equal to science refuting evolution or origins of life (2 subjects). Many of his claims (flood, and anti evolution) have been proven wrong by facts, fossils, and other scientist, it even seems that The Christian American Scientific Affiliation has debunked some of his claims.
Question - which version of Christianity is right? the examples given are may denominations, and which is right young earth or old earth creation, and why is Christianity right? Great discussion Thanks!
@theDLVshow more happiness, much pioneering of science, human rights, education, hospitals, etc. There’s nothing to lose by choosing to learn and follow God (similar to learning and following great teachers, scientists, parents, etc.) and MUCH to gain on THIS earth. PLUS you have a great chance to live forever. See this enormously strong evidence for a resurrection.
@theDLVshow In my view, atheism loses the scientific competition almost at the start because it doesn’t provide any evidence for how life could originate by random unintelligent processes and numerous other crucial fundamental questions. Christianity provides mountains from science and history and other fields too for 100s of lines of evidence it has. Plus, it offers numerous benefits in this life if we follow God such as 10+ years extra life (see my health playlist),
WRONG. Speciation from one species into another genus-family is referenced in Genesis and the concept of natural selection was published by the creationist Edward Blyth LONG before Darwin's book. The idea of Darwin that DIFFERED from prior creation science is that speciation could cause changes way past the family level to astoundingly the kingdom level and THAT is what need to be proven with solid evidence and hasn't yet. ALL observed speciation falls in creation science levels so far.
Very good question on which view is correct. God says we are responsible to investigate the evidence and follow our conscience, not tradition and feelings. Similarly in science, we are supposed to follow the weight of evidence, not our own agendas and biases. When we really do this, it’s usually not that hard to find what has the best evidence. I have another playlist called “Come Search With Me” that is very insightful in doing this. Videos 1-3 lay an essential foundation for doing this.
Mechanical engineering requires in depth knowledge from several major fields of science (see it's entry under wikipedia) which are relevant. I've seen a few who disagree with Dr. Brown,but he's got very strong arguments in my view&many agree with him(google creationscience for his free online book with many references).You can see disagreement among evolutionists as well.There are numerous other science Ph.Ds. who support creation science at sites like answersingenesis,nwcreation,ICR and others.
@theDLVshow Your point on rocketry was correct. I just made another point :).
re Strobel. Lawyers routinely use scientific evidence to prove innocence or guilt.
You can watch Strobel's reasons for becoming a creationist here:
watch?v=wAlixk3lGjk
Dr. Veith's seminar is here:
my_playlists?p=0F4C0511B7DFC4C7
re Gentry, I'm an Adventist (and a professor) and not many Christians disagree with his evidence. But, it's fine for Christian scientists to disagree some just as it is for atheists).
@TruthIsLife7QUOTE "Flood geology" has been dead ever since leading Christians scholars in geology at Cambridge and Oxford rejected it, and that was before Darwin's Origins was ever published.
By the 1850s, Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old.
For some of their reasons, see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science"END QUOTE. Creationists were the first ones to realise they were wrong.
@ptango101 Sorry, but flood geology isn't even close to dead and even secular scientists are moving ever closer to what the Bible taught all along...of massive planet wide cataclysms that caused mass extinction. Just watched a movie on that, Global Warning, from Discovery Channel I think...that claimed the whole world was covered by ice and that killed off 95% of the animals...mass freezing is part of several flood theories...and as you know ice melts into water..not a big difference.
@TruthIsLife7 Science has known about extinction events and the ice ages for a long time now. When you say flood geology you are not just talking about a flood. You're putting forward the idea that a few people, in the stone age, built a boat so massive it could hold two of every species known, their food and sleeping arrangements. It also magically held together for about a year. Does this sound like science to you?
@ptango101 Yes,there have been Christians throughout history willing to follow the supposed wisdom of man instead of God's word. That's caused some of the biggest problems&pseudoscience in history...such as when Christians followed Greeks in their ideas on spontaneous generation&the immortal soul which produced the demonic concept of a forever burning hell as well as following them in the nonsense that bleeding is beneficial to patients instead of the Bible's idea that life is in the blood.
@TruthIsLife7 What does that mean? That when they actually did research and it didn't add up with the bible, is that was mans wisdom? Are you saying when we STOP looking at the bible as the sole source of information, pseudoscience creeps in? All sounds a bit backwards to me.
Watch the Veith flood videos. You believe myths about the flood (it didn't need every species on the planet for example...even ~16,000 could be enough to explain the variety of life we have now.
Re: man's wisdom,
1) when conventional wisdom disagrees with the Bible, inevitably, it's found to be false and sometimes very harmful over time.
2) NO Christian views the Bible as the sole source of information. But, it's a crucial starting point/foundation.
@Truth I will get to the stuff you are just saying but take this into account until I do. So you are happy with 16,000 species of every organism on the ark? This covers creation according to you? Estimates now put the number at 1.7 million plant and animal species have been identified but millions more exist in thew remote wildernesses. There's estimates of 100 mill species of insects. Do the math how many times would a kind have to adapt to reach these numbers?
Google this link which is an overview of a detailed book with all sorts of mathematical calculations and measurements, etc. on this topic. "Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?"
Many millions of species had no need of an ark to survive the flood. That's one of many things that you are not taking into account among several.
@TruthIsLife7 I'm not taking them into account because I don't need them to prove your story false. Apart from the fact that a few people could never had completed this project in their life time, the size of the ark would have made it snap in half. A wooden boat of this size would have failed as soon as it was floating.
& a number of my students have gone on to work in shipping companies. Korean shipping engineers have done detailed studies of the ark and state that it is extremely stable and would float easily. I have some of their documentation. Experts have found evidence of wooden Chinese boats over 400 feet long as well. It's not even close to impossible as atheist mythmakers suppose. It is reality. Btw, it looks like Noah's Ark has been found and we have pics and videos of it now.
@ptango101 With all due respect, most modern people are really arrogant and know very little about what the ancients were able to accomplish. There is quite significant evidence of quite amazing technology in the ancient world, esp. the very ancient world, including for example one book that described how to make an engine running on mercury. MANY others. Go to S8intDOTcom for a tiny bit. I have lived in Korea, #1 ship making country in the world now at present
@TruthIsLife7 You are trying to tell me that eight people built a watercraft the size of a football stadium with only felled trees and pitch? That could not be repeated today. Would you attempt it using that level of technology and seven other people?
@ptango101 Nowhere does the Bible say that only 3 people built the ark. Nowhere does it say that it was built from ONLY felled trees and pitch. Furthermore,the Chinese were building ships of about the same size &Korean engineers as I stated have reviewed the dimensions of the ark and stated that it would be extremely stable, capable of riding out I think up to 90 foot waves. You are under the common delusion that all ancients were cavemen pulling their wives around by their hair. That's fiction.
@TruthIsLife7 So who made the ark? What are you saying and have you got a story to back it up? I'm not saying the ancients were dumb. They just didn't have access to the materials we have today.
@1954phyllis Wow that's great. So how did a few individuals make a ship that size using the technology of the day? It's all very well for you and truthlife to say people might have been smarter (evidence please) but so far we haven't found any fossilized cranes and trucks.
@ptango101 Noah made the ark as God instructed him. And if you don't accept that, when can I see you start burning most of the historical records of western history whose sole evidence is the word of historians NONE of whom are as accurate as the Bible?
You like most people are ignorant of the technology of the ancients. Watch my playlist on ancient wisdom. The Chinese had boats just as long as Noah's ark millenia ago AND wooden.
@1954phyllis Yes, I think there is a very high chance that some people in the past equaled or exceeded our intelligence in some areas. There are records in certain ancient books of the ancients building airplane engines that ran on mercury (I believe this was in the library of Alexander). Check my wisdom of the ancients for some amazing advances that happened AFTER the flood. What happened before that with their long lives and unequaled brains would certainly amaze many.
@ptango101 Just because you don't have the ability to comprehend how God instructed a man and his sons to build a ship doesn't mean that it isnt true. You must remember that with GOD all things are possible.
@1954phyllis The good old christian answer we get when they realise their stupid story has no credibility. If you have to invoke god then deep down even you know it's a load of garbage.
@1954phyllis So how did we get here. Why don't you actually state the story you use to explain the origin of man. This is where I usually find creationists shut up because when you say it out loud it sounds ridiculous. Come on! Go for it! Here let me start you off. It had something to do with dust.
re: your dust straw man...you are using a computer which has many parts made from simple silicon. If man can make communication networks based on that, is there even a spec of logic in thinking a God who made the universe couldn't do something similar?
So, if we have to invoke a painter to explain a painting is that a load of garbage? or an engineer to explain a dam, or a architect to explain a building or a parent to explain a baby. Your reasoning destroys pretty much all logic.
@TruthIsLife7 Why is it a straw man? OK, tell me what genesis says on the subject. What is it with creationists comparing non-biological things to biological ones. So if we know a wheel barrow has a designer then we have to conclude that the whole of the natural world has one too? What was that you were saying about logic? The last time I looked none of the things you mentioned had DNA.
@ptango101 A) We have found quite a number of architectural things, esp. structures using blocks of 100s of tons and fitting them together so precisely that you can't fit a knife between them, that we can't reproduce even with the technology we have today.
B) The story of man's origins is in the Bible and ~80% of the Bible has evidence to support it. But, a little requires faith. Atheism however requires nearly 100% faith with a HORRIBLE track record.
@TruthIsLife7 How do you define atheism? It's not a belief system it's exactly the opposite. If you asked me "Do you believe there is a god" my answer would be "no". Atheism is the position you take on only that issue. Look it up. It's in all the dictionaries.
@1954phyllis So do you believe in and Invisible man who can fap a universe into existence at his whim, because everything has to be created, "cough cough except the creator" and one that (guessing your Christian) and has never shown himself to humans?, oh and the bible saying its true doesn't make it true. Again guessing christian, why are the 1,000s of other religions wrong? (even older ones). No response needed but I pray you pick up a science book and READ! Have a great day!
@theDLVshow To compare God to man is very foolish. God spoke all of creation into existance. You are forgetting that He did show HImself to humans when Jesus came to this earth in the form of man. The Bible is true. If it wasn't all the prophecies in it wouldn't have come to pass. Just the fact that you are a scoffer proves His Word is true. I have no desire to pick up a science book when I can pick up the greatest book that was ever written.
@1954phyllis "I have no desire to pick up a science book when I can pick up the greatest book that was ever written." that is kinda what I thought you'd say. Again I ask why is Christianity the correct one, why do you not reference the Tora, Qu'ran, or any other book created by man? Oh and which version of Christianity is the right one seeing as there are over 33,820 denominations. I do not scoff at a God, I scoff at people who deny information, and leave children in the dark. Have a great day!
Saying evolution is faith is absolutely retarded. It's the process of studying the evidence to disprove and disprove to come up with the best solution to the problem. Faith (in Christianity religion) is the belief that one book is completely right and you have to believe it because it's right there...in the book...the only book...the good book...the holy book...religionfags are fags
ahm, not exactly. With the same amount of base pairs one can code for very differing proteins and finally organisms. There is lots and lots of junk DNA, not apparently used in genes and not appearing in phenotype. So with about the same number of base pairs very different organisms can be coded.
Why is Jackson raising and lowering his voice like that as if he were preaching or something? Why the über-stressing of syllables and the unnatural certainty in his voice, if this is science and not oratory.
copy paste this in the bar "Evolution before our eyes" watch the first video after watching it tell me that this virus is not evolving they even look at the dna and its different
6:00 This is just explaining natural selection which is a driving force of evolution.
The whole fallacy of dna having to gain information is rubbish. It can gain OR lose information. Some plants have 10 times the information that humans have.
3:25 If it was not "new" dna in respect to the original dna then it would not be called a mutation. It doesnt matter when it mutated. The fact is that it did mutate.
4:25 Yes, but if poison ivy became such a problem that it killed everyone who wasnt immune, that would be a perfect example of natural selection. ALL the surviving humans would be immune to poison ivy.
The first one happened less than 20 seconds into the video, when Idiot #1 says that "Evolutionists" cannot demonstrate how inorganic life created a living cell. He's an educated man, and knows that pre-cellular life predated cellular life by over a billion years.
Don't believe this crap, they're lying to you. Why does Jesus demand so many lies from his believers? Are they being like Jesus? Shall we take from them that Jesus was a liar, too? I guess we must.
Prove that pre-cellular life predated cellular life by a billion year. What is an example of pre-cellular life. How about a link to your source. Then prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and show us the link to that proof.
There is a lot wrong with your statement. First off any biology book you pick dose not provide and supporting evidence at all. The books only assume that evolution is true and them claim that it is.
The cell is the smallest unit of live. The only things smaller DNA, RNA, proteins, and atoms. These are the building blocks of live but are not alive because they do not perform the 7 functions of living things.
You told me to prove it to myself only because you do not have the information to do. No one dose, because evolution is not true. Just because the court sided with evolution based on fabricated prove that was later revealed to be a hoax and it is now in the school dose make it true. Why this decision is not repealed is ridicules.
sk871313 while our knowledge of genetics is still on the increase it does not mean that we should fill any gaps with god. There ids nothing wrong with saying "I dont know how this happens" because it leads people try and find out. Saying "It is because god did it" will stop you from trying to find out ecause you think you already have the answer and you will never know the truth. And in any case, evolution is nothing to do with how we got here whether it be creation or not.That'd be Abiogenesis
How is it that we share 98% genetic material with apes?
How do you explain sedimentary layers that date back billions of years? Did God create sediment? And fossils? Why, to confuse us?
Christians should look at human intellectual evolution. Today, we travel into space, orbit the earth, went to the moon. We are smarter. Moses didn't have the knowledge and understanding to map creation, but he did the best he could poetically. That's TRUTH.
Are the "Dr" actually the initials of Mr. Baugh? Bs would be more appropriate because this is the biggest BS I have ever seen in my entire life. Under no circumstance can he hold a degree in science. So sad.
"Dr" carl B isn't even a real doctor. All his science degrees are from unacredited schools. Some aren't even schools like the one in irving tx.he even started his own schools and gave himself degrees. NOW That's just a plain ass liar. How can you believe anything this liar says??
If you think these guys are telling anything remotely like the truth, a good first step in educating yourself away from this madness is to read up on the actual mechanisms of genetic change and how such changes spread through a population. The statement that no new genes ever arise is an absolute, outright lie. The mechanism is known and understood. All the information to see through the lies of these two charlatans is out there and available for study.
Hey! Great idea for a TV show: Let's present a mixture of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies and claim that we're the good guys because we're lying for the Lord.
After all, we needn't worry about the people who know the actual truth, they'll never fall for the con. We only have to fool the gullible and ignorant - you know, the people who buy our books and DVDs.
Oh. Hang on. It looks like these two clowns are doing it already. Oh well, I'll just have to do something else.
Wow I cannot believe they are calling abiogenesis an important part of evolution! The people in this video have NO idea what logic means or how to use it properly. Quote mining and appeals to ridicule are logical fallacies and in no way detract or refute the claims made by anyone. Of course you can't personally observe evolution in the here and now, you cannot live more than a hundred years or so and it takes far longer than that generally for a creature to evolve meaningfully.
hey look, a creationist and a guy in a blue suit, interesting how creationists have to manufacture discussions before any 'scientist' will support anything they say.
So... to just gain some sort of a useless set of stump legs... that not only would be useless by the way.. and thus not an evolutionary advantage, but it would require millions of structural changes simultaneously in one step. Evolution requires millions of these irrational steps to occur as described. The ridiculously unlikely event needs to occur a ridiculous number of times.. all I ask is that you consider what you speak of and how logical that idea is.
actually.. nah, Spanky I'm trying to explain the obvious. That in the entire world there would be either living or in fossil form something showing a morphing that is in between two forms and not fully functional as is.
We agree a fin doesn't just transform into a leg in one step - correct? We agree that wings don't just pop out of an animals back fully formed correct? So in small steps these things would occur and have both living and fossil evidence.
"That in the entire world there would be either living or in fossil form something showing a morphing that is in between two forms and not fully functional as is." - There are, but you also have difficulty defining the two forms since we don't know what the new form will be. You can't look at an eye now and tell me this is the start of a full spectrum detector but yet if you take our eyes as an example, they would be a valid transitional REQUIRED precursor to having such full spectrum sight.
"So in small steps these things would occur and have both living and fossil evidence." - Life is evidence of this. Every single little part of it. You just have to study and look. It's all there for you.
To continue my statement -- the believer of evolution likes to project that we, in small steps, gained say - a leg.. Now first off, they would need to evolve at least 2 symetrically placed legs that are identical (though mirrored versions). Even the first step.. a stump of some sort.. would require vast structural changes in the entire organism.. neurons.. neural networks.. muscles.. skin changes - possibly what.. millions of structure changes -- for those two symetrical stumps.
It is called a change in the population make up. Those pathogens with slight resistance to the drug will survive, and become the dominant pathogen in the population. This support the theory of evolution.
Organisms do not lose DNA. The feature many be turned of, and thus passed to their offspring. This supports the theory of evolution.
Gene swapping also supports the theory of evolution.
In all cases the organism is different from its ancestors, which is what evolution predicts.
No one said we came from nothing why do you keep saying this. life can come from non life this was even proven in the lab.its called abiogenisis i sent you tons of vids on this as well do you not watch the things i send you.
I am an atheist because of the bible and it crazy stories me and you have gone over this i.e.baby killing slavery selling your daughter stuff like that. The fact there are creationist just shows how far people will go to take these myths literally.
i think i was the first to mention half of Americans believe this myth this is why there is a true disconnect between the normal person on the street and what science is or how it works.
But in Europe this is untrue even the pope excepts evolution.
did you hear him straight lie to the people at the end and say "how could we find red blood cells with DNA"
The answer is you cant and they didn't!!! I think they should read there bible because the epic lying going on is beyond me.
Evolution is proven by the fossil record, DNA . Creationist say it isn't a real theory because you never witnessed it but we have. Not only this evolution has been able to make accurate predictions that have been proven by DNA and the fossil record.
Wow did you see the amount of quote mining is going on here. As for there dino blood bit this is total crap what Dr. Schweiter found was a bird like collagen, that right bird like and there was no blood found at all and further research showed no DNA could be retrieved. he is misleading people and he knows it what a lie. check talk origins on this topic they show how AiG says that she had an un-fossilized dinosaur bone with red blood cells to claim a young earth theory what a total lie.
So much stupidity in such a small space might just collapse into a galactic dumbfuck. Holy fuck, just kill yourself and find out there is no heaven or god.
Atheists think: Everything came from nothing by ACCIDENT. Life came from non-life by ACCIDENT. A single cell became all living creatures BY ACCIDENT. Man is here by ACCIDENT. They are here by ACCIDENT. Their thoughts and dreams are all ACCIDENTS. What a SAD religion atheists have! But what great faith! They BELIEVE lizards became great flying machines, by accident! Avian lungs, flight feathers, hallowed bones, special eyes, feet, muscles, tendons, all happened by ACCIDENT! Random chance! SAD!
Too bad you're too blind to see what evolution is about. And atheism isn't a religion.
And these idiots in the video are just too busy jerking each other off to actually study and understand what they're talking about. But on the other hand, I can't blame them. Flinging dung, lying and harassing people is the only way for religions to prolong their existence. Eventually we'll be rid of that mind-poisoning stupid blind faith in bronze-age fairytales
Evolution is a hypothesis held to by those who believe there is no GOD. you have to take it by faith, since no one has ever observed evolution. Never have we seen a cell add to its DNA information. Never has a mutation added new information! The Fossil record is completely empty of these intermediate fossils that should be plenty. You take evolution by FAITH. Just like saying "There is no GOD". Is a statement of faith. You don't know if there is a God or not! Your just stating your BELIEF.
Evolution is not an atheist belief at all. Tons of Christians believe it, and when i say tons i mean at least half in this country and more then half for the rest of the christian world you have made a wrong statement. here is the difference. You believe magic man made the world with incantations and formed man from dirt you offer no fact to support this. evolution is a science that has given rise to genetics and modern biology none of these thing make sense with out evolution.
Over half of Americans believe in Creation friend. And all TRUE Christians believe in creation also.
Evolution IS an Atheist Doctrine. It was invented to attempt to explain CREATION without a CREATOR. To Explain how life is here, without a LIFE GIVER. It takes alot of faith to believe such a doctrine, takes a ton of faith to be an atheist! Saying there is no GOD, even though you don't know. Thinking EVERYTHING was created by NOTHING. That life just accidently happened. Worms become eagles?
Creationism is destroying America's scientific standing in the world. There are more religions in the world that Christianity. Many religious people find that their is no conflict between their religious views and science.
Yes, it is true that some Christians believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is an Atheist. However, this is more out of ignorance than an honest view.
Things happen because the conditions dictate than it is possible.
Talking from ignorance doesn't support ones position.
Is that so? To me to say, "Everything came from nothing". And "Everything created itsself", would sound much more stupid than believing there is an ETERNAL INTELLIGENCE which designed all living things. Seeing how the EVIDENCE points to a DESIGNER. Life just can't happen. Information just can't happen. There has to be a designer. Lizards just don't grow feathers! Wake UP, God is going to judge this foolish world.
Dog breeders will breed dobermans with others dobermans. This is the same for pugs. They have the same dog lineage, but someone selected for certain features that they deemed advantageous many years ago. This process is called artificial selection, a guided process. Everything in a grocery store is a product of artificial selection.
Artificial selection is the strongest proof of natural selection, an unguided process. This is what the theory of evolution is, a watch work after it is wound.
You need to catch up.. no one denies natural selection. If something is better.. it survives better (sometimes... although the blanket idea that better design always survives better is silly too.. just because I have slightly better legs than another doesn't mean I won't die first.. and thus lose possibly a million years of progress in one fell swoop)
Natural selection is so.. but it doesn't account for new information - or gaining a new arm.. etc.
It isn't possible to believe in science. A person either understands it or they rejects it. The rejection is due to the fact that they just don't understand the science. Reading those who deny the current state of knowledge of science the conclusion is that they just don't understand.
also..to omiteru.. as I said before - you need to catch up... dobermans and pugs are dogs. They'll always be dogs. No one disputes we have variation within species - the bible even says this fact. This is a matter of breeding and gene expression.. but does not prove the evolution theory that we gain new limbs.. or organs.
First off.. do you even comprehend the number of changes that need to take place in the brain and in the entire cell structure for a new limb?
The bible isn't a scientific document. It was written in a time when we didn't have the various technologies and knowledge we have. The bible serves an importance in our society, but that isn't in the realm of science. It is through human inquisitive nature that have lead to the understanding of science that we have today.
Remember the story of the Princess kissing the Frog, and it turning in to a prince? Atheists agree this is a fairy tale, because it just took two seconds to turn the frog into a prince... Evolutionists believe it happens over a million years! Do you think we just go to church and believe what ever they teach us out of that Book? That sounds like Science CLASS! You believe the FOOLS [atheistic evolutionists]. What faith you have!
It is not to compare a single individual to a family lineage. These are two different perceptions. This should be obvious to someone who can think logically.
The frog turning into a prince is a fairly tale. However, evolution talks about a lineage. The main concept is where every individual different slightly from their ancestors.
It is hard to determine if you actually understand science.
There is no argument in biology that suggests frogs becoming princes. That is a strawman argument.
Ya dawkins believes Aliens seeded this earth! Brilliant! Since of course we KNOW life just can't spring from nothing. That the simple cell, isn't simple, and can't be produced by an accident! And we CAN'T believe in GOD, so let's make up ALIENS did it! That's the ticket. What an awesome theory! About as stupid as evolution.
There are those who just don't understand evolution biology. Evolutionary biology doesn't deal with how life started on earth, that is a different science. Evolution explains the reason for the variety of life on earth.
There are many scientist who believe in God, and accept that the theory of evolution is scientific facts.
In their worldview these bacteria are actually designed by God to do what they do. I don't get why we then have to try to stop them since Yahweh especially designed them, let's say on the sixth day to spread and and after the fall some suddenly turned evil and now try to kill plant, human and animal life.
Ok, so it is all in god's plan, why the fuck bothering trying to stop them, we cannot or shall not defy god?
"They don't change, they just mutate" wft
danielvanraders 1 month ago
Maybe they were schooled by Ray Comfort in the Banana production process
MrLuiS3rd 5 months ago
There are many who claim that they have become christians on the basis of creation science evidence. Creation science in essence, however, can neither make anyone believe in God nor affirm the truth of the Holy Scriptures. 1Cor.2:5 along with Rom.1:20 says that the origins and roots of christian faith are in God's power within humans. True Christianity is based not on scientific observation but on inner spiritual experiences of the Father and the Son which give authority to the Holy Scriptures.
mikilavush 7 months ago
Yes they found collagen that hasn't completely petrified.But no bloocells(lie).I have seen the documentary of that discovery. They should be ashamed....
gastarbeiter1 9 months ago
3.30 and they just ignore the fact that mutations happens(for example the drug resistance) and then selection is picking.Are they really that ignorant?
gastarbeiter1 9 months ago 2
They do have hypothesis of chemical evolution, that can to some degree by now be reproduced in lab.And no, it does not need to happen instantly and everything fully functional(I don't even know what they mean by fully functional...are we fully functional? And if to what?)So much nonsense and this just in the first 24 seconds....
gastarbeiter1 9 months ago
I dont want richard dawkins teaching about brain surgery either.. There are 45 % of scientist who dont believe in evolution..... reality is catching up as we go along... by 2030 i predict the number will be 80 % in favor of intelligent design
heightboosting 10 months ago
@heightboosting
Where did you get that number from?Creationist news weekly?
gastarbeiter1 9 months ago
well..i wanna see a species transform and change....then i will believe this Evolution theory-actions speak louder than words!!!
29mayhem 10 months ago
Dawkins was talking about your micro evolution . There is no micro and macro, just evolution.
It's really frustrating when you have to teach the other person the subject they are trying to debunk before you can get to any real debate.
ptango101 11 months ago
“Creation In The 21st Century”
Very questionable (not theories, it’s not that clever) guess work! And what’s with the 1980’s suits and hair – don’t creationists update their silly ideas over time like proper scientific researchers and theorists. Christians are the dumbest creature walking, using up resources that would be better used.... now that’s a crime against humanity!
TheFireHorseUK 1 year ago
From what I'm seeing, your research has been revolving around what the creationists sites say about evolution. You are learning from idiots who have been debunked. You don't go to a washing machine salesman to buy a computer.
Why do birds have DNA for teeth and whales for legs? Why don't we find every type of creature fossilized in the same layer if there was a flood?
The bible stays the same because it's DOGMA. Science adds information as new things are discovered.
ptango101 1 year ago
i find is very hypocritical that evolutionists beg and plead for scientific evidence for God, and then when creation scientists come along and plop down in front of them they say it isnt valid... If science is so sacred, why is it that when science goes against evolution, it is no longer valid?
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah We don't beg for anything. You keep saying there defiantly is a god and we keep saying prove it. What scientific evidence have you ever put forward that proves the existence of this being? Creation science (oxymoron) continuously fails to deliver scientifically. You keep whining that you are a valid science but all you've got is faith, personal experience and a desperate need to want it to be true.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 creation science continually fails? id bet ive researched it more than you, and it is more than capable of pointing out flaws in evolution and correcting it. What are you talking about when you say it fails?
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah Your foundation is something you can never scientifically prove. That makes it a religion. It shouldn't be about pointing out the floors in evolution. It should be about proving ID's validity (good luck). Just saying "it looks designed" isn't good enough. All I seem to get from creationists is evolution this and evolution that. Why don't you try putting as much effort into creationism instead of whining about evolution all the time?
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 i have. ive done more research than you think. the major problem i have withevolution is the assumptions and the major points such as... life starting from non life - macroevolution - irreducible complexity - thermodynamics - DNA - fossils or lack there of - many things that are false such as vestigal organs and gill slits. Im not faulting science, science is good, but it is constantly rewriting evolution. the Bible has stayed the same and is supported by each of these.
Kezazah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kezazah i find is very hypocritical that creationists beg and plead for scientific evidence for evolution, and then when real scientists (creationist scientists aren't scientists) come along and plop down in front of them they say it isnt valid... If real science is so sacred to them, why is it that when real science goes against creation, it is no longer valid to them? UMAD BRO?
TheEricoCorleone 3 months ago
@theDLVshow I've been reading at TO for at least 10 years. They are extremely biased in favor of evolution, badly distort numerous things and are willing to publish blatant falsehoods and deny even the most obvious proofs for creation. It would be difficult to find a more badly biased site. They are not objective in any sense of the word whatsoever. One of their MANY errors is saying that speciation into another species is evidence for evolution.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@ptango101 The flood was a massive extinction event and there is much scientific as well as historical evidence backing this up. Don't believe the propaganda that all the ancients were just cavemen. That's a willful distortion of history based on evolution thinking that many facts refute (you can even watch some of the episodes of ancient discoveries by Discovery channel that document amazing tech by ancients.) The Chinese millenia ago built ships the size of the ark and sailed them.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Holy fucking shit
Ignorantf00l 1 year ago
At 7:29 - "90% of the cells in your body are bacteria." Are these guys brain dead?
pupsenok 1 year ago
"Beautiful and accurate explaination"
Just what did the host refer to???? pretty much everything he says is just plain lies
Sandro1989 1 year ago
Every scoffer that is currently in Hell is now a creationist! Too bad that they won't be able to get out to tell you.
darien811 1 year ago
At 8:28 "The bacteria that kill us like cholera is a result of the fall" -- I'm assuming he means the fall of man - Original Sin.
When you think maybe these guys are just terribly misguided and then.......................... OH NOOO!!.....THEY'RE INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
evoman1776 1 year ago
Do they teach 'quote mining' at sunday school?
Evolution has been seen in nature and in the lab.
So glad the 'believe' in m. evolution.
Yes, Natural Selection does pick from what is already there, variation in species is proven by turning a wolf into a poodle or a grear dane.
gregrutz 1 year ago
These guys are complete boneheads. It scares me beyond believe that more than 40% of Americans actually believe this stuff.
MrWagman11 1 year ago
my head hurts
bertus198 1 year ago
Update, they just made the first life with manmade DNA.
''We see evolution, let's call it micro''' LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
Cholera is a result of the fall...
...
I rest my case.
hyperseauton 1 year ago
wow. terrible interpretation of partially accurate data... fail
CaptainCrocs 1 year ago
What a beautiful example of doublethink!
If they accept beneficial/symbiotic bacteria as "wonderfully designed", then what about those pathogenic ones?
Mycobacterium tuberculosis alone kills about 2 million ppl per year. What about cholera, and the Black Death? Yersinia pestis killed 30-60% of the european population!
Wonderful design, all praise the designer!
smarthandsomeguy 1 year ago
this makes me sick
ethankegley 1 year ago
it's among the worst
smarthandsomeguy 1 year ago
@smarthandsomeguy
agreed
ethankegley 1 year ago
On the subject of bacterial antimicrobial resistance, it does show "microevolution" but what about plasmid transfer with endonucleases (or through gene transposition/transformation) that give bacteria new biochemical signatures? If they develop changes in biochemical signatures, they are a whole new species. Look up Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, as they were previously of the Pseudomonas genera, but through DNA studies, they are all identified as different species.
Monotonous25 1 year ago
bacteria possesing imunity to drugs it has not incountered does not disprove evolution. infact evolution states that mutations arise independent of the enviorment. it is the fact that the muatation is already present when the selecting event occurse that gives the organisom the advantage over the others. to think the revirse is to be limarksian and say the giraph grew its neck so it could reach the leaves. instead those with long necks servived better then those without so thay passed on genes
stinkpuppyohno 1 year ago
no new genes. realy once again E. coli experament. look it up new genes not in the parent genome arise giving way to a mutation that increases the fitness and servivablity of the species. the gene was not previously in the parant population but arose from a gene duplication error more then likly and gaining the E coli the ability to digest citrate. also look up arizona pocket mice. it is a four point aleal mutation that changed furr from brown to black. new gene as well
stinkpuppyohno 1 year ago
wait wait. so you claim no one has a hypothasis on how life arose from nonlife, ie abiogenesis. well no we do two promanent ones is the RNA world theory and the cristolen formation theory. of corse there is the prymordial soup idea but this has ben shown to be false. however there is not a gaiping whole in science here. and in responce to the " you cant see it happaning" claim look up E. coli long-term evolution experiment conducted by Richard Lenski. and ring species.
stinkpuppyohno 1 year ago
I would not want a shoes salesman to teach brain surgery; therefor I do not want Christian Salesman teaching my science.
theDLVshow 1 year ago 5
@theDLVshow HELLO. Most branches of science were pioneered by creationists, as well as the scientific method itself. When people are allowed to examine the evidence for evolution vs. the evidence for creation science using consistent standards, many have become creationists. The problems is that atheists and evolutionists LOVE to set up double standards such as evolution (dealing with change in species) vs. act of creation (dealing with origin of species). VERY duplicitious.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 I would not discredit most branches of science or scientific method because who it was founded by, that's like me saying we shouldn't use a lot of rocket technology because it was founded by Nazis. As for people who study then become creationists, where are your numbers? Are you counting children being taught by their parents (they should not count, for instance children also believe in Santa Claus because of their parents). Your last point double standards, (see next)
theDLVshow 1 year ago
god is all loving, and is all knowing, - Please see your current bible, if you need assistance please google bible contradictions, murder rape incest genocide in the bible. Because evolution does not deal with origins that = a double standard, no sorry it doesn't. Before you think this is some evil atheist evolutionist know this. I believe church can be beneficial to communities they are in, just leave faith at the door when you enter public domain (i.e. science and teaching children) Thanks.
theDLVshow 1 year ago
He leads people step by step as they are willing to follow. So, some laws He gave were NOT his ideal. They were just significant progress over the status quo.
-
Comparing evolution to creation is a false comparison fallacy,not a double standard(sorry for the typo).But, atheism rests on many double standards as well.
Last,if Christians had left faith out of the public domain, you would know nothing about quite a few branches of science and areas of history that the Bible inspired to start.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
I’ve read most of those atheists sites criticizing the Bible for crimes(&BADLY cherry picking it) probably more than you have. 3 points.
1) Do you discard democracy, science, education, govt. because some individuals in these areas do terrible things.No.That would be really stupid. Why do you think it’s OK to use that same fallacious reasoning with religion?
2) God condemns many things that happened in the Bible.
3) God gave us freedom. This means He doesn’t force us to follow His ideal...
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@theDLVshow Dr. Wernher Von Braun,a man convinced of creation by science,was the father of rocketry &he did not like the Nazis although he was forced to work with them. But when he figured out a way to escape,he left Germany with ~100s of trainloads of rocket material.
Majorities don't prove truth,but many adults with advanced degrees have become creationists AFTER studying the evidence on both sides. Lee Strobel,Dr. Walter Veith,Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Walter Brown to name a few of MANY.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Thank you for your response, i think you may have misunderstood my analogy of rockets but that is besides the point. After reviewing the list you have shown above I have a few statements:
Lee Strobel - Degree in Journalism, & Masters in Law. These are impressive I will admit, but where is the part about evidence (science) in his degrees? I would guess conversion based on personal experience.
Dr. Walter Veith - Doctorate in Zoology. Now this one intrigues me, NEXT POST
theDLVshow 1 year ago
knowledge of animal and knowledge of evolution and still a creationist? Any recommendations of his work, I'd like to hear his thoughts.
Dr. Robert Gentry - Nuclear Physicist - I'm intrigued, but it seems even his own party (7th Adventists) disagree with his views. Which is fine but when readings his claims (about a world flood) they are destroyed by other scientists that study geology (which wasn't his field) and facts we have.
Dr. Walter Brown - Ph.D. in mechanical engineering SEE NEXT POST
theDLVshow 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7
not equal to science refuting evolution or origins of life (2 subjects). Many of his claims (flood, and anti evolution) have been proven wrong by facts, fossils, and other scientist, it even seems that The Christian American Scientific Affiliation has debunked some of his claims.
Question - which version of Christianity is right? the examples given are may denominations, and which is right young earth or old earth creation, and why is Christianity right? Great discussion Thanks!
theDLVshow 1 year ago
@theDLVshow more happiness, much pioneering of science, human rights, education, hospitals, etc. There’s nothing to lose by choosing to learn and follow God (similar to learning and following great teachers, scientists, parents, etc.) and MUCH to gain on THIS earth. PLUS you have a great chance to live forever. See this enormously strong evidence for a resurrection.
watch?v=q6IHwPG81Yg (by former atheist)
watch?v=70g5wU5wJf0
watch?v=diKEZb9_M8Q (by former atheist)
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@theDLVshow In my view, atheism loses the scientific competition almost at the start because it doesn’t provide any evidence for how life could originate by random unintelligent processes and numerous other crucial fundamental questions. Christianity provides mountains from science and history and other fields too for 100s of lines of evidence it has. Plus, it offers numerous benefits in this life if we follow God such as 10+ years extra life (see my health playlist),
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 please see talkorigions com this will help clear up misconceptions.
theDLVshow 1 year ago
WRONG. Speciation from one species into another genus-family is referenced in Genesis and the concept of natural selection was published by the creationist Edward Blyth LONG before Darwin's book. The idea of Darwin that DIFFERED from prior creation science is that speciation could cause changes way past the family level to astoundingly the kingdom level and THAT is what need to be proven with solid evidence and hasn't yet. ALL observed speciation falls in creation science levels so far.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Very good question on which view is correct. God says we are responsible to investigate the evidence and follow our conscience, not tradition and feelings. Similarly in science, we are supposed to follow the weight of evidence, not our own agendas and biases. When we really do this, it’s usually not that hard to find what has the best evidence. I have another playlist called “Come Search With Me” that is very insightful in doing this. Videos 1-3 lay an essential foundation for doing this.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Mechanical engineering requires in depth knowledge from several major fields of science (see it's entry under wikipedia) which are relevant. I've seen a few who disagree with Dr. Brown,but he's got very strong arguments in my view&many agree with him(google creationscience for his free online book with many references).You can see disagreement among evolutionists as well.There are numerous other science Ph.Ds. who support creation science at sites like answersingenesis,nwcreation,ICR and others.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@theDLVshow Your point on rocketry was correct. I just made another point :).
re Strobel. Lawyers routinely use scientific evidence to prove innocence or guilt.
You can watch Strobel's reasons for becoming a creationist here:
watch?v=wAlixk3lGjk
Dr. Veith's seminar is here:
my_playlists?p=0F4C0511B7DFC4C7
re Gentry, I'm an Adventist (and a professor) and not many Christians disagree with his evidence. But, it's fine for Christian scientists to disagree some just as it is for atheists).
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7QUOTE "Flood geology" has been dead ever since leading Christians scholars in geology at Cambridge and Oxford rejected it, and that was before Darwin's Origins was ever published.
By the 1850s, Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old.
For some of their reasons, see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science"END QUOTE. Creationists were the first ones to realise they were wrong.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Sorry, but flood geology isn't even close to dead and even secular scientists are moving ever closer to what the Bible taught all along...of massive planet wide cataclysms that caused mass extinction. Just watched a movie on that, Global Warning, from Discovery Channel I think...that claimed the whole world was covered by ice and that killed off 95% of the animals...mass freezing is part of several flood theories...and as you know ice melts into water..not a big difference.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Science has known about extinction events and the ice ages for a long time now. When you say flood geology you are not just talking about a flood. You're putting forward the idea that a few people, in the stone age, built a boat so massive it could hold two of every species known, their food and sleeping arrangements. It also magically held together for about a year. Does this sound like science to you?
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Yes,there have been Christians throughout history willing to follow the supposed wisdom of man instead of God's word. That's caused some of the biggest problems&pseudoscience in history...such as when Christians followed Greeks in their ideas on spontaneous generation&the immortal soul which produced the demonic concept of a forever burning hell as well as following them in the nonsense that bleeding is beneficial to patients instead of the Bible's idea that life is in the blood.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 What does that mean? That when they actually did research and it didn't add up with the bible, is that was mans wisdom? Are you saying when we STOP looking at the bible as the sole source of information, pseudoscience creeps in? All sounds a bit backwards to me.
ptango101 1 year ago
--
Watch the Veith flood videos. You believe myths about the flood (it didn't need every species on the planet for example...even ~16,000 could be enough to explain the variety of life we have now.
Re: man's wisdom,
1) when conventional wisdom disagrees with the Bible, inevitably, it's found to be false and sometimes very harmful over time.
2) NO Christian views the Bible as the sole source of information. But, it's a crucial starting point/foundation.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@Truth I will get to the stuff you are just saying but take this into account until I do. So you are happy with 16,000 species of every organism on the ark? This covers creation according to you? Estimates now put the number at 1.7 million plant and animal species have been identified but millions more exist in thew remote wildernesses. There's estimates of 100 mill species of insects. Do the math how many times would a kind have to adapt to reach these numbers?
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101
Google this link which is an overview of a detailed book with all sorts of mathematical calculations and measurements, etc. on this topic. "Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?"
Many millions of species had no need of an ark to survive the flood. That's one of many things that you are not taking into account among several.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 I'm not taking them into account because I don't need them to prove your story false. Apart from the fact that a few people could never had completed this project in their life time, the size of the ark would have made it snap in half. A wooden boat of this size would have failed as soon as it was floating.
ptango101 1 year ago
& a number of my students have gone on to work in shipping companies. Korean shipping engineers have done detailed studies of the ark and state that it is extremely stable and would float easily. I have some of their documentation. Experts have found evidence of wooden Chinese boats over 400 feet long as well. It's not even close to impossible as atheist mythmakers suppose. It is reality. Btw, it looks like Noah's Ark has been found and we have pics and videos of it now.
watch?v=qtmvmEjfBQk
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@ptango101 With all due respect, most modern people are really arrogant and know very little about what the ancients were able to accomplish. There is quite significant evidence of quite amazing technology in the ancient world, esp. the very ancient world, including for example one book that described how to make an engine running on mercury. MANY others. Go to S8intDOTcom for a tiny bit. I have lived in Korea, #1 ship making country in the world now at present
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 You are trying to tell me that eight people built a watercraft the size of a football stadium with only felled trees and pitch? That could not be repeated today. Would you attempt it using that level of technology and seven other people?
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Nowhere does the Bible say that only 3 people built the ark. Nowhere does it say that it was built from ONLY felled trees and pitch. Furthermore,the Chinese were building ships of about the same size &Korean engineers as I stated have reviewed the dimensions of the ark and stated that it would be extremely stable, capable of riding out I think up to 90 foot waves. You are under the common delusion that all ancients were cavemen pulling their wives around by their hair. That's fiction.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 So who made the ark? What are you saying and have you got a story to back it up? I'm not saying the ancients were dumb. They just didn't have access to the materials we have today.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Noah and his sons built the ark. Duh!!
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis Wow that's great. So how did a few individuals make a ship that size using the technology of the day? It's all very well for you and truthlife to say people might have been smarter (evidence please) but so far we haven't found any fossilized cranes and trucks.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Noah made the ark as God instructed him. And if you don't accept that, when can I see you start burning most of the historical records of western history whose sole evidence is the word of historians NONE of whom are as accurate as the Bible?
You like most people are ignorant of the technology of the ancients. Watch my playlist on ancient wisdom. The Chinese had boats just as long as Noah's ark millenia ago AND wooden.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Amen!!! You know I actually believe that some people that lived before the flood were smarted than we are now.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis Yes, I think there is a very high chance that some people in the past equaled or exceeded our intelligence in some areas. There are records in certain ancient books of the ancients building airplane engines that ran on mercury (I believe this was in the library of Alexander). Check my wisdom of the ancients for some amazing advances that happened AFTER the flood. What happened before that with their long lives and unequaled brains would certainly amaze many.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes we would.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@ptango101 Just because you don't have the ability to comprehend how God instructed a man and his sons to build a ship doesn't mean that it isnt true. You must remember that with GOD all things are possible.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis The good old christian answer we get when they realise their stupid story has no credibility. If you have to invoke god then deep down even you know it's a load of garbage.
ptango101 1 year ago
@theDLVshow So do you believe that garbage of evolution. Poor little you.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis So how did we get here. Why don't you actually state the story you use to explain the origin of man. This is where I usually find creationists shut up because when you say it out loud it sounds ridiculous. Come on! Go for it! Here let me start you off. It had something to do with dust.
ptango101 1 year ago
re: your dust straw man...you are using a computer which has many parts made from simple silicon. If man can make communication networks based on that, is there even a spec of logic in thinking a God who made the universe couldn't do something similar?
So, if we have to invoke a painter to explain a painting is that a load of garbage? or an engineer to explain a dam, or a architect to explain a building or a parent to explain a baby. Your reasoning destroys pretty much all logic.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Why is it a straw man? OK, tell me what genesis says on the subject. What is it with creationists comparing non-biological things to biological ones. So if we know a wheel barrow has a designer then we have to conclude that the whole of the natural world has one too? What was that you were saying about logic? The last time I looked none of the things you mentioned had DNA.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 A) We have found quite a number of architectural things, esp. structures using blocks of 100s of tons and fitting them together so precisely that you can't fit a knife between them, that we can't reproduce even with the technology we have today.
B) The story of man's origins is in the Bible and ~80% of the Bible has evidence to support it. But, a little requires faith. Atheism however requires nearly 100% faith with a HORRIBLE track record.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 How do you define atheism? It's not a belief system it's exactly the opposite. If you asked me "Do you believe there is a god" my answer would be "no". Atheism is the position you take on only that issue. Look it up. It's in all the dictionaries.
ptango101 1 year ago
@1954phyllis So do you believe in and Invisible man who can fap a universe into existence at his whim, because everything has to be created, "cough cough except the creator" and one that (guessing your Christian) and has never shown himself to humans?, oh and the bible saying its true doesn't make it true. Again guessing christian, why are the 1,000s of other religions wrong? (even older ones). No response needed but I pray you pick up a science book and READ! Have a great day!
theDLVshow 1 year ago
@theDLVshow To compare God to man is very foolish. God spoke all of creation into existance. You are forgetting that He did show HImself to humans when Jesus came to this earth in the form of man. The Bible is true. If it wasn't all the prophecies in it wouldn't have come to pass. Just the fact that you are a scoffer proves His Word is true. I have no desire to pick up a science book when I can pick up the greatest book that was ever written.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis "I have no desire to pick up a science book when I can pick up the greatest book that was ever written." that is kinda what I thought you'd say. Again I ask why is Christianity the correct one, why do you not reference the Tora, Qu'ran, or any other book created by man? Oh and which version of Christianity is the right one seeing as there are over 33,820 denominations. I do not scoff at a God, I scoff at people who deny information, and leave children in the dark. Have a great day!
theDLVshow 1 year ago
@1954phyllis You ignorant cunt.
taintedsoul888 2 weeks ago
Epic Understanding Fail
hallerd 1 year ago 8
@hallerd evolution theory has failed... thats it
heightboosting 10 months ago
The creationists says to a highly credentialed and frequently published evolutionary biologist, "Ha! You can't outsmart me 'cause I'm a moron!"
jklarson66 1 year ago 2
Just watching this vid retards the brain. No amount of stupidity has gathered together on one stage.
tommiatkins 1 year ago
Lul, this guys a fagget retard.
Saying evolution is faith is absolutely retarded. It's the process of studying the evidence to disprove and disprove to come up with the best solution to the problem. Faith (in Christianity religion) is the belief that one book is completely right and you have to believe it because it's right there...in the book...the only book...the good book...the holy book...religionfags are fags
playboyhubba 1 year ago
Carl Baugh: Proven fraud
Dr. Carl Jackson: Doctorate in bible study and proven fraud
greywolf424 1 year ago
Faith that a big shiny cloud man waved his wand and made it all happen is too much faith for me.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
"gaining DNA which evolution says must happen"
ahm, not exactly. With the same amount of base pairs one can code for very differing proteins and finally organisms. There is lots and lots of junk DNA, not apparently used in genes and not appearing in phenotype. So with about the same number of base pairs very different organisms can be coded.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Why is Jackson raising and lowering his voice like that as if he were preaching or something? Why the über-stressing of syllables and the unnatural certainty in his voice, if this is science and not oratory.
hyperseauton 2 years ago 2
That's retarded way to talk to retarded people.
wizardtree 1 year ago
that's funny how again and again these guys just tell the same bullshit with no evidence whatsoever and call evolution a religion.
yegorletoff 2 years ago
copy paste this in the bar "Evolution before our eyes" watch the first video after watching it tell me that this virus is not evolving they even look at the dna and its different
snaggletusk666 2 years ago
Wait what!? The changes occur between generations. No biodegradeing happening here
xUberfail 2 years ago 2
6:00 This is just explaining natural selection which is a driving force of evolution.
The whole fallacy of dna having to gain information is rubbish. It can gain OR lose information. Some plants have 10 times the information that humans have.
8:00 Lessons on bacteria LOL
Doesnt the bible say something about dripping the blood of a bird into water will heal illnesses
horseburger 2 years ago
Logical fallacy:
3:25 If it was not "new" dna in respect to the original dna then it would not be called a mutation. It doesnt matter when it mutated. The fact is that it did mutate.
4:25 Yes, but if poison ivy became such a problem that it killed everyone who wasnt immune, that would be a perfect example of natural selection. ALL the surviving humans would be immune to poison ivy.
horseburger 2 years ago
Why are these men lying to us? Who supports them? These guys are disturbingly dishonest.
glasshammer52 2 years ago
Point out the lies you claim are presented here. Then prove they are lies. If you can not do this then do not make bold accusations about the video.
sk871313 2 years ago
The first one happened less than 20 seconds into the video, when Idiot #1 says that "Evolutionists" cannot demonstrate how inorganic life created a living cell. He's an educated man, and knows that pre-cellular life predated cellular life by over a billion years.
Don't believe this crap, they're lying to you. Why does Jesus demand so many lies from his believers? Are they being like Jesus? Shall we take from them that Jesus was a liar, too? I guess we must.
glasshammer52 2 years ago
Prove that pre-cellular life predated cellular life by a billion year. What is an example of pre-cellular life. How about a link to your source. Then prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and show us the link to that proof.
sk871313 2 years ago
Prove it to yourself. You wouldn't trust me anyhow. Pick up a book on biology. Search YouTube for precellular life. Ask a biology professor.
A cell is a complex thing. It's unreasonable to imagine that cellular life was the first life to exist, and indeed it was not.
sk8, these men are lying to you. Why do you think they are lying to you? That they are lying is not in question, they are. Why?
Think about it. Do some research. Then, think for yourself.
glasshammer52 2 years ago
There is a lot wrong with your statement. First off any biology book you pick dose not provide and supporting evidence at all. The books only assume that evolution is true and them claim that it is.
The cell is the smallest unit of live. The only things smaller DNA, RNA, proteins, and atoms. These are the building blocks of live but are not alive because they do not perform the 7 functions of living things.
sk871313 2 years ago
Ask any biology professor any of these questions and they will not be able to answer.
Name any evolutionary process that can add information to the gnome?
Where did the first DNA come from and how did the first cell form without it?
How did the first cell form with all necessary proteins to live and reproduce it's self all at once?
How did the proteins that assemble other proteins know how to assemble them in the first cell and correctly?
Just ask a few.
sk871313 2 years ago
@glasshammer52
You told me to prove it to myself only because you do not have the information to do. No one dose, because evolution is not true. Just because the court sided with evolution based on fabricated prove that was later revealed to be a hoax and it is now in the school dose make it true. Why this decision is not repealed is ridicules.
sk871313 2 years ago
sk871313 while our knowledge of genetics is still on the increase it does not mean that we should fill any gaps with god. There ids nothing wrong with saying "I dont know how this happens" because it leads people try and find out. Saying "It is because god did it" will stop you from trying to find out ecause you think you already have the answer and you will never know the truth. And in any case, evolution is nothing to do with how we got here whether it be creation or not.That'd be Abiogenesis
horseburger 2 years ago
Point out the evidence that these men tell the truth. Prove to me factually that God exists.
FullMetalRedfield 1 year ago 2
And I thought lying is a sin.
Orkaney 2 years ago
*Facepalm* What a load of crap from these Charlatans!! Quote mining much?
Jimb0can 2 years ago
Why would God create "micro-evolution"?
How is it that we share 98% genetic material with apes?
How do you explain sedimentary layers that date back billions of years? Did God create sediment? And fossils? Why, to confuse us?
Christians should look at human intellectual evolution. Today, we travel into space, orbit the earth, went to the moon. We are smarter. Moses didn't have the knowledge and understanding to map creation, but he did the best he could poetically. That's TRUTH.
peacelf 2 years ago
Are the "Dr" actually the initials of Mr. Baugh? Bs would be more appropriate because this is the biggest BS I have ever seen in my entire life. Under no circumstance can he hold a degree in science. So sad.
NematostellaELLA 2 years ago
"Dr" carl B isn't even a real doctor. All his science degrees are from unacredited schools. Some aren't even schools like the one in irving tx.he even started his own schools and gave himself degrees. NOW That's just a plain ass liar. How can you believe anything this liar says??
Dozerthedj 2 years ago
If you think these guys are telling anything remotely like the truth, a good first step in educating yourself away from this madness is to read up on the actual mechanisms of genetic change and how such changes spread through a population. The statement that no new genes ever arise is an absolute, outright lie. The mechanism is known and understood. All the information to see through the lies of these two charlatans is out there and available for study.
These men are evil liars.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Groan!
Hey! Great idea for a TV show: Let's present a mixture of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies and claim that we're the good guys because we're lying for the Lord.
After all, we needn't worry about the people who know the actual truth, they'll never fall for the con. We only have to fool the gullible and ignorant - you know, the people who buy our books and DVDs.
Oh. Hang on. It looks like these two clowns are doing it already. Oh well, I'll just have to do something else.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
This is so sad. So very sad.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Dr Baugh and Dr Jackson are awesome!
ericjaynelson 2 years ago
Wow I cannot believe they are calling abiogenesis an important part of evolution! The people in this video have NO idea what logic means or how to use it properly. Quote mining and appeals to ridicule are logical fallacies and in no way detract or refute the claims made by anyone. Of course you can't personally observe evolution in the here and now, you cannot live more than a hundred years or so and it takes far longer than that generally for a creature to evolve meaningfully.
flameroller 2 years ago
hey look, a creationist and a guy in a blue suit, interesting how creationists have to manufacture discussions before any 'scientist' will support anything they say.
DrPracticleHat 2 years ago
So... to just gain some sort of a useless set of stump legs... that not only would be useless by the way.. and thus not an evolutionary advantage, but it would require millions of structural changes simultaneously in one step. Evolution requires millions of these irrational steps to occur as described. The ridiculously unlikely event needs to occur a ridiculous number of times.. all I ask is that you consider what you speak of and how logical that idea is.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago 2
xnothingbutthetruth - You seem to be projecting your ignorance onto youtube.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
actually.. nah, Spanky I'm trying to explain the obvious. That in the entire world there would be either living or in fossil form something showing a morphing that is in between two forms and not fully functional as is.
We agree a fin doesn't just transform into a leg in one step - correct? We agree that wings don't just pop out of an animals back fully formed correct? So in small steps these things would occur and have both living and fossil evidence.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
"That in the entire world there would be either living or in fossil form something showing a morphing that is in between two forms and not fully functional as is." - There are, but you also have difficulty defining the two forms since we don't know what the new form will be. You can't look at an eye now and tell me this is the start of a full spectrum detector but yet if you take our eyes as an example, they would be a valid transitional REQUIRED precursor to having such full spectrum sight.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
"So in small steps these things would occur and have both living and fossil evidence." - Life is evidence of this. Every single little part of it. You just have to study and look. It's all there for you.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
To continue my statement -- the believer of evolution likes to project that we, in small steps, gained say - a leg.. Now first off, they would need to evolve at least 2 symetrically placed legs that are identical (though mirrored versions). Even the first step.. a stump of some sort.. would require vast structural changes in the entire organism.. neurons.. neural networks.. muscles.. skin changes - possibly what.. millions of structure changes -- for those two symetrical stumps.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago 2
their right! u cant make new genes to make a new creature! it already has to be present! DUH! evolution is a big fat lie!
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
IDIOT
askmyname727 2 years ago
ok. where do genes come from? do they pop out of thin air? i dont think so.
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
IDIOT
askmyname727 2 years ago
answer the ?. then we'll see whos a idiot.
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
It is called a change in the population make up. Those pathogens with slight resistance to the drug will survive, and become the dominant pathogen in the population. This support the theory of evolution.
Organisms do not lose DNA. The feature many be turned of, and thus passed to their offspring. This supports the theory of evolution.
Gene swapping also supports the theory of evolution.
In all cases the organism is different from its ancestors, which is what evolution predicts.
omiteru 2 years ago
No one said we came from nothing why do you keep saying this. life can come from non life this was even proven in the lab.its called abiogenisis i sent you tons of vids on this as well do you not watch the things i send you.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
I am an atheist because of the bible and it crazy stories me and you have gone over this i.e.baby killing slavery selling your daughter stuff like that. The fact there are creationist just shows how far people will go to take these myths literally.
i think i was the first to mention half of Americans believe this myth this is why there is a true disconnect between the normal person on the street and what science is or how it works.
But in Europe this is untrue even the pope excepts evolution.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
did you hear him straight lie to the people at the end and say "how could we find red blood cells with DNA"
The answer is you cant and they didn't!!! I think they should read there bible because the epic lying going on is beyond me.
Evolution is proven by the fossil record, DNA . Creationist say it isn't a real theory because you never witnessed it but we have. Not only this evolution has been able to make accurate predictions that have been proven by DNA and the fossil record.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
Wow did you see the amount of quote mining is going on here. As for there dino blood bit this is total crap what Dr. Schweiter found was a bird like collagen, that right bird like and there was no blood found at all and further research showed no DNA could be retrieved. he is misleading people and he knows it what a lie. check talk origins on this topic they show how AiG says that she had an un-fossilized dinosaur bone with red blood cells to claim a young earth theory what a total lie.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
I must thank this particular portrayal of Creation "science" for the losing of fat around my face.
I have never contorted my face so much as each time I hear a conclusion that they want to accommodate.
"Wha?" is something I've never said so much before. And each time I contorted my face.
Thanks for the exercise.
naganokumas 2 years ago
So much stupidity in such a small space might just collapse into a galactic dumbfuck. Holy fuck, just kill yourself and find out there is no heaven or god.
Anon9991 2 years ago
Atheists think: Everything came from nothing by ACCIDENT. Life came from non-life by ACCIDENT. A single cell became all living creatures BY ACCIDENT. Man is here by ACCIDENT. They are here by ACCIDENT. Their thoughts and dreams are all ACCIDENTS. What a SAD religion atheists have! But what great faith! They BELIEVE lizards became great flying machines, by accident! Avian lungs, flight feathers, hallowed bones, special eyes, feet, muscles, tendons, all happened by ACCIDENT! Random chance! SAD!
martinthezman 2 years ago
Too bad you're too blind to see what evolution is about. And atheism isn't a religion.
And these idiots in the video are just too busy jerking each other off to actually study and understand what they're talking about. But on the other hand, I can't blame them. Flinging dung, lying and harassing people is the only way for religions to prolong their existence. Eventually we'll be rid of that mind-poisoning stupid blind faith in bronze-age fairytales
Anon9991 2 years ago
Evolution is a hypothesis held to by those who believe there is no GOD. you have to take it by faith, since no one has ever observed evolution. Never have we seen a cell add to its DNA information. Never has a mutation added new information! The Fossil record is completely empty of these intermediate fossils that should be plenty. You take evolution by FAITH. Just like saying "There is no GOD". Is a statement of faith. You don't know if there is a God or not! Your just stating your BELIEF.
martinthezman 2 years ago
Evolution is not an atheist belief at all. Tons of Christians believe it, and when i say tons i mean at least half in this country and more then half for the rest of the christian world you have made a wrong statement. here is the difference. You believe magic man made the world with incantations and formed man from dirt you offer no fact to support this. evolution is a science that has given rise to genetics and modern biology none of these thing make sense with out evolution.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
Over half of Americans believe in Creation friend. And all TRUE Christians believe in creation also.
Evolution IS an Atheist Doctrine. It was invented to attempt to explain CREATION without a CREATOR. To Explain how life is here, without a LIFE GIVER. It takes alot of faith to believe such a doctrine, takes a ton of faith to be an atheist! Saying there is no GOD, even though you don't know. Thinking EVERYTHING was created by NOTHING. That life just accidently happened. Worms become eagles?
martinthezman 2 years ago
Creationism is destroying America's scientific standing in the world. There are more religions in the world that Christianity. Many religious people find that their is no conflict between their religious views and science.
Yes, it is true that some Christians believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is an Atheist. However, this is more out of ignorance than an honest view.
Things happen because the conditions dictate than it is possible.
Talking from ignorance doesn't support ones position.
omiteru 2 years ago
Is that so? To me to say, "Everything came from nothing". And "Everything created itsself", would sound much more stupid than believing there is an ETERNAL INTELLIGENCE which designed all living things. Seeing how the EVIDENCE points to a DESIGNER. Life just can't happen. Information just can't happen. There has to be a designer. Lizards just don't grow feathers! Wake UP, God is going to judge this foolish world.
martinthezman 2 years ago
Dog breeders will breed dobermans with others dobermans. This is the same for pugs. They have the same dog lineage, but someone selected for certain features that they deemed advantageous many years ago. This process is called artificial selection, a guided process. Everything in a grocery store is a product of artificial selection.
Artificial selection is the strongest proof of natural selection, an unguided process. This is what the theory of evolution is, a watch work after it is wound.
omiteru 2 years ago
to omiteru..
You need to catch up.. no one denies natural selection. If something is better.. it survives better (sometimes... although the blanket idea that better design always survives better is silly too.. just because I have slightly better legs than another doesn't mean I won't die first.. and thus lose possibly a million years of progress in one fell swoop)
Natural selection is so.. but it doesn't account for new information - or gaining a new arm.. etc.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
It isn't possible to believe in science. A person either understands it or they rejects it. The rejection is due to the fact that they just don't understand the science. Reading those who deny the current state of knowledge of science the conclusion is that they just don't understand.
omiteru 1 year ago
also..to omiteru.. as I said before - you need to catch up... dobermans and pugs are dogs. They'll always be dogs. No one disputes we have variation within species - the bible even says this fact. This is a matter of breeding and gene expression.. but does not prove the evolution theory that we gain new limbs.. or organs.
First off.. do you even comprehend the number of changes that need to take place in the brain and in the entire cell structure for a new limb?
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
The bible isn't a scientific document. It was written in a time when we didn't have the various technologies and knowledge we have. The bible serves an importance in our society, but that isn't in the realm of science. It is through human inquisitive nature that have lead to the understanding of science that we have today.
omiteru 1 year ago
Remember the story of the Princess kissing the Frog, and it turning in to a prince? Atheists agree this is a fairy tale, because it just took two seconds to turn the frog into a prince... Evolutionists believe it happens over a million years! Do you think we just go to church and believe what ever they teach us out of that Book? That sounds like Science CLASS! You believe the FOOLS [atheistic evolutionists]. What faith you have!
martinthezman 2 years ago
It is not to compare a single individual to a family lineage. These are two different perceptions. This should be obvious to someone who can think logically.
The frog turning into a prince is a fairly tale. However, evolution talks about a lineage. The main concept is where every individual different slightly from their ancestors.
It is hard to determine if you actually understand science.
There is no argument in biology that suggests frogs becoming princes. That is a strawman argument.
omiteru 2 years ago
OMG They read from the text book and completely misunderstand what it is saying. They know NOTHING about genetics or biology. FAAARRRRRRKKKKKK.
Grymyrk 2 years ago
Wow, I marvel at the difference between watching Dr. Dawkins and these two.
When Dr. Dawkins speaks there is no cloudy doublespeak, these two are out to confuse.
What dipshits.
superdoubt 2 years ago
Ya dawkins believes Aliens seeded this earth! Brilliant! Since of course we KNOW life just can't spring from nothing. That the simple cell, isn't simple, and can't be produced by an accident! And we CAN'T believe in GOD, so let's make up ALIENS did it! That's the ticket. What an awesome theory! About as stupid as evolution.
martinthezman 2 years ago
hahahaha... you're an idiot.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
There are those who just don't understand evolution biology. Evolutionary biology doesn't deal with how life started on earth, that is a different science. Evolution explains the reason for the variety of life on earth.
There are many scientist who believe in God, and accept that the theory of evolution is scientific facts.
omiteru 2 years ago
OMG, it is Ned Flanders!
danuk55555 2 years ago
There are only 3 ways for germs that weren't immune to become:
1. they were already immune...
I lol'd hard.
Evalsrewop 2 years ago
It IS funny as hell.
In their worldview these bacteria are actually designed by God to do what they do. I don't get why we then have to try to stop them since Yahweh especially designed them, let's say on the sixth day to spread and and after the fall some suddenly turned evil and now try to kill plant, human and animal life.
Ok, so it is all in god's plan, why the fuck bothering trying to stop them, we cannot or shall not defy god?
Real, REAL jokers these two...
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
My ears and eyes are hurting!
popgrafix 2 years ago
Evolution being slow is NOT faith you liars!
SatoBrooks 2 years ago
Why can't stupidity be the leading cause of death?
babner 2 years ago
I must say, listening to these 2 idiots display their complete lack of reading comprehension is nauseating...
Krow147 2 years ago
"a bacteria that kill us like cholera is a result of the fall..." (uncomfortable pause). Fucktard #2 was thinking: "Hey, even I don't go that far."
RationalEmotive 2 years ago