never become human. It is a proven fact that the DNA is such that if its changed or mutated..it would either be weaker then its previous form or try to re-program itself to what it was originally meant to be. Just to show you that creation has more going for it. In Genesis time, Science was not advanced.So for someone to have know how fossils came about and date them and explained creation in Genesis the same way that Science has proven it occured in that same order.explain that
Evolution.. a theory created by a man. And creation..not a theory but a belief... that has more going for it then say evolution. DNA in humans has always been human. YOU change it and we cease to exist. A monkey..or for that matter any non-human primate could never become a speaking, Procreating human being. YOU can take a chimpanzee or gorilla and teach them certain communication abilities but no matter how har you try... it will never speak, it will never procreate another human..and will
@scullkrusher All of humanity believes in an intelligent design, for we ourselfs bare withness of design as a created being, and we also have the abiltiy in everday life in creating things of matter, by our words, hands, so those who oppose intelligent design oppose life,existence, and self
@agapenow We know man-made objects are man-made because we know human beings exist and human beings are capable of making such objects. The same cannot be said about life because we don't know anyone who's capable of creating life.
Good point, but we should still explore both theories. Or at least test the hypothesis of design continually against chance/necessity theory until one truly finds a solid event it can explain. Natural theory can't explain without invoking mental aspects. That's just reality. Right now, it really does seem that intelligence is involved. We can see brute nature at the quantum level, it's chaos. But when mental aspects are introduced, information begins its causal influence on matter.
@circusOFprecision I don't know how you can test the ID hypothesis. No matter how improbable it might be that a simple life form came into existence naturally, it does not mean it was necessarily created by an intelligent being. The notion that life could only exist by chance or created by god(s) is a false dichotomy. For example, there might be physical laws that favor the formation of life that have yet been discovered.
You are right, there may be physical processes that we don't know of which are ultimately responsible for life. But the fact remains that living things contain information processing systems. It's not a false dichotomy as much as it is a limitation on our understanding.
@circusOFprecision We know that "information" contained in the DNA can accumulate through the process of evolution. But even if we don't know that, you still can't say such "information" was put in place by an intelligent being. That's an argument from ignorance (We don't know how something came about, so God must have done it).
We don't know that information in DNA can accumulate through evolution. It is assumed. It doesn't matter how complex the organism, the DNA doesn't necessarily contain "more" information. You should know this. What we do know is that genomes are indeed dynamic.
Even if we don't know, you still can't say such "information" was put in place by evolution. That too, is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how something came about, so evolution must have done it.
DNA replication? You think I am unaware of this? Plants have all kinds of extra genetic information. Guess what, they are still plants. In animal populations, show me an example of DNA replication that gets fixed in the population and leads to evolution. After the right mutations accumulate in the duplicated genes, they just magically get switched on and start functioning? It's absurd.
Increase? Your definition of information is wrong. It has to be functional code. And it doesn't matter if it "increases" anyways. The amount of information is not the only factor in what makes an organism. There are many creatures with "more" genetic information than humans. Yet, according to evolutionary theory, the increase in information is equal to an increase in complexity, thus an example of evolution.
Stop pretending that you are intelligent. I learned the nonsense you are repeating ages ago. You think it explains things. Do you have issues with your critical thinking skills?
dude below treats atheism like a religion,in fact he is more religious than many people who believe in god ,his channel and his favourites all show him treating a negative position as if it is his religion,how absurd is that,lol ,he is the mirror image of that he condemns, retarded atheist with lack of self awarness below.
Be Statements can't Invaled? Are you sure about that? I could make that "sentence" much worse. Regardless, the argument is that DNA is a language, if you study it you will find that IT IS, denying that is/would be ignorant. Language DOES NOT come about by chance, ONLY by will, and ONLY life has will. Therefore....
DrServitus, Hawkins states that if the expansion of the universe were off "by even one part in a hundred thousand million million" It would either collapse in on itself or expand too quick for planets etc to form. Creation and intellegence makes much more sense to me with regards to the expansion of the Universe as the mathemats behind it is so precise, so perfect, one cannot even begin to fathom the intellect that controls it. Rate of expansion is only one factor alone however, I could go on...
This "scientific" case for design is so full of holes, i have to believe its authors are trying to intentionally mislead people. (1) Mutations are a naturalistic mechanism that produces information. (2) You can't compare living and non living things and say this proves a designer. Living things can change and adapt to their enviroment/get more complex over time (or get less complex over time, depending on what is best for survival in an everchanging enviroment). I could go on and on.
Exactly. If I'm walking on the beach and I see a rock and a watch laying there, I may not know where they came from, but anyone could see the difference between them, even if they can't prove where they came from. The watch is obviously an intelligently designed object, and the rock is obviously an undesigned product of the Earth.
I'm sorry. I didn't really anticipate this discussion being full of such condescension. With both sides unyielding and uncompromising, how can either side even hope to teach (or, more importantly, learn from) the other?
Me, I grew up being taught ID. I questioned it and went to the other side, Darwinism. Then I decided it best to learn all about ID so I could prove people wrong. Now I can know I believe in ID.
But don't listen to me or one video or another. Keep on trying to research. Goodbye.
There's nothing to learn from ID, appart from how stupid can people be when religious indoctrinated, but there's plenty of evidence around the world for that anyway, so that leaves nothing.
The mere fact you're using "Darwinism" to refer to evolutionary biology means you are either lying or never understood a word about science in general or biology in particular.
ID is a religious belief and as such completely oposed to science. That's why it has always recieved mockery from the scientific community. But of course, it took a legal resolution to declare it as such, because we all know how reluctant are religious fundamentalists to respect the separation beetween church and state, and other people's beliefs or their lack of.
However, I'm not the one who's going to prove you wrong. If you "cdesign proponentists" want to prove anything, let's do something no IDiot has ever taken the time to do in order to prove their nonsenseness: a REAL experiment. Next time you an IDiot catches an infection, let's give him a different antibiotic every day. If he beats the infection, I'll shut up. If the bacteriae evolve to be antibiotic multirresistant he'll die and I'll laugh quite hard.
You want me to summarize 400 years of scientific research and philosophy in a 500 character long youtube post?
There are plenty of books and scientific papers on any particular subject you're interested in.
However I'll tell you the question "where did everything come from" is, by itself, a loaded question. You're assuming things have to "come from anything" instead of just being. You're also assuming that the way human beings experience time somehow matters in the big picture.
No, but you offer nothing to your very broad blanket statements that are contradictory and incorrect. Starting with the "scientific community mocking ID, when some of the people in this video are of the scientific community. Also please tell me something that we know of that doesnt come from something else and is "just being". You post a lot but dont say anything is what I'm getting at.
Nol IDiot scientist (less than 1%, polls say) is a widely recognised expert in his field. None of them have ever published any paper of value (use citeseer to see how many citations they have), much less are award winners.
Furthermore, almost all of them are Americans, where religion plays a far more important role in education and politics than in any other western country, and none of them are actual biologists. It's like if I denied the standard model, being myself a geologist.
The universe just is, isn't it? Or do you have evidence otherwise? Space-time IS. It can't "come" from anything, since any event is, by definition, contained in it.
lol, so because you can't answer it just yet, it "just is". Nice. There are plenty of theories from the same scientists that you knob that it always wasnt "just is".
So, is this how a 2 yr old answers a question? Calling names? lol you must be really proud of yourself. And since America in the last 50 years holds more Nobel Prizes in Science and Innovations than all countries combined, your geographic insecurities dont hold any merit. Also about 2 hundred years ago, most "experts" said the Earth was flat. Einstein less than a hundred years ago said the Universe was static. Must be nice being able to use science as your safety blanket for everything. Right?
OMG just another retard. Worthless debate. A tip for when you grow up mentally: read other people's oppinions CAREFULLY before you barf the first idiocy that crosses your mind.
I didn't call names, I just stated a well known fact. I don't give a f*ck who discovered what. Maybe YOU have some national insecurities.
People believed the Earth was flat 200 years ago? LOL. Have you EVER read a book?
It's not a debate. I just mad you look stupid and you went back and started on ad homs again when you couldnt answer shit and I made your examples look stupid and now "dur dur dur I dont care who discovered what". It was more like 400+ years but I was using it as reference to how fast science changes as well as theory. You stick with calling people retards though. You sound like youre about 5 so I really shouldnt expect anything more from you.
and you didnt call anyone names? LOL do you actually read what you post or do you just randomly type shit. You accused over and over that people who dont agree with you are "stupid" and "IDiots" to name just a few. You're really "special" let me tell you. hahaha
Um the word neither refers to 2 subjects in a sentence as in "neither a nor b". When using more than two subjects, in this case 4, you need to use the word "none". And you wouldn't believe a biologist, physicist, anthropologist or molecular biologist if they hit you with the facts over your head I think.
It turns out I am a molecular biologist and I've also studied some physics. Therefore I also know some biology, and geology and geochemistry (since I'm a chemist) and I like reading a lot about history, anthropology, psychology and related stuff.
The facts are irrefutable. The same kind of irrefutability you'd expect from gravitation theory. If you don't like it, it's your problem. If you just wanna shut your ears and sing when evidence is presented, it's OK for me, but don't expect to be taken seriously by the rest of the civilized and sensible people.
Dear Good people , I made the mistake of making what I thought was a innocent comment to one of the post in this forum .GEEEEZZZ what was I thinking . I'd like to set the record straight once and for and for all . I , along with all the others that I've read do not know enough about this subject to even post a comment on here . These subjects are so deep and profound that the people that have studied them for their whole life can't make a all inclusive case one way or the other . No more E-mail
All I know is that it takes me a lot more faith for me to believing in a theoretical science (eg. Darwinism) that goes against established science (eg. Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, etc.). It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing, and that bang was the only thing to ever make order out of chaos. If I blow up enough bombs, will I eventually get cupcakes? Let alone alive cupcakes!
I'm sorry, but are you saying that just because something is easier for you to believe in, it must therefore be true??
Correct me if I am mistaken.
By the way, the argument, that "Darwinism" as you call it, breaks Laws of Thermodynamics is just one example of a false argument used by ID by simply assuming, that earth or the living beings on it are a closed system, which could not be further away from the truth.
Let me point out something else. You go up against what you call "theoretical science" and in the very next moment you give examples of "established science". You seem to pick out what you like, and litter what you don't. That's common in pseudoscience (e.g. ID).
Another thing why ID simply isn't scientific at all is the following. There are numerious arguments of ID (most of them a result of a simple misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, including the one in thes video) that have been prooven to be wrong again and again and again. But the arguments remain. That is, again, not scientific.
"It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing"
Science doesn't actually say that everything came from nothing. Plus that theory about the origins of life is called abiogenesis. Evolution is about the diversity of life. So even if god did create everything, the theory of evolution will still stand. The common misunderstanding that creationists have is claiming that evolution and abiogenesis is the same.
[It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing,]
First of all, yes it IS easier to believe that. That's precisely why so many people do. Its also easier to spend more than you make.
Secondly, you actually don't realize it, but you believe BOTH in a creator AND that everything came from nothing. If you don't believe that the universe was always here, then you are left with one other possibility, there was once nothing and then *POOF* everything.
I watch all this stuff , read all the comments . I can say that both sides have outstanding arguments . I just have one question . Since we have been able to reproduce everything that we have observed so far , you name it we can reproduce it . Why can't we reproduce life from the basic elements that all life began from ? Just wondering
If you are arguing evodelusion, against religion, you are nuts. It is a logical fallacy to argue. The only thing that counts is real evidence, not two delusional "camps" arguing with each other. Do you really think that arguing creation, is some for of validity for a delusional belief in mystical great apes that we came from?? HEMG
The theory of evolution fits all the observations we have best. nobody claims, that everything yet can be explained. it's a gradual process to explain things. that's called science. what's wrong with that? you want an absolute measure of evidence, but if all the evidence we have fits (and its tons of evidence), what do you want more??
It's true. The concept of ID was first established by agnostic (that is -- people who think God could exist but want evidence before believing) scientists who thought that Darwinism was old, outdated, and flawed, and were just searching for a more modern system with more answers. The reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims endorse it is because religion can find no fault in it. But if it were religious, it would be trying to establish dogma and name the Creator -- which is not scientific at all.
ID as it is known today was in fact first introduced in the book "of pandas and people". It was widely critizicized for beeing "creationism dressed up like science". Indeed you find many books on creationism with the very same arguments, just that in "of pandas and people" the word creation is replaced by Intelligent Design. So much for the dishonesty of the position.
I will say it again, pumpeduese137: ID would be religious if it was seeking to name the Intelligent Designer, and tried to establish dogma. What is now Scientology would have once been science fiction, until it did those things. In the same way, ID is science until it crosses over into a religious realm in this way. Supposing there is one or more deities, wouldn't it actually be completely relevant to seek to establish that, since all we know as science would have come from Him/Her/Them?
No matter if ID is religious or not, it simply isn't scientific. If you honestly compare scientific claims and the claims ID makes, then you would see it (given that you know what science is all about).
In order to be scientific, you should be able to explain things by natural means. But ID doesn't explain anything. It simply states there is something science can't explain (yet!!), and even there, it is wrong most of the times.
"ID would be religious if it was seeking to name the Intelligent Designer, and tried to establish dogma."
No, ID is religious because it talks about some supernatural intelligent designer aka god and fails to give scientific explanations about claims. It simply makes assertions such as "The great flood created the Grand Canyon." However, the make up of the grand canyon and the properties of water completely debunk that claim. There is nothing scientific or provable that ID has ever claimed.
Astrology was never science. It is nothing but some old superstition and a good way to suck money out of gullible people.
"Perhaps you were indiscriminately listening to anything that had the term "ID" in the sentence?"
But that's the thing, all ID has is a bunch of assertions with no proof, assumptions before evidence, strawman arguments, and misunderstanding or science. It is as "scientific" as astrology.
In order to have a mathematical proof of god, he will have to completely understand god. And since god is beyond our comprehension, it will make it absolutely impossible to have a mathematical "proof" of its existence.
Wow. All things that are complex must have an intelligent creator. Hrm, how complex is the concept of an all-powerful deity that sits around making up everything in the whole of existence as well as enforcing moral laws? Wonder if that's the "product of a mind" too?
Oh, and we do use the equivalent of random number generators to create programs in some instances.
So many people are even scared of the idea of God being real. If evolution became obsolete, I wouldn't doubt there would be scientists, whose lives and careers had revolved around that for decades, whose lives would be shattered, and they wouldn't want to live.
And even after claiming to watch such videos, some some still have the gall to try to say ID is religious. But it would be religious if it sought to name the Creator or establish dogma, something religion does and sciencists cannot.
"some some still have the gall to try to say ID is religious"
Because ID IS religious in EVERY way. Once creationism was thrown out of school by the supreme court, the religious moron made up a new "theory" and dressed up as ID posing it to be scientific. ID is just another want of addressing creationism aka religion. It talking about an intelligent designer aka god aka religion.
The judge was indoctrinated into the religouis belief in evolution. It is pop culture and not even close to a science. All I have seen from evolutionism is logical fallacies and beliefs in fair tale mystical mytholotgical creatures that never existed. So, it is a mythological religion and needs to be take out of classes.
Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a fact and has evidence to back it up with. Just because it doesn't go along with YOUR religious belief, it doesn't make it not a fact. The rest of you comment is idiocy ad nauseum. Good bye.
Have you actually studied evolution theory and all this "evidence". Not one single peice of evidence has been shown to be absolutely true, and in most cases the lack of testing by other factors destroys the credibility of the scientists. Belief destroys credibility and in thier evaluations they only conclude evoltution when there are at least three or more other totally plausible answers. That is called intellectual dishonesty.
If belief is primary to the conclusion and it is obvious by any ovbjective observer of these scientists, then it is not science but a religion based on mythological principles.
Ancients did the same thing and it has not left the planet.
Having tons of scientist beleive in evolution is not evidence, it is acutally contrary to logic. In histry science has always show to be wrong in less than 200 years, so it is a logical fallacy to believe believers.
Evolution has been observed and tested on many occasions in bacteria and viruses. It is what the modern medicine relies on. The theory of evolution is being constantly refined. If you aren't a scientist, all of your claims about evolution hold no merit in reality. Especially if you haven't written any peer reviewed published papers. And i doubt you did. You should not be talking about a subject you know nothing about. Will not respond to you anymore.
You do not understand the theory of evolution. How bacteria responds and adapts is not evolution. Bacteria has never changed species. By definition evolution requires that a species change into some other creature. Bacteria adapts becuse without it all life on earth would perish. We cannot live without it so it is programmed to survive so we can live and all other creatures can live. Virus never changes either into a new creature and is always a virus. You don't know much about your religion.
And what bacteria and any microorganism or any other creature for that matter does has no equality to any other creature. If a fly craps on my newspaper, does not prove that humans crap on the morning newspaper. The logic of evodelusionism is just like that. What bacteria does has no relation to any other creature.
"By definition evolution requires that a species change into some other creature."
WRONG. Evolution is the change of inherited traits from one definition to another. It's been observed over and over in simple celled organisms. Are we supposed to take your word for it, you uneducated wannabe scientist with delusions of intellectual superiority, over what the most genius minds say? Get the fuck over yourself.
YulieAna, are you a first year student. One of the things that these people do is violate young people by not telling them all the premises of this religion, until you are fully indoctrinated. When I had real science teachers the told me to find out all the premises of any system of thought before you take a single class, so that you can determine where they are taking you and make up your own tests of what would prove this. For me it needed at least a thousand human fossils.
Oh just stop. I'm a senior. And neither am i majoring in science. When all else fails lets throw a backwards psychoanalysis and pretend we know what we are talking about, shall we?
"For me it needed at least a thousand human fossils."
You need a lot more than just a thousand human fossils. You need to go back to school and learn biology 101.
You need a thosand fossils as a bare minimum that shows an obvious trail of human evolution. The have none of that.
If you look at the totality of all the fossils all you have are creatures that remained the same all the time, until going extinct.
The rest are still here nearly identical to the original. Go look! And don't be so stupid as to believe people who have agendas with nothing to back it up. There is zero "objective and obvious" evidence to show any evolution.
"There is zero "objective and obvious" evidence to show any evolution."
You already demonstrated that you have no idea what evolution is and how it works. So whatever else you spew is totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
You have no idea the premises in your own belief system. I am not against you learning, but for you to learn without losing objective reason over to beliefs.
"You have no idea the premises in your own belief system."
I already gave you the basic definition of evolution. You chose to ignore it. You don't like "human mental baggage"? You also shouldn't like human stupidity and ignorance. But apparently you missed that boat.
I feel sorry for people who are closed minded and actually think they know something.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein
You should definitely feel sorry for yourself since the first quote absolutely applies to you, however, education is something you never acquired in the first place. So, feeling sorry for others while you yourself are infinitely stupid and uneducated is utterly pathetic and laughable.
YulieAna; You don't even know the premises of your own "believers" in this ridiculous crap science. And you actually are writing to me about this??? HEMG.
You repeat yourself like a retarded parrot. You were given the definition, you ignored it. Yet in your infinite stupidity and ignorance you're projecting your bullshit on me. You just proved that you are the epitome of HEMG. Enjoy.
Let me get this straight??? HMM? you reapeat crap that you have never personally checked out, as if it was the absolute truth, and you call me a parrot.
I did study evolutionary biology in college, so you can already take your lame psychoanalysis and shove it up your ass. And I am pretty sure that you've never personally checked anything yourself. You're just another lazy charlatan who doesn't see past his nose. And when you're cornered, you become increasingly retarded by starting throwing personal attacks. HEMG indeed.
Let me get this straight. I have researched this for 40 years. I have an IQ higher than 99% of the people on this earth. And you took some classes by believers and that is what you base your lazy crap on. You are intellectually dishonest if you don't do the work necessary to check out ever friggin premise thes assholes put in front of you.
I am completely independent. I have no peers and I only approach this from objective reason and logic. I don't know why you are so stupid, but that is your problem not mine. I can't imagine anyone taking this crap an making a profession out of it. How can you justify belief and acting on things that have never been shown to be even plausible?
You are living proof of human devolution into a bunch of stupid beleivers in mytholgy. I pity you and anybody who gets sucked into this crap, just becasue the are gullible and want an friggin education. By the way the UK and the US have fallen into the lower levels of scolastic acheivement. Even the lazy French are smarter.
Your ignorance make me ill to think that you are going to fuck with other people's lives with this crap you believe in. How is that. What is your IQ. maybe 80.
I don't have any peers, so I am totally independent of any club of lower IQ people. I do not want to contribute like others have to the science only to find some new weapon was created from my research. I only am concerend about extracting people, helping them to back off from delusions; all delusions. I am not prejudice. I know that all delusions are bad for individual people. Beliefs create war, hate, and stupid rude arrogant evodelusionists that have no manners.
I don't have any grace for liars. It is difficult for me to even stand the level of ignorance in this crap science. It is all relative. If you are nice to people full of hate, it doesn't work. When people approach me with manners and attempt to understand, then I give them all the help I can.
Do not confuse hate with disrespect. People do not respect you because you are a self proclaimed "genius" who knows jack shit about science but claims that it is bullshit. If you behave like an ignorant idiot, people will treat you as such. Nobody is obligated to respect you, especially since you haven't earned that respect.
Wow! A self-proclaimed IQ of "more than like 99% of teh ppl on dis earht, d00d", but no wisdom to match, and, to boot, such hatred. So, you don't believe this stuff. You've made that abundantly clear. Do you go to malls at Christmas time and and tell the children that the Santa they're talking to is a fraud and that they're stupid and ignorant for believing it, and hound the parents for their "brainwashing"? If not, why are you so threatened by one and not the other? Do either affect you at all?
Unlike you I only deal in reality. Any belief in things that have no proof, is a logical fallacy. Anyone who has a brain and has not been indoctrinated into beleif, realizes the tremedous flaws in evolution.
It would be good for you to find your objective awareness that you lost, and back off on all beliefs, because all beliefs are bad for intelligence. I actually lowers IQ to fill your brain with confliction. My advice is to listen to the doubts and go with that for a while.
Please... before flinging around any more opinions, do some serious research of ID. If you don't agree with it, "know thy enemy", as the old saying goes. The more familiar you are with it, its roots, and its arguments, the better your arguments will be. The best debaters can argue both sides of an argument very efficiently.
Might interest you to know I didn't believe in ID until I decided to do unbiased research for myself instead of listening to others. Same with believing in any religions.
Very well put. I do not have a religion but it is obvous that all was designed by something. You have to be a moron not to see that. Evodelusonists only see evolution, they never test a single premise by anything that would destroy their belief.. That is intellectual fraud.
Hey that looks like a motor my hypothesis is that it was created, so my theory is that god made it. How is that science? It is easy to see that a motor is man made because we know that man exists and man has in the past made motors. We don't know that god exists and we don't know how these things were created. Intelligent design is not real science, stop pretending.
Yeah, but scientists don't try to prove a "god" was building motors in his work shop. They avoid that line of thought, for you would be making assumptions.
A horrible misrepresentation of the facts, the evidence and the concensus shared in the scientific community. This is no doubt a product of the Discovery Institute which any self respecting person of intellect can dismiss. They offer no proof of anything, merely conjecture and lies...check out extantdodo's channel to see a critical analysis of several pieces of their propoganda. This video talks lots and says little...peace all.
I stand corrected...The "near universal concensus" is perhaps a more accurate way of saying it. The evidence so far gathered certainly points in the direction of evolution as fact rather than fiction. To take the bible as literally accurate is simply ridiculous, it's not meant to be taken as such, even the pope agrees that evolution is real. I don't see why one cannot believe in both the evolutionary process and the philosophy of the bible, they are not mutually exclusive. Think about it...
Why do creationists always have the most ridiculous haircuts? Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Wiliam Dembski, Jason Lisle, Steve Meyer and Jay Richards. ALL of these guys wear their hair like they are sexually repressed choirboys, which they are.
Think about it: If you want to recognize a creationist look at his hairdo (or beard in the case of Ken Ham.)
Intelligent design states that the components of some biologic structures are, when taken alone, useless and thus the whole structure could not have arisen through incremental evolution. An example was the bacterial flagelum. Turns out the parts do have use when not incorporated into the whole. This DISPROVES the intelligent design theory. It does not prove evolution, but it does not disprove evolution. It is consistent with evolution and not ID, so evolution stands and ID does not.
DNA is actually quite inefficient, so nice try there. DNA can mutate, break, and be miscopied. DNA has areas that are useless junk. Not so efficient if you ask me. Indeed, the structure of DNA lends itself to a very probable method of evolution without design. I appreciate how these people ignore the facts that simply don't fit their theory. A true explanation must encompass all facts. Evolution is the only explanation to encompass all known facts about life.
SpazzyMcGee1336. Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Protocetus, Kutchicetus. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you seen these animals? I'm sure you have. Do they look anything like whales at all? Only Protocetus looks anything like a whale, and Protocetus could be a distinct species of whale, not an ancestor at all. It is just simply declared an ancestor. Anyone who questions it, is obviously stupid. Right? Where's the proof? How do they know? Did it have a tag on it? That's science? WTF?
I have not seen a transitional form, I've seen things that are called transitional forms. Organisms obviously change, but they change within their DNA's limits. There are cats of all shapes and sizes, but they always make more cats. Like we talked before, even Gould had to acknowledge the stasis in the fossil record, so he devised punctuated equilibrium. If there are transitional forms, they should be more numerous than the existing species, according to Darwin himself.
There are no limits to how much DNA can change. You could program it to do anything. You could program it to grow a new brain, if you knew how. But in reality, like begets like.
1. How do you know you're looking at a transitional form? How do you know you're not?
2.That's the point. If evolution is occuring, the transitional forms should be everywhere. Darwin himself said it. The very lack of transitional forms forced the punctuated equilibrium theory.
You could prove to me that evolution is impossible if you found a base code of DNA that every subsequent generation's strand of DNA copies off of. If DNA just keeps copying off of copies there is no limit to how much it will change besides what natural selection will allow. If there was a base code of DNA that never changed thus keeping every species relatively the same then you would be validated. There is no base code.
1.Everything is technically a transitional form, you just refuse to acknowledge any sort of similarities. If evolution was wrong we would find all kinds of species in no way similar to any other, but that isn't the case.
2.Why do you guys always quote Darwin? It's like trying to disprove the current cosmological model by quoting Newton. There are plenty of modern explanations, why look back at a 150 year old book?
And your ignoring the fact fossilization is rare. Bones r usually gnawed away.
"The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!"
for a: why is it wrong? That's what you're implying. The big bang all of a sudden occurred out of nothing...
Biogenesis is a proven law of biology.
According to your answer for C:
So you're telling me that if I take an airplane up to 5,000 feet and inside that plane I have neatly stacked 10,000 3 by 5 inch postcards. And when I pass over the whitehouse, I push out those cards, they will randomly sort and select themselves to spell out "The white house" right on the front lawn?
(a) is wrong because I believe you are talking about the Big Bang theory, not evolution. LOL The fact that you could mix biology with cosmology discredits you as being a person knowledgeable on the matter. Plus the Big Bang theory makes zero speculations on where the initial energy came from.
watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
Watch that video. RNA has been seen to form in naturally occurring environments and is self replicating. Abiogenesis is a staple in modern biology.
"In contrast to the mathematical laws of probability, random and impersonal chance produces complexity and organization."
So your logic is "It might not have happened that way so it couldn't have happened that way so a super powerful sentient being that exists outside of the perceivable universe did it"?
And I already showed you with that video that RNA forms naturally and is self-replicating.
I did some double checking and the video is accurate.
You didn't respond to "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos". With enough time evolution is possible? Well, that like saying that we'll now take the airplane up to 25,000 feet. Now when we
drop those three-by-five cards they will have a greater time span in which
to randomly sort and select themselves to spell out "the white house" on the ground!
Every time the
evolutionist adds a few more million years to his hypothesis, he is simply
I usually just assume people understand what biological evolution is online, but the more you type the less I think you know about it.
If I were to take your analogy as literal then yes, sooner or later it would spell out a short phrase. It may take a day, it may take a million years, but if you were constantly flying over dropping new loads of cards it would indeed fall into patterns. It all depends on the frequency of the drops and the time span you have.
Look up the evolution of whales, and what about archeopteryx? There are also several species of reptile/mammals, and those are just a few of the extreme instances of evolution changing kingdom besides the whales.
I'm a physics undergraduate and I'm telling you right now that all this hoopla about "chaos" is meaningless. I JUST TOLD YOU that complex compounds form ALL THE TIME.
If you want a VERY simple example of chaos becoming organized look at salt crystals.
SpazzyMcGee1336. I know this was meant for magicfreak123. I looked up the evolution of whales. It's pretty silly. As for Archaeopteryx. Larry Martin, University of Kansas paleontologist wrote: "Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds" He claimed it was: "the earliest known member of a distinct species."
And, you can't compare the order of a salt crystal or a snow flake, to the organization and information of the simplest living organism.
So archeopteryx is just a dinosaur with feathers dated to be right before bird fossils began appearing? To my knowledge it satisfies all the requirements for being both a dinosaur and a bird.
"It's pretty silly", amazing well put argument yet again. /:I
I am only relaying what a University level paleontologist stated about archaeopteryx.
The whale evolution evidence IS silly. If those are whale ancestors, anything could be a whale ancestor. Just like you said, "all fossils are transitional." Why not the otter, or a ferret? We're just supposed to NOT argue with the experts. No matter how much evidence they don't have.
I acknowledge that a person is deemed a creationist nut if they don't accept that all fossils are transitional. Like I said before, the stasis in the fossil record gave evolutionists no choice but to say that "all fossils are transitional." It's the fossil record that shows how species suddenly appear, fully formed, and then disappear, unchanged.
Well there is the problem I was talking about before. If a species is TOO similar you will say its the same species. If it is TOO different it can't be related. And I don't think you looked up whale evolution because there were plenty of species that were only slightly different from modern day whales, but they were more similar to the older species you are saying are too different to be related.
I looked up the examples you suggested: Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Protocetus, and Kutchicetus. How can anyone declare, objectively, that these are transitional forms. Any true scientist would never do that. That's the problem with evolution, it's subjective.
never become human. It is a proven fact that the DNA is such that if its changed or mutated..it would either be weaker then its previous form or try to re-program itself to what it was originally meant to be. Just to show you that creation has more going for it. In Genesis time, Science was not advanced.So for someone to have know how fossils came about and date them and explained creation in Genesis the same way that Science has proven it occured in that same order.explain that
ronboss7 1 day ago
Evolution.. a theory created by a man. And creation..not a theory but a belief... that has more going for it then say evolution. DNA in humans has always been human. YOU change it and we cease to exist. A monkey..or for that matter any non-human primate could never become a speaking, Procreating human being. YOU can take a chimpanzee or gorilla and teach them certain communication abilities but no matter how har you try... it will never speak, it will never procreate another human..and will
ronboss7 1 day ago
LOL!!!! I love it and hope everybody is reading this.
gupsphoo 5 months ago
What a flaming crock.
Zenham 1 year ago
why are the atheists acting like assholes on this video?
TrannyAcid 1 year ago
I too believe in an intelligent designer. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! The one true God!!!
scullkrusher 2 years ago 2
@scullkrusher All of humanity believes in an intelligent design, for we ourselfs bare withness of design as a created being, and we also have the abiltiy in everday life in creating things of matter, by our words, hands, so those who oppose intelligent design oppose life,existence, and self
agapenow 1 year ago
@agapenow Exactly. We were all created by the master's noodly appendages.
scullkrusher 1 year ago
@agapenow well said
wtalkie 1 year ago
@agapenow We know man-made objects are man-made because we know human beings exist and human beings are capable of making such objects. The same cannot be said about life because we don't know anyone who's capable of creating life.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
Good point, but we should still explore both theories. Or at least test the hypothesis of design continually against chance/necessity theory until one truly finds a solid event it can explain. Natural theory can't explain without invoking mental aspects. That's just reality. Right now, it really does seem that intelligence is involved. We can see brute nature at the quantum level, it's chaos. But when mental aspects are introduced, information begins its causal influence on matter.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I don't know how you can test the ID hypothesis. No matter how improbable it might be that a simple life form came into existence naturally, it does not mean it was necessarily created by an intelligent being. The notion that life could only exist by chance or created by god(s) is a false dichotomy. For example, there might be physical laws that favor the formation of life that have yet been discovered.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
You are right, there may be physical processes that we don't know of which are ultimately responsible for life. But the fact remains that living things contain information processing systems. It's not a false dichotomy as much as it is a limitation on our understanding.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision We know that "information" contained in the DNA can accumulate through the process of evolution. But even if we don't know that, you still can't say such "information" was put in place by an intelligent being. That's an argument from ignorance (We don't know how something came about, so God must have done it).
gupsphoo 6 months ago
@gupsphoo
We don't know that information in DNA can accumulate through evolution. It is assumed. It doesn't matter how complex the organism, the DNA doesn't necessarily contain "more" information. You should know this. What we do know is that genomes are indeed dynamic.
Even if we don't know, you still can't say such "information" was put in place by evolution. That too, is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how something came about, so evolution must have done it.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Yes we do know. Look up "DNA Replication" in Wikipedia. Make sure you read the entire article.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
@gupsphoo
DNA replication? You think I am unaware of this? Plants have all kinds of extra genetic information. Guess what, they are still plants. In animal populations, show me an example of DNA replication that gets fixed in the population and leads to evolution. After the right mutations accumulate in the duplicated genes, they just magically get switched on and start functioning? It's absurd.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision So you concede that DNA information can increase. Good for you!
gupsphoo 6 months ago
@gupsphoo
Increase? Your definition of information is wrong. It has to be functional code. And it doesn't matter if it "increases" anyways. The amount of information is not the only factor in what makes an organism. There are many creatures with "more" genetic information than humans. Yet, according to evolutionary theory, the increase in information is equal to an increase in complexity, thus an example of evolution.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
Stop pretending that you are intelligent. I learned the nonsense you are repeating ages ago. You think it explains things. Do you have issues with your critical thinking skills?
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
Yes. Yes! YES! I see it now!!
I'm going to stone the heck out of everyone who works on the sabbath, because God is real!!!!
What? Not that part? Isn't that part intelligently designed like everything else by the infallible God?
*Listens as Christianity crumbles* :-)
thepoet82 2 years ago
Second that
erchdvd 2 years ago
dude below treats atheism like a religion,in fact he is more religious than many people who believe in god ,his channel and his favourites all show him treating a negative position as if it is his religion,how absurd is that,lol ,he is the mirror image of that he condemns, retarded atheist with lack of self awarness below.
l
l
v
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Groan! Facepalm!
More evidence that religious belief shuts down the mind and makes intelligent people say and do stupid things.
This video is SO full of holes. It is about as strong as a decaying spider's web.
These people either really don't understand what they are talking about or they do understand and they are blatantly lying.
This video is hideous and revolting.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Comment removed
EDD209Tetsu 2 years ago
Please explain because your statement is invalid.
Queeranus 2 years ago
Comment removed
EDD209Tetsu 2 years ago
Comment removed
EDD209Tetsu 2 years ago
Be Statements can't Invaled? Are you sure about that? I could make that "sentence" much worse. Regardless, the argument is that DNA is a language, if you study it you will find that IT IS, denying that is/would be ignorant. Language DOES NOT come about by chance, ONLY by will, and ONLY life has will. Therefore....
Queeranus 2 years ago
DrServitus, Hawkins states that if the expansion of the universe were off "by even one part in a hundred thousand million million" It would either collapse in on itself or expand too quick for planets etc to form. Creation and intellegence makes much more sense to me with regards to the expansion of the Universe as the mathemats behind it is so precise, so perfect, one cannot even begin to fathom the intellect that controls it. Rate of expansion is only one factor alone however, I could go on...
SocialScruples 3 years ago
Yes, you could go on about numerous other things that have nothing to do with evolution eg cosmology.
DMFmonster 2 years ago
This "scientific" case for design is so full of holes, i have to believe its authors are trying to intentionally mislead people. (1) Mutations are a naturalistic mechanism that produces information. (2) You can't compare living and non living things and say this proves a designer. Living things can change and adapt to their enviroment/get more complex over time (or get less complex over time, depending on what is best for survival in an everchanging enviroment). I could go on and on.
drServitus 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Guys that wrote bible. High on opium tea and pipe smoke
No wonder its the worst fairy tale ever farted from a pen
mcleayf1 3 years ago
nonsuchfabio.
Exactly. If I'm walking on the beach and I see a rock and a watch laying there, I may not know where they came from, but anyone could see the difference between them, even if they can't prove where they came from. The watch is obviously an intelligently designed object, and the rock is obviously an undesigned product of the Earth.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
Intelligent design is not science, but it is a logical conclusion one can come to, from science.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
I'm sorry. I didn't really anticipate this discussion being full of such condescension. With both sides unyielding and uncompromising, how can either side even hope to teach (or, more importantly, learn from) the other?
Me, I grew up being taught ID. I questioned it and went to the other side, Darwinism. Then I decided it best to learn all about ID so I could prove people wrong. Now I can know I believe in ID.
But don't listen to me or one video or another. Keep on trying to research. Goodbye.
Virikel 3 years ago
There's nothing to learn from ID, appart from how stupid can people be when religious indoctrinated, but there's plenty of evidence around the world for that anyway, so that leaves nothing.
The mere fact you're using "Darwinism" to refer to evolutionary biology means you are either lying or never understood a word about science in general or biology in particular.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
ID is a religious belief and as such completely oposed to science. That's why it has always recieved mockery from the scientific community. But of course, it took a legal resolution to declare it as such, because we all know how reluctant are religious fundamentalists to respect the separation beetween church and state, and other people's beliefs or their lack of.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
However, I'm not the one who's going to prove you wrong. If you "cdesign proponentists" want to prove anything, let's do something no IDiot has ever taken the time to do in order to prove their nonsenseness: a REAL experiment. Next time you an IDiot catches an infection, let's give him a different antibiotic every day. If he beats the infection, I'll shut up. If the bacteriae evolve to be antibiotic multirresistant he'll die and I'll laugh quite hard.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
Ok, where did it everything come from and why does it do the things it does? I wont go into detail, but I'd like your explanation.
iDeist 3 years ago
You want me to summarize 400 years of scientific research and philosophy in a 500 character long youtube post?
There are plenty of books and scientific papers on any particular subject you're interested in.
However I'll tell you the question "where did everything come from" is, by itself, a loaded question. You're assuming things have to "come from anything" instead of just being. You're also assuming that the way human beings experience time somehow matters in the big picture.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
No, but you offer nothing to your very broad blanket statements that are contradictory and incorrect. Starting with the "scientific community mocking ID, when some of the people in this video are of the scientific community. Also please tell me something that we know of that doesnt come from something else and is "just being". You post a lot but dont say anything is what I'm getting at.
iDeist 3 years ago
Nol IDiot scientist (less than 1%, polls say) is a widely recognised expert in his field. None of them have ever published any paper of value (use citeseer to see how many citations they have), much less are award winners.
Furthermore, almost all of them are Americans, where religion plays a far more important role in education and politics than in any other western country, and none of them are actual biologists. It's like if I denied the standard model, being myself a geologist.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
The universe just is, isn't it? Or do you have evidence otherwise? Space-time IS. It can't "come" from anything, since any event is, by definition, contained in it.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
lol, so because you can't answer it just yet, it "just is". Nice. There are plenty of theories from the same scientists that you knob that it always wasnt "just is".
iDeist 3 years ago
This is why God does not exist within space time jenny. Can you create anything from inside of it before it is even formed?
sphynxalive 3 years ago
So, is this how a 2 yr old answers a question? Calling names? lol you must be really proud of yourself. And since America in the last 50 years holds more Nobel Prizes in Science and Innovations than all countries combined, your geographic insecurities dont hold any merit. Also about 2 hundred years ago, most "experts" said the Earth was flat. Einstein less than a hundred years ago said the Universe was static. Must be nice being able to use science as your safety blanket for everything. Right?
iDeist 3 years ago
OMG just another retard. Worthless debate. A tip for when you grow up mentally: read other people's oppinions CAREFULLY before you barf the first idiocy that crosses your mind.
I didn't call names, I just stated a well known fact. I don't give a f*ck who discovered what. Maybe YOU have some national insecurities.
People believed the Earth was flat 200 years ago? LOL. Have you EVER read a book?
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
It's not a debate. I just mad you look stupid and you went back and started on ad homs again when you couldnt answer shit and I made your examples look stupid and now "dur dur dur I dont care who discovered what". It was more like 400+ years but I was using it as reference to how fast science changes as well as theory. You stick with calling people retards though. You sound like youre about 5 so I really shouldnt expect anything more from you.
iDeist 3 years ago
and you didnt call anyone names? LOL do you actually read what you post or do you just randomly type shit. You accused over and over that people who dont agree with you are "stupid" and "IDiots" to name just a few. You're really "special" let me tell you. hahaha
iDeist 3 years ago
Yeah, whatever. Congratulations, Einstein.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
anytime Jenny, you're feisty and fun. o_^
iDeist 3 years ago
Jenny your views and lack of learning is proof that man has not evolved.
sphynxalive 3 years ago
I guess I will take your statements seriously since you're obviously an authority in biology, physics, anthropology and molecular biochemistry.
Oh, wait a minute, you're neither!
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
Um the word neither refers to 2 subjects in a sentence as in "neither a nor b". When using more than two subjects, in this case 4, you need to use the word "none". And you wouldn't believe a biologist, physicist, anthropologist or molecular biologist if they hit you with the facts over your head I think.
sphynxalive 3 years ago
It turns out I am a molecular biologist and I've also studied some physics. Therefore I also know some biology, and geology and geochemistry (since I'm a chemist) and I like reading a lot about history, anthropology, psychology and related stuff.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
The facts are irrefutable. The same kind of irrefutability you'd expect from gravitation theory. If you don't like it, it's your problem. If you just wanna shut your ears and sing when evidence is presented, it's OK for me, but don't expect to be taken seriously by the rest of the civilized and sensible people.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
No ID proponent has won a Nobel Prize.
DMFmonster 2 years ago
LOL. Hey jenny relax and stop acting like an ape :)
sphynxalive 3 years ago
Dear Good people , I made the mistake of making what I thought was a innocent comment to one of the post in this forum .GEEEEZZZ what was I thinking . I'd like to set the record straight once and for and for all . I , along with all the others that I've read do not know enough about this subject to even post a comment on here . These subjects are so deep and profound that the people that have studied them for their whole life can't make a all inclusive case one way or the other . No more E-mail
dendog007 3 years ago
All I know is that it takes me a lot more faith for me to believing in a theoretical science (eg. Darwinism) that goes against established science (eg. Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, etc.). It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing, and that bang was the only thing to ever make order out of chaos. If I blow up enough bombs, will I eventually get cupcakes? Let alone alive cupcakes!
Virikel 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but are you saying that just because something is easier for you to believe in, it must therefore be true??
Correct me if I am mistaken.
By the way, the argument, that "Darwinism" as you call it, breaks Laws of Thermodynamics is just one example of a false argument used by ID by simply assuming, that earth or the living beings on it are a closed system, which could not be further away from the truth.
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
Let me point out something else. You go up against what you call "theoretical science" and in the very next moment you give examples of "established science". You seem to pick out what you like, and litter what you don't. That's common in pseudoscience (e.g. ID).
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
Another thing why ID simply isn't scientific at all is the following. There are numerious arguments of ID (most of them a result of a simple misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, including the one in thes video) that have been prooven to be wrong again and again and again. But the arguments remain. That is, again, not scientific.
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
"It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing"
Science doesn't actually say that everything came from nothing. Plus that theory about the origins of life is called abiogenesis. Evolution is about the diversity of life. So even if god did create everything, the theory of evolution will still stand. The common misunderstanding that creationists have is claiming that evolution and abiogenesis is the same.
YulieAna 3 years ago
[It's easier to believe that there was a Creator, than the idea that everything came from nothing,]
First of all, yes it IS easier to believe that. That's precisely why so many people do. Its also easier to spend more than you make.
Secondly, you actually don't realize it, but you believe BOTH in a creator AND that everything came from nothing. If you don't believe that the universe was always here, then you are left with one other possibility, there was once nothing and then *POOF* everything.
nonsuchfabio 3 years ago
"it (ID) does not rely on religous premisses" ... noooooooooo, of course not. come on!! why are those videos allways so deeply dishonest?
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
I watch all this stuff , read all the comments . I can say that both sides have outstanding arguments . I just have one question . Since we have been able to reproduce everything that we have observed so far , you name it we can reproduce it . Why can't we reproduce life from the basic elements that all life began from ? Just wondering
dendog007 3 years ago
yes, but the arguments are outstanding by very different means ... think about it
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
If you are arguing evodelusion, against religion, you are nuts. It is a logical fallacy to argue. The only thing that counts is real evidence, not two delusional "camps" arguing with each other. Do you really think that arguing creation, is some for of validity for a delusional belief in mystical great apes that we came from?? HEMG
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
you can't be serious!
The theory of evolution fits all the observations we have best. nobody claims, that everything yet can be explained. it's a gradual process to explain things. that's called science. what's wrong with that? you want an absolute measure of evidence, but if all the evidence we have fits (and its tons of evidence), what do you want more??
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
It's true. The concept of ID was first established by agnostic (that is -- people who think God could exist but want evidence before believing) scientists who thought that Darwinism was old, outdated, and flawed, and were just searching for a more modern system with more answers. The reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims endorse it is because religion can find no fault in it. But if it were religious, it would be trying to establish dogma and name the Creator -- which is not scientific at all.
Virikel 3 years ago
ID as it is known today was in fact first introduced in the book "of pandas and people". It was widely critizicized for beeing "creationism dressed up like science". Indeed you find many books on creationism with the very same arguments, just that in "of pandas and people" the word creation is replaced by Intelligent Design. So much for the dishonesty of the position.
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
I will say it again, pumpeduese137: ID would be religious if it was seeking to name the Intelligent Designer, and tried to establish dogma. What is now Scientology would have once been science fiction, until it did those things. In the same way, ID is science until it crosses over into a religious realm in this way. Supposing there is one or more deities, wouldn't it actually be completely relevant to seek to establish that, since all we know as science would have come from Him/Her/Them?
Virikel 3 years ago
No matter if ID is religious or not, it simply isn't scientific. If you honestly compare scientific claims and the claims ID makes, then you would see it (given that you know what science is all about).
In order to be scientific, you should be able to explain things by natural means. But ID doesn't explain anything. It simply states there is something science can't explain (yet!!), and even there, it is wrong most of the times.
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
"ID would be religious if it was seeking to name the Intelligent Designer, and tried to establish dogma."
No, ID is religious because it talks about some supernatural intelligent designer aka god and fails to give scientific explanations about claims. It simply makes assertions such as "The great flood created the Grand Canyon." However, the make up of the grand canyon and the properties of water completely debunk that claim. There is nothing scientific or provable that ID has ever claimed.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Comment removed
Virikel 3 years ago
Astrology was never science. It is nothing but some old superstition and a good way to suck money out of gullible people.
"Perhaps you were indiscriminately listening to anything that had the term "ID" in the sentence?"
But that's the thing, all ID has is a bunch of assertions with no proof, assumptions before evidence, strawman arguments, and misunderstanding or science. It is as "scientific" as astrology.
YulieAna 3 years ago
In order to have a mathematical proof of god, he will have to completely understand god. And since god is beyond our comprehension, it will make it absolutely impossible to have a mathematical "proof" of its existence.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Wow. All things that are complex must have an intelligent creator. Hrm, how complex is the concept of an all-powerful deity that sits around making up everything in the whole of existence as well as enforcing moral laws? Wonder if that's the "product of a mind" too?
Oh, and we do use the equivalent of random number generators to create programs in some instances.
skhisma 3 years ago
So many people are even scared of the idea of God being real. If evolution became obsolete, I wouldn't doubt there would be scientists, whose lives and careers had revolved around that for decades, whose lives would be shattered, and they wouldn't want to live.
And even after claiming to watch such videos, some some still have the gall to try to say ID is religious. But it would be religious if it sought to name the Creator or establish dogma, something religion does and sciencists cannot.
Virikel 3 years ago
"some some still have the gall to try to say ID is religious"
Because ID IS religious in EVERY way. Once creationism was thrown out of school by the supreme court, the religious moron made up a new "theory" and dressed up as ID posing it to be scientific. ID is just another want of addressing creationism aka religion. It talking about an intelligent designer aka god aka religion.
YulieAna 3 years ago
The judge was indoctrinated into the religouis belief in evolution. It is pop culture and not even close to a science. All I have seen from evolutionism is logical fallacies and beliefs in fair tale mystical mytholotgical creatures that never existed. So, it is a mythological religion and needs to be take out of classes.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a fact and has evidence to back it up with. Just because it doesn't go along with YOUR religious belief, it doesn't make it not a fact. The rest of you comment is idiocy ad nauseum. Good bye.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Have you actually studied evolution theory and all this "evidence". Not one single peice of evidence has been shown to be absolutely true, and in most cases the lack of testing by other factors destroys the credibility of the scientists. Belief destroys credibility and in thier evaluations they only conclude evoltution when there are at least three or more other totally plausible answers. That is called intellectual dishonesty.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
If belief is primary to the conclusion and it is obvious by any ovbjective observer of these scientists, then it is not science but a religion based on mythological principles.
Ancients did the same thing and it has not left the planet.
Having tons of scientist beleive in evolution is not evidence, it is acutally contrary to logic. In histry science has always show to be wrong in less than 200 years, so it is a logical fallacy to believe believers.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Evolution has been observed and tested on many occasions in bacteria and viruses. It is what the modern medicine relies on. The theory of evolution is being constantly refined. If you aren't a scientist, all of your claims about evolution hold no merit in reality. Especially if you haven't written any peer reviewed published papers. And i doubt you did. You should not be talking about a subject you know nothing about. Will not respond to you anymore.
YulieAna 3 years ago
You do not understand the theory of evolution. How bacteria responds and adapts is not evolution. Bacteria has never changed species. By definition evolution requires that a species change into some other creature. Bacteria adapts becuse without it all life on earth would perish. We cannot live without it so it is programmed to survive so we can live and all other creatures can live. Virus never changes either into a new creature and is always a virus. You don't know much about your religion.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
And what bacteria and any microorganism or any other creature for that matter does has no equality to any other creature. If a fly craps on my newspaper, does not prove that humans crap on the morning newspaper. The logic of evodelusionism is just like that. What bacteria does has no relation to any other creature.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"By definition evolution requires that a species change into some other creature."
WRONG. Evolution is the change of inherited traits from one definition to another. It's been observed over and over in simple celled organisms. Are we supposed to take your word for it, you uneducated wannabe scientist with delusions of intellectual superiority, over what the most genius minds say? Get the fuck over yourself.
YulieAna 3 years ago
definition = generation
YulieAna 3 years ago
YulieAna, are you a first year student. One of the things that these people do is violate young people by not telling them all the premises of this religion, until you are fully indoctrinated. When I had real science teachers the told me to find out all the premises of any system of thought before you take a single class, so that you can determine where they are taking you and make up your own tests of what would prove this. For me it needed at least a thousand human fossils.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"YulieAna, are you a first year student"
Oh just stop. I'm a senior. And neither am i majoring in science. When all else fails lets throw a backwards psychoanalysis and pretend we know what we are talking about, shall we?
"For me it needed at least a thousand human fossils."
You need a lot more than just a thousand human fossils. You need to go back to school and learn biology 101.
YulieAna 3 years ago
You need a thosand fossils as a bare minimum that shows an obvious trail of human evolution. The have none of that.
If you look at the totality of all the fossils all you have are creatures that remained the same all the time, until going extinct.
The rest are still here nearly identical to the original. Go look! And don't be so stupid as to believe people who have agendas with nothing to back it up. There is zero "objective and obvious" evidence to show any evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"You need a thosand fossils as a bare minimum that shows an obvious trail of human evolution. The have none of that"
Are there any peer reviewed published paper with your name on it? No? Than your ignorance is irrelevant to science.
"If you look at the totality of all the fossils all you have are creatures that remained the same all the time, until going extinct."
Do you suggest that a fossil of one creature will be equivalent to 2 creature? I think you're confused.
YulieAna 3 years ago
"There is zero "objective and obvious" evidence to show any evolution."
You already demonstrated that you have no idea what evolution is and how it works. So whatever else you spew is totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
YulieAna 3 years ago
You have no idea the premises in your own belief system. I am not against you learning, but for you to learn without losing objective reason over to beliefs.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"You have no idea the premises in your own belief system."
I already gave you the basic definition of evolution. You chose to ignore it. You don't like "human mental baggage"? You also shouldn't like human stupidity and ignorance. But apparently you missed that boat.
YulieAna 3 years ago
I feel sorry for people who are closed minded and actually think they know something.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
You should definitely feel sorry for yourself since the first quote absolutely applies to you, however, education is something you never acquired in the first place. So, feeling sorry for others while you yourself are infinitely stupid and uneducated is utterly pathetic and laughable.
YulieAna 3 years ago
YulieAna; You don't even know the premises of your own "believers" in this ridiculous crap science. And you actually are writing to me about this??? HEMG.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
You repeat yourself like a retarded parrot. You were given the definition, you ignored it. Yet in your infinite stupidity and ignorance you're projecting your bullshit on me. You just proved that you are the epitome of HEMG. Enjoy.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Let me get this straight??? HMM? you reapeat crap that you have never personally checked out, as if it was the absolute truth, and you call me a parrot.
You are a moron.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
I did study evolutionary biology in college, so you can already take your lame psychoanalysis and shove it up your ass. And I am pretty sure that you've never personally checked anything yourself. You're just another lazy charlatan who doesn't see past his nose. And when you're cornered, you become increasingly retarded by starting throwing personal attacks. HEMG indeed.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Let me get this straight. I have researched this for 40 years. I have an IQ higher than 99% of the people on this earth. And you took some classes by believers and that is what you base your lazy crap on. You are intellectually dishonest if you don't do the work necessary to check out ever friggin premise thes assholes put in front of you.
Lazy ignorant stupid believer!
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"I have researched this for 40 years."
Aha, did you happen to "research" it for the Discovery Institute?
"have an IQ higher than 99% of the people on this earth."
Which would explain why you are so stupid.
"You are intellectually dishonest if you don't do the work necessary to check out ever friggin premise thes assholes put in front of you."
I don't even need to respond to that, the amount of irony does the job for me.
YulieAna 3 years ago
I am completely independent. I have no peers and I only approach this from objective reason and logic. I don't know why you are so stupid, but that is your problem not mine. I can't imagine anyone taking this crap an making a profession out of it. How can you justify belief and acting on things that have never been shown to be even plausible?
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"I have no peers and I only approach this from objective reason and logic."
Aka your "research" is bullshit. If you haven't done any real research and haven't written any peer reviewed papers, you are full of shit.
"I don't know why you are so stupid, but that is your problem not mine."
sad pot to the kettle
"I can't imagine anyone taking this crap an making a profession out of it. "
Modern medicine will disagree with you. But then again, as if you'd know anything about modern medicine.
YulieAna 3 years ago
You are living proof of human devolution into a bunch of stupid beleivers in mytholgy. I pity you and anybody who gets sucked into this crap, just becasue the are gullible and want an friggin education. By the way the UK and the US have fallen into the lower levels of scolastic acheivement. Even the lazy French are smarter.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"You are living proof of human devolution into a bunch of stupid beleivers in mytholgy."
For some reason i am not offended. Is it because you are neither witty nor smart?
"I pity you and anybody who gets sucked into this crap"
And the dumbass award goes to....
"By the way the UK and the US have fallen into the lower levels of scolastic acheivement."
That's because our standards are low and education has been invaded by the crazy fundies.
They Frenchies are definitely smarter than you.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Your ignorance make me ill to think that you are going to fuck with other people's lives with this crap you believe in. How is that. What is your IQ. maybe 80.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"Your ignorance make me ill to think that you are going to fuck with other people's lives with this crap you believe in. "
I doubt you know what i "believe" in since you don't even know what evolution is.
"What is your IQ. maybe 80. "
If that's the requirement to socialize with you, then no. It is not 80. But, I suspect yours is around that number.
YulieAna 3 years ago
I don't have any peers, so I am totally independent of any club of lower IQ people. I do not want to contribute like others have to the science only to find some new weapon was created from my research. I only am concerend about extracting people, helping them to back off from delusions; all delusions. I am not prejudice. I know that all delusions are bad for individual people. Beliefs create war, hate, and stupid rude arrogant evodelusionists that have no manners.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"I am totally independent of any club of lower IQ people."
"Beliefs create war, hate, and stupid rude arrogant evodelusionists that have no manners."
But you have (manners), as everyone reading your comments can clearly see.
pumpeduese137 3 years ago
I don't have any grace for liars. It is difficult for me to even stand the level of ignorance in this crap science. It is all relative. If you are nice to people full of hate, it doesn't work. When people approach me with manners and attempt to understand, then I give them all the help I can.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Do not confuse hate with disrespect. People do not respect you because you are a self proclaimed "genius" who knows jack shit about science but claims that it is bullshit. If you behave like an ignorant idiot, people will treat you as such. Nobody is obligated to respect you, especially since you haven't earned that respect.
YulieAna 3 years ago
No, I don't confuse anything. I recoginize hateful people, like you, very fast.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"No, I don't confuse anything. I recoginize hateful people"
Your intuition skills are on the same level as your scientific skills. Good attempt, sparky, but you don't have what it takes to be a psychologist.
YulieAna 3 years ago
"I don't have any peers"
Which means that there is not one person who found your "research" credible.
"I am totally independent of any club of lower IQ people"
Judging from your responses and your overall way of thinking, you're at the bottom of the IQ food chain.
"Beliefs create war, hate, and stupid rude arrogant evodelusionists that have no manners."
Evodelusionist is not a word. It is your own lame creation to show your pseudo superiority over those who are smarter than you.
YulieAna 3 years ago
Wow! A self-proclaimed IQ of "more than like 99% of teh ppl on dis earht, d00d", but no wisdom to match, and, to boot, such hatred. So, you don't believe this stuff. You've made that abundantly clear. Do you go to malls at Christmas time and and tell the children that the Santa they're talking to is a fraud and that they're stupid and ignorant for believing it, and hound the parents for their "brainwashing"? If not, why are you so threatened by one and not the other? Do either affect you at all?
Virikel 3 years ago
Unlike you I only deal in reality. Any belief in things that have no proof, is a logical fallacy. Anyone who has a brain and has not been indoctrinated into beleif, realizes the tremedous flaws in evolution.
It would be good for you to find your objective awareness that you lost, and back off on all beliefs, because all beliefs are bad for intelligence. I actually lowers IQ to fill your brain with confliction. My advice is to listen to the doubts and go with that for a while.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Please... before flinging around any more opinions, do some serious research of ID. If you don't agree with it, "know thy enemy", as the old saying goes. The more familiar you are with it, its roots, and its arguments, the better your arguments will be. The best debaters can argue both sides of an argument very efficiently.
Might interest you to know I didn't believe in ID until I decided to do unbiased research for myself instead of listening to others. Same with believing in any religions.
Virikel 3 years ago
Very well put. I do not have a religion but it is obvous that all was designed by something. You have to be a moron not to see that. Evodelusonists only see evolution, they never test a single premise by anything that would destroy their belief.. That is intellectual fraud.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Hey that looks like a motor my hypothesis is that it was created, so my theory is that god made it. How is that science? It is easy to see that a motor is man made because we know that man exists and man has in the past made motors. We don't know that god exists and we don't know how these things were created. Intelligent design is not real science, stop pretending.
sharnrock 3 years ago
atheism isnt backed by science
whitewidow777 3 years ago
Yeah, but scientists don't try to prove a "god" was building motors in his work shop. They avoid that line of thought, for you would be making assumptions.
wingatei 3 years ago
Wow; as we learn more; there are things we realize we don't know. What a big surprise!
I guess we must assume that God did it. Just like we assumed he created everything in 7 days.
wpiman 3 years ago
See videos by Thunderfoot.He has 28 videos that thoroughly obliterate ID.
Celticking36 3 years ago
Wow,at 4:00 he completely misunderstands the concept of DNA.
daddyrizla 3 years ago
wait a minute, DNA isn't a concept...it's a medium for information storage.
wildbill1240 3 years ago
A horrible misrepresentation of the facts, the evidence and the concensus shared in the scientific community. This is no doubt a product of the Discovery Institute which any self respecting person of intellect can dismiss. They offer no proof of anything, merely conjecture and lies...check out extantdodo's channel to see a critical analysis of several pieces of their propoganda. This video talks lots and says little...peace all.
MasterOhSo 3 years ago
MasterOhSo.
Wow. You've just described evolution perfectly.
Except the part about the consensus shared in the scientific community.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
I stand corrected...The "near universal concensus" is perhaps a more accurate way of saying it. The evidence so far gathered certainly points in the direction of evolution as fact rather than fiction. To take the bible as literally accurate is simply ridiculous, it's not meant to be taken as such, even the pope agrees that evolution is real. I don't see why one cannot believe in both the evolutionary process and the philosophy of the bible, they are not mutually exclusive. Think about it...
MasterOhSo 3 years ago
Why do creationists always have the most ridiculous haircuts? Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Wiliam Dembski, Jason Lisle, Steve Meyer and Jay Richards. ALL of these guys wear their hair like they are sexually repressed choirboys, which they are.
Think about it: If you want to recognize a creationist look at his hairdo (or beard in the case of Ken Ham.)
RationalEmotive 3 years ago
what about my pastor? He's bald and has no beard....
magicfreak123 3 years ago
Intelligent design states that the components of some biologic structures are, when taken alone, useless and thus the whole structure could not have arisen through incremental evolution. An example was the bacterial flagelum. Turns out the parts do have use when not incorporated into the whole. This DISPROVES the intelligent design theory. It does not prove evolution, but it does not disprove evolution. It is consistent with evolution and not ID, so evolution stands and ID does not.
L571J 3 years ago
DNA is actually quite inefficient, so nice try there. DNA can mutate, break, and be miscopied. DNA has areas that are useless junk. Not so efficient if you ask me. Indeed, the structure of DNA lends itself to a very probable method of evolution without design. I appreciate how these people ignore the facts that simply don't fit their theory. A true explanation must encompass all facts. Evolution is the only explanation to encompass all known facts about life.
L571J 3 years ago
A perfect example of evidence for evolution.
Lets look at the two different models and how they compare on the topic of whale evolution.
Creationism - God created all the animals, whales were one of His creation, and nothing else.
Evolution - There should be a transitional form. An amphibious mammal.
Ambulocetus
Rodhocetus
Protocetus
Kutchicetus
All are transitional forms between whales and land mammals NOT predicted by creationism, but ARE predicted by evolution. Look them up on Wikipedia.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
SpazzyMcGee1336. Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Protocetus, Kutchicetus. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you seen these animals? I'm sure you have. Do they look anything like whales at all? Only Protocetus looks anything like a whale, and Protocetus could be a distinct species of whale, not an ancestor at all. It is just simply declared an ancestor. Anyone who questions it, is obviously stupid. Right? Where's the proof? How do they know? Did it have a tag on it? That's science? WTF?
dbviewer5 3 years ago
Sorry, I didn't see this second post.
So what you are saying is you will not except any transitional form?
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
I have not seen a transitional form, I've seen things that are called transitional forms. Organisms obviously change, but they change within their DNA's limits. There are cats of all shapes and sizes, but they always make more cats. Like we talked before, even Gould had to acknowledge the stasis in the fossil record, so he devised punctuated equilibrium. If there are transitional forms, they should be more numerous than the existing species, according to Darwin himself.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
What limits? I have never heard of a geneticist saying there are limits to how much DNA can change.
1) You will never acknowledge a transitional form.
2) Fossilization is rare and we can't exactly search every cubed inch of dirt on and below the Earth's surface to find them all.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
There are no limits to how much DNA can change. You could program it to do anything. You could program it to grow a new brain, if you knew how. But in reality, like begets like.
1. How do you know you're looking at a transitional form? How do you know you're not?
2.That's the point. If evolution is occuring, the transitional forms should be everywhere. Darwin himself said it. The very lack of transitional forms forced the punctuated equilibrium theory.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
You could prove to me that evolution is impossible if you found a base code of DNA that every subsequent generation's strand of DNA copies off of. If DNA just keeps copying off of copies there is no limit to how much it will change besides what natural selection will allow. If there was a base code of DNA that never changed thus keeping every species relatively the same then you would be validated. There is no base code.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
Dr. Duane Gist, who received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley.
magicfreak123 3 years ago
1.Everything is technically a transitional form, you just refuse to acknowledge any sort of similarities. If evolution was wrong we would find all kinds of species in no way similar to any other, but that isn't the case.
2.Why do you guys always quote Darwin? It's like trying to disprove the current cosmological model by quoting Newton. There are plenty of modern explanations, why look back at a 150 year old book?
And your ignoring the fact fossilization is rare. Bones r usually gnawed away.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
"The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!"
magicfreak123 3 years ago
evolution says that:
a. Matter and energy necessary to create the universe somehow occurred all by itself out of nothing.
b. Life, against the proven laws of biology, somehow still occurred from non-life.
c. In contrast to the mathematical laws of probability, random and impersonal chance produces complexity and organization.
d. Somehow "Entropy" doesnt apply to evolution.
e. All intermediate transitional missing links still exist somewhere underground but someday will be discovered.
magicfreak123 3 years ago
a. wrong
b. wrong and that is abiogenesis
c. even the slightest chance is certain over long periods of time
d. Somehow you don't even know what entropy is because you are completely unaware Earth is not a closed system.
e. wrong, fossilization is very rare. We are lucky to have found as many "transitional" forms as we have.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
for a: why is it wrong? That's what you're implying. The big bang all of a sudden occurred out of nothing...
Biogenesis is a proven law of biology.
According to your answer for C:
So you're telling me that if I take an airplane up to 5,000 feet and inside that plane I have neatly stacked 10,000 3 by 5 inch postcards. And when I pass over the whitehouse, I push out those cards, they will randomly sort and select themselves to spell out "The white house" right on the front lawn?
magicfreak123 3 years ago
(a) is wrong because I believe you are talking about the Big Bang theory, not evolution. LOL The fact that you could mix biology with cosmology discredits you as being a person knowledgeable on the matter. Plus the Big Bang theory makes zero speculations on where the initial energy came from.
watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
Watch that video. RNA has been seen to form in naturally occurring environments and is self replicating. Abiogenesis is a staple in modern biology.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
It's also a basic law of physics that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos"
You didn't answer for C
magicfreak123 3 years ago
"In contrast to the mathematical laws of probability, random and impersonal chance produces complexity and organization."
So your logic is "It might not have happened that way so it couldn't have happened that way so a super powerful sentient being that exists outside of the perceivable universe did it"?
And I already showed you with that video that RNA forms naturally and is self-replicating.
I did some double checking and the video is accurate.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
You didn't respond to "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos". With enough time evolution is possible? Well, that like saying that we'll now take the airplane up to 25,000 feet. Now when we
drop those three-by-five cards they will have a greater time span in which
to randomly sort and select themselves to spell out "the white house" on the ground!
Every time the
evolutionist adds a few more million years to his hypothesis, he is simply
hammering another nail into his own coffin.
magicfreak123 3 years ago
I usually just assume people understand what biological evolution is online, but the more you type the less I think you know about it.
If I were to take your analogy as literal then yes, sooner or later it would spell out a short phrase. It may take a day, it may take a million years, but if you were constantly flying over dropping new loads of cards it would indeed fall into patterns. It all depends on the frequency of the drops and the time span you have.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
What is going to happen? Remember, it is a basic law of physics that the
greater the time span the greater the chaos and disorganization. The
cards would be spread over ten times the geography.
We have never observed evolution in the fossil record and we
have never observed evolution in the natural world. Evolution is a theory
that exists only in the imaginations of evolutionists!
Have you ever thought why the bible is the best selling book of all time in hostory
magicfreak123 3 years ago
Look up the evolution of whales, and what about archeopteryx? There are also several species of reptile/mammals, and those are just a few of the extreme instances of evolution changing kingdom besides the whales.
I'm a physics undergraduate and I'm telling you right now that all this hoopla about "chaos" is meaningless. I JUST TOLD YOU that complex compounds form ALL THE TIME.
If you want a VERY simple example of chaos becoming organized look at salt crystals.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
SpazzyMcGee1336. I know this was meant for magicfreak123. I looked up the evolution of whales. It's pretty silly. As for Archaeopteryx. Larry Martin, University of Kansas paleontologist wrote: "Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds" He claimed it was: "the earliest known member of a distinct species."
And, you can't compare the order of a salt crystal or a snow flake, to the organization and information of the simplest living organism.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
So archeopteryx is just a dinosaur with feathers dated to be right before bird fossils began appearing? To my knowledge it satisfies all the requirements for being both a dinosaur and a bird.
"It's pretty silly", amazing well put argument yet again. /:I
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
I am only relaying what a University level paleontologist stated about archaeopteryx.
The whale evolution evidence IS silly. If those are whale ancestors, anything could be a whale ancestor. Just like you said, "all fossils are transitional." Why not the otter, or a ferret? We're just supposed to NOT argue with the experts. No matter how much evidence they don't have.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
The last line was sarcastic, lol.
Anyways, you do acknowledge that following the evolutionary model the average fossil should be a transitional species do you not?
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
I acknowledge that a person is deemed a creationist nut if they don't accept that all fossils are transitional. Like I said before, the stasis in the fossil record gave evolutionists no choice but to say that "all fossils are transitional." It's the fossil record that shows how species suddenly appear, fully formed, and then disappear, unchanged.
dbviewer5 3 years ago
Well there is the problem I was talking about before. If a species is TOO similar you will say its the same species. If it is TOO different it can't be related. And I don't think you looked up whale evolution because there were plenty of species that were only slightly different from modern day whales, but they were more similar to the older species you are saying are too different to be related.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
I looked up the examples you suggested: Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Protocetus, and Kutchicetus. How can anyone declare, objectively, that these are transitional forms. Any true scientist would never do that. That's the problem with evolution, it's subjective.