Who said humans are the highest form of life? we just evolved inteligence where other animals gained speed or claws or whatever traits helped them best to survive
there are far more efffeciant forms of life on this planet
@lolcats121 that doesnt mean their smarter than us
Most of their brains are made up of a special kind of brain matter specifically designed to keep the brain warm, we have some too but as we dont live in cold water we dont need nearly as much They are not as smart some people will tell you The size of the brain has no bearing at all on inteligence potential, my comment merely meant that while we evolved to survive the best way we can, so did everything else, and other lifeforms are better at it
I wish I didn't need a body... or was invulnerable.
Ann Coulter was designed. She was born Albert Coulter... the doctors just designed her poorly. I mean I've seen more passable trannies with their giant cocks out.
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
Look it completely different to say to act like gods because we came from god. Alright God didn't turn into people. Alright but evolution saids that monkeys turn into people. That's the difference
gigaboy, your saying that if a monkey turned into a person, then the person should act like a monkey. Well why? If something turns into something else it acts like what it is not what it was. For instance, lets say I used to be a farmer, but I turned into a buisness man. Should I still act like a farmer? Whatever you came from or whatever you 'turned" into does not mean you should act like what you were.
yes and no. You should try to be but you would. If you came from the country (farmer) and went to the city (businessman) you would still have the ascent of country.
No but the buisness man would not be a farmer anymore. A farmer is someone whose job is to farm. If he stops farming he is no longer a farmer. You say but he still has an accent. 1st an accent does not make a farmer. 2nd showing signs that you used to be a farmer doesn't make you one. Question. Would you tell a butterfly to act like a caterpillar because it came from a caterpillar? Would you tell a man to act like a child because he use to be one? You act like what you are not what you were
Look your confuse first of all I wouldn't tell him to do anything. second you that according to my logic the business man would be a farmer. That not what I'm saying. Ok and you was talking about an adult coming from a kid. Alright yea they are times in adults lifes were they act like kids. I do it you do it we all do it. Every once and a while we may missspelled a simple word. We may get mad and act like a kid. We may have and think about simple math probles because we simply forget the awsner.
In saying that we still sometimes act like kids you actually proved the point man. Even though you didn't want to and you don't even control your own stream of thaughts as I see in other comments, but anyways...We have common behaviour features as kids (because that's us back in the days) and we also have similar behaviours with apes too. Social life, food, emotions and I could go on. We just evolved different way. They certainly are not the same they used to be. Each species evolves. It's easy.
I agree we are a type of age. I don't believe however we came from apes or monkey. Just because we are a type of something doesn't mean we came from it. You even said we are a type of ape. Evolution doesn't say we came from ape it saids ape came from monkeys and that we came from monkeys. However it does not say we came from apes or vice versa. So why think we came from monkeys Second of all if you say we came from monkeys your bacially telling someone to act like a monkey.
Evolution says we are a branch of the ape family which it's self is a branch of the monkeys. Not all monkeys act the same way. We have the transitional forms. And your missing the point.
No I believe you are you tried to make a point and make me believe evolution. That is what all you evolutionist do you conterdict yourselves all the time. FIrst you say no that is not right because blah, blah, blah. Then you end up proving are point.
An example please. Evolutionist isn't a word. Lets see we have transitional forms, observed speciation in mordern times, the fossil record, embryology and taxonomy.
If you don't believe in transition forms of species, look at your own pictures from being kid until now and tell me if you will see yourself EXACTLY evolving on one of them...No, but it is very strong implication that with all analogy and all features of your character it is you and record of your growing up. The same with fossils of your human kind. It just fits and we don't need to see it transforming, it just makes sense and therefore makes bible irrelevant and wrong.If you want truth, study.
@gigaboy47 Monkeys don't turn into people. We did share a common ancestor. Also we are most close to chimps and both belong to the group of apes. Monkeys split off much longer ago when primates split between new world monkeys, old world monkeys and apes.
LOL! If creationists were smart, they'd know that the banana wouldn't exist if it didn't evolve from plantains, back in 1805, and human intervention didn't keep it growing, so we'd have it today.
"Just b/c it looks designed doesn't mean it IS designed." I used this on a creationis friend who was using that beach analogy. Know what he said? "No, I don't think it goes both ways." Lame huh?
It's unbelievable that people still don't understand evolution. I mean people should stop debating about evolution, and start talking about quarks, photons, neutrinos and electromagnetism and gravity etcetera etcetera.
This is wonderful. Creationists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. They actually believe in all the magic things done in the bible. They believe that god killed millions of innocent people, including children, in the old testament. I grew up christian and believed this myself! I had guilt and constant fear (hellfire, rapture).I spent 15 years studying theology and am now a happy, loving atheist. Thank you so much for this posting.I am afraid to "come out" to my family about my beliefs.
"both of those are scientific terms, so they should be different"
I laughed harder than at any other point of the video (the quotes may not be precise, I'm sorry if i can't be bothered to go back and make a direct quoting)
I like how all these arrogant christians are getting their panties in a wad. Now you know how atheists feel all the time. Always being looked upon as stupid or evil. You guys can make all the videos, tv shows, radio shows, billboards, CHURCHES, and any other form of advertisement you want but when someone makes fun of christianity, everyone makes a big deal about it.
I am not a Christian but I do get annoyed with how Atheists portray Christians as mindless idiots. It's just as bad as when Christians portray Atheists as immoral sinners. Using stereotypes is terrible and defeats any possibility for both sides to coexist peacefully.
I hate how they make Christians look so stupid. I'm not slamming any atheist for believing what he or she wants, so don't slam me for believing what I want to believe. In other words, grow up. Really...
I see your point on how "religion" is so foolish, since that is what most of the world sees: the effects of "religion." But that is not how it is supposed to be. Being faithful to God does not imply following man-made rules and such. It means trusting him and knowing that he loves you.
Cheer up, man. It's not all religion this video makes fun of, it's creationists. If you're one of them, then get used to it, it comes with the territory. And if you're not, you can join the ranks of those who make fun of them.
I never said god was a joke. What I said was that creationism is a retarded bunch of absurd crap, and as such it is laughable. Not god. Creationism. 99.99% of scientists "believe" in evolution. 40% of them believe in god. Do the math. That means you can believe in god, and not be a creationist.
Man knows nothing, man writes bible, man puts insane explanation of how the world was created in genesis, and everybody who believes in god is TOLD to believe is this as well. Fast forward 2000 years: An insane body of evidence supports evolution. hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies, with hard supporting evidence. Creationism is still, after 2000 years supported by no evidence whatsoever. And it had a head start. Logical conclusion?
That is an unfair, immature and highly tainted view. Name 1 bit of evidence that all life had one single cell common ancestor. And if man knows nothing, how come we can't figure out many technological and structural marvels of history? Why was the earth round in Isaiah 40:22 thousands of years before Galileo and yet man knew nothing? How did we know of air currents in Ecclesiastes 1:6 and yet know nothing? Hydro cycle in Psalm 135:7? It goes on and on. Man was intelligent in the beginning.
Man knows nothing = man doesn't know WHY there is wind, does not have an explanation for bad weather, bad crops, disease, floods, infertility, earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, etc, etc. And therefore he invents an explanation, which seemed perfectly good at the time... Time to wake up.
As for abiogenesis, there is plenty of evidence, seek it instead of hiding from it.
Now abiogenesis is not evolution. First understand what you're criticizing, then criticize.
First of all, I know abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues but are often tied together and both relate to naturalism. Second "those were enlightened times" is a just-so story and, as you put it, "inventing an explanation." How can I trust the judgement of someone who claims theism is wishful thinking and then uses simple imagination to write off a gradualistic evolutionary dilemma? Do consciousness and scientific laws such as gravity get mother goose stories too? How do those fit in?
What do you mean by "gradualistic evolutionary dilemma"? How is a mountain range of supporting evidence "wishful thinking"? And at what point do scientists use their "imagination" to explain stuff?
"Name 1 bit of evidence that all life had one single cell common ancestor."
DNA. the study of genetics has shown beyond a doubt that the process of evolution (descent with modification) occurred. Look up ERVs, ring species, human Chromosome 2, junk DNA, and inactive tooth-growing genes in birds. Those (along with other pieces of evidence such the fossil record) show common ancestry as a FACT. You can disagree with the Theory of Evolution, but the process of evolution is a cold, hard fact.
"Why was the earth round in Isaiah 40:22 thousands of years before Galileo(?)"
It says the Earth is a "circle", not a sphere, ball, or globe (which they had a word for back then); a circle is a 2-dimensional shape. Even if we ignore that and assume the Bible meant "globe", Greek mathematicians and sailors knew that the Earth was round WAY before the Bible and since the Bible had some influence from Greek mythology and thought, it wouldn't be surprising if it got in there.
And all of this information loss and a highly misrepresented fossil record prove nothing. They never find fossils in that order in the actual field. Just in textbooks.
Information loss? What are you talking about? Only deletion mutations cause a decrease in genetic information. The other main types of mutations either add information (insertions, duplications) or change it (substitution). Yes they do find fossils in evolutionary order out in the field: ammonites are ALWAYS found chronologically before dinosaurs and dinosaurs are ALWAYS chronologically before modern birds and mammals.
Now, sometimes layers will be missing or the layers are inverted, but we still find fossils in chronological order and we can verify this through various, INDEPENDENT dating methods. Nothing is ever EXACTLY like the textbooks, in real life scientists have to do actual work in validating their theories, while creationists just crap on all of their hard work without providing any of their own. When's the last time creation had any real world application? Well?
1. The context of the verse clearly represents the point of view from above, which would be a circle.
2. Where are there insertions? And duplication is duplication. If I read a book twice what was added the second time I read it?
3. Theists founded modern science and had to do ACTUAL WORK to do so. Darwin wasn't a scientist and knowledge comes with study. It's not a talent, it's a work in progress. Evolutonists try to validate 19th century philosophy, not practiced science.
1. I can't prove that when they circle, they meant CIRCLE, but it's irrelevant for the very reason I stated afterward: the Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere before the Bible was written.
2. Strawman argument. Books don't reproduce themselves with mutations. If you want to know about insertion mutations, go to Wikipedia. Seriously, I'm not going to teach you high school science; if you're going to debate at least have a general idea about the subject area.
and yes a duplication is a duplication, but then toss a substitution on top of it and voila, new information. It's really that simple.
3. Yes, and there are still theists in science that contribute heavily (i.e. Ken Miller). I don't have a problem with THEISTS, I have a problem with CREATIONISTS, there's a BIG difference.
Darwin followed the scientific method, published his journals to peer review and founded a theory that has withstood heavy scrutiny, I'd say that qualifies him as a scientist. There is no philosophy to the Theory of Evolution; if you're referring to social Darwinism, that's not part of the theory at all; it's not even from Darwin. Frankly, ToE doesn't really belong to Darwin anymore; the thousands of scientists that questioned it and improved it deserve credit too.
Darwin followed the scientific method? "Different finches die off due to disadvantage and environment, so all life must've came from a single cell." Also, Darwin was a Lamarkist i.e. diet and exercise made the life form what it was generation to generation.
That's the thing, it's not one mutation that leads to a brand new organ. Features change and as they continue to change, they eventually take on new functionality. The creationist's favorite, the flagellum, is actually a good example of this. It started out as a passive transport system (a hole that allowed nutrients in), then evolved into a more active transport system, then it evolved to produce toxins, then into a small flagellum, and of course got longer until it reached ideal length.
It happened in tiny, tiny steps; as the expression goes: the man that moves the mountain does it by carrying small stones; evolution tackles the mountainous task of developing new features using small steps. The Chihuahua and the Great Dane didn't just suddenly appear overnight, it took centuries of deliberate breeding.
3) Creationists start with their conclusion and then only collect the "evidence" that conforms to creation. Working completely backwards from the scientific method.
Additionally, they deny just about every field of scientific study to justify their beliefs; fields such as biology, geology, physics, chemistry, dendrochronology, archaeology, history, organic chemistry, and paleontology.
4(?) Another strawman. Darwin didn't see finches and suddenly say "Dur, my grandfather was an amoeba" (as Kent Hovind would say). He studied the comparative anatomy of creatures, he saw unique adaptations, and he saw the mechanism for all of this to happen.
He didn't just look at a bunch of finches and blurt out the first anti-God idea that came to mind. He studied other animals too, such as tortoises and pigeons. But don't take it from me, after all, science encourages us to do our own research. Go to different sites (not just creationist propaganda sites like Answers in Genesis) and read scientific journals, specifically about ERVs, ring species, human chromosome 2, and even breeding.
Creationists do not deny every field of study: they utilize them but have different conclusions than "Look, a fossil that may have been the link between land and marina mammals simply due to shorter legs and a loglike body! Aren't we observant!?" Seriously, if that's not counter-objective nothing is. Even if creationists were all ignorant worms evolutionists would be no different except they say "only what we presently sense and detect is what could result in this." How would they know?
Ok. Let's kick this bucket right now. I know it's lots of tiny tiny changes building up overtime to establish something that wasn't there many generations and populations back. But where is the study on flagellum development you speak of?
1. Hebrews are older than Greeks and the Bible was spread orally beforehand.
2. Not strawman, parallel. Genes carry structured information. Mutations are only scramblings and duplication. Duplication by it's own nature is nothing new. Mutations also only deal with the pre-existing and have never, over any amount of time, offered anything new.
1) That's debatable, but the Greeks had a functional and powerful civilization about 1000 years before the Hebrews. And yes, the Bible was recorded orally, therefore it wasvulnerable to being changed.
2) A dripping faucet doesn't fill a bathtub unless it's been dripping for a long, long time. Sure, each individual mutation isn't HUGE, but over time you get completely different features. DNA is not like a book at all.
Also, I'm not Ham or Hovind or a typical creationist. However, I do know that when changes occur they always deal with pre-existing features that do not develop previously unheld abilities over any amount of time or bundle of small alterations. Darwin's conclusions on the grand-scale level are just as un-supported as before, but much more glorified 150 years later.
"name a substitution resulting in new organs, features or instincts"
Ironically, since creationists love to bring it up, the eye is an excellent example of a new feature gradually developing over many generations. Google "evolution of the eye"... and try to look at the actual science instead of the ramblings of fellow creationists for once.
As for Darwin being a Lemarckist, that's to be expected given the absence of microbiology and genetics at the time. What's your excuse for your ignorance?
I've looked up a lot. Including a PBS video documenting more and more worthless speculation. "Well this organism has a more primitive photosensitive organ so the eye must've evolved from there. Who wants doughtnuts?" If that's the opposite of ignorance I embrace folly in the highest extent. The existence of a lesser isn't necessarily the ancestor of the greater. Let me ask you, does it profit you to be arrogant and condescending? How exactly do you benefit from a bad representation?
"Let me ask you, does it profit you to be arrogant and condescending?"
Creationists tend to distort science, quote mine, misrepresent and flat out lie. These things get me testy. I try to keep my calm but, alas, I am but human.
"The existence of a lesser isn't necessarily the ancestor of the greater."
Correct. But that's not what it's supposed to show. It merely shows that such features CAN evolve gradually since functional intermediates exist. That they DID is shown by fossils and genetics.
Evo's and Creo's are both human and both can and do lie to support their idea. You have the power to be civil and backspace.
2nd. DNA and Fossils follow suit of the exact same thinking. "This fossil has this and this fossil has more of it. ANCESTRY!" or "This DNA sequence can be seen here and here in both organisms. ANCESTRY." First demonstrate the process giving the result. Then you can tell me what the result is. And I mean major change overtime.
If it was merely two, three, four fossils that happened to exhibit that pattern, I'd agree the conclusion of "ANCESTRY!" would not be appropriate.
But it's ALL of them. Countless fossils all fitting into a nested hierarchy, just as you'd expect from an ancestry tree. And they're not placed arbitrarily just to fit the pattern either. Sorted by time, they still all fit. I'm sorry, but reducing that to "This fossil has this and this fossil has more of it. ANCESTRY!" is just disingenuous.
Much the same goes for genetic comparisons. I invite you to watch (/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg), where a biologist explains this, among other things, much better than I could.
The process has also been demonstrated. DNA replication, as well as how mutations sneak in, has been reverse engineered and we now understand exactly how it works. And lots of small changes in short periods of time obviously lead to major changes over long periods of time.
I'm speaking of how the layering and in many cases environmental setting in which the fossils are found do not match up. Marine invertibrate fossils in the Himilayas for instance. If they appeared consistently in that order with conclusive reason for classification OF such orders then it would be much different.
You're kidding right? What about atavism, ERVs, chromosome 2? You're also discounting almost the entire fossil record (there wasn't much to work with 150 years ago). What about the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies with findings all consistent with the theory of evolution? And the fact that nobody has ever put forth any factual evidence that would contradict evolution? Logical conclusion?
Contradict evolution? Not when you can fit it on every scenario. "How did flying in V-formation for energy saving and aerodynamic flight patters arise? Genetic drift, mutation, selection etc. doesn't touch instinct."
" I guess your "God" did it Bwah wah haha. On to the next question."
"How did light, fragile ocean floor organisms ever survive to withstand tens to hundreds of G's of water pressure?"
"What is this? 60 minutes? Where are the people here to congratulate me?"
That's not really what I'm talking about. Evolution of species and behavioral evolution maybe related, but the latter doesn't prove the former. It supports it however. Just one more thing, however far fetched, which supports evolution.
Again, where is the evidence AGAINST evolution? You should be able to produce some if evolution is nothing but wild speculations. I think you can search for a long long time, and never find anything substantial. Again, the conclusion is?
The truth is you can't look at the way nature is set up and separate the two. Look at bees and polination, and the male/female reproductive system. If there weren't corresponding, precise and correct instinctual reactions to actions, counterpart cycles and chemicals neither of those would exist, and yet both are essential to life on this planet in huge ways spanning millions of species.
Right, you can't separate the two. But that's not in itself an argument against evolution. Instinct is not readily quantifiable, and has definitely not been link to genome information as of yet. If it was quantifiable though, how do you suggest it would be used as an argument against evolution?
Then of course the next question is: are there actual scientific finds that contradict evolution? Not as far as I know. Are there any that seem to contradict it? Is it enough to refute it? To improve it?
Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest (determined by the processes mentioned earlier) and many systems go in the opposite direction. Metamorphosis: What's so beneficial to be hanging helpless in a cocoon for a while for predators to devour you? Especially considering the generations in which it wasn't perfected. Also how many organisms independently figured out heterosexual life, raising young, defending young, sharing food, etc. Those are just two examples you might want to clear
Ok, finally a valid argument! Yes, certain processes my seem like they're not beneficial, like the cocoon. But really what is the alternative for that species? And was the alternative more beneficial, or is it a wash? Don't forget that some species develop traits that seem detrimental (like humans having a more dangerous birth than their ape relatives), but are really the result of a beneficial trait (in our case, the big brain). Most of natural selection happens by positive trade-off.
The problem isn't so much the "result" but the journey and the touchstones therein. Let's even say it's somehow beneficial (even though there are infinite alternatives) how did it even develop? How did it know it had silk (if you will), know how to use it? know it has to stay there for a while? how did that even begin to result in a butterfly? how did it know what it's wings were for and how to fly over many generations lacking? and THEN independently know how, when and where to migrate?
Actually, that's another good point. How come no matter what new feature arises instinct is there to take full advantage of it? It could be the other way around too, but I don't know the process by which it could happen. I'll look that up, I'm not an expert. Also, there may not currently be an explanation. Science doesn't know everything, or else we wouldn't be having this debate.
The more answers science gives opens more aspects to how God made the world. A misconception 1. is that Christians think miracles are responsible for everyday actions (while indirectly true) and 2. somehow nature explains it's own origins. You may look at the immune system and see evolution but I ask you how the immune system could have evolved before the need for it came or vice versa? Why exactly do you endorse atheism over other aspects?
It's not really an endorsement... When people ask me why I don't believe in god, I don't say anything, because the answer is a bit harsh.
As far as evolution goes, it's really very simple. I never questioned it until I came to the US. Then I started looking into the debate, and I have yet to hear one real argument against evolution, whereas there is a mountain of evidence against creation, and in support of evolution, and an old earth. Creationists have done nothing to prove their theory.
Old earth/ young earth I can't speak of. I have no knowledge there. However, how much research of the other side have you done from their own basis? What would be a real argument against evolution? What would they have to topple?
Everything that has been found so far in genome mapping... ERVs are pretty much a confirmation of common ancestry. So is chromosome 2.
The main problem with the creationist side isn't so much that they're not able to refute evolution. It's that they're not able to find a shred of evidence for their own side. Proving evolution wrong would not alone make creation right. It's not even half the battle in fact. So again: Why are they not putting any effort into it? Where is their research?
Here's something we all learn about science. There's always an aspect we're missing. If chromosome 2 and ERVs are common/ similar then that's all it is until further study. Also: The difference is we believe creation happened ONCE. You believe evolution happens all the time (just incredibly slow). By it's very nature any evidence we would give is basically redundant. "How did this get here." "It was made; it's here, isn't it?" What would be evidence for creation to you? Symbiosis?
lookup ERVs (endogenous retroviruses), then tell me if you think their incidence in the exact same places of both the human and chimp genome are a coincidence.
If creation were true, then we would expect to find a certain number of things: Human fossils in all strata, new or old. We don't find human fossils in strata older than 70,000 to 100,000 years old. We find very human looking hominid fossils in strata older than that, but none in strata where we find humans...
Genes change and become lost. What may be human like could probably be human (or maybe fully ape) but never partial if we're being honest. I will look ERV's up though, even if viruses are a whole different issue. Also, humans break suit from the natural world completely. They're not suited for environments. They have to make their own.
...In how species show up, then disappear, to be replaced by species very similar, who then disappear, and are replaced in turn. Chronologically, 6 day-creation doesn't fit this evidence. Constant intervention of god in creation would fit it fine though (most widely adhere to belief among creationists outside the US apparently). Evolution also fits fine with it. But 6-day creation is simply not compatible with it.
Genes becoming lost is a common misconception among creationists...
Environments have certain specifications to fit. It's only fitting that similar animals could move in and even overtake other populations. I'm confused. How can we prove or disprove a 6-day creation?
6 day creation disproved by new species appearing progressively over extended periods of time, instead of all species being found in all geologic strata. Some say it's a coincidence, but the odds of that being true are... almost null.
Buoyancy, habitat, speed of the flood's overtaking (which only reached it's peak at 5 months and lasted over a year) and location during the flood are factors to take into account. Logically, mammals and birds arising from repltiles is mind boggling alone. Lung system, feathers, mammary glands, migration patterns etc. We've found sloth fossils in a supposedly marine era of time. It would only be fitting for others to die off due to being unable to adapt to the new and drastic changes.
"Buoyancy, habitat, speed of the flood's overtaking"... Fine, where are the scientific studies supporting it? Really, we go around in circles. A global flood would leave a very distinct mark. Are you thinking worldwide scientific conspiracy? You really need to get over the flood story. Every mythology has one. The logical answer is that floods happen all the time. Small, big, and ultra big ones. It's not hard to think the survivors would have exaggerated their proportions.
I brought mesas into question. Marine invertibrates on the tops of the himilayas. And yes, every culture has a story of a worldwide flood. Many involving a man, his family and a boat with animals. POSSIBLY, just POSSIBLY they're not independently uniformly wrong. I'm thinking worldwide scientific conspiracy, but not the one you're thinking ;)
The marine fossils in the Himalayas are explained by plate tectonic. Or is that also a point of contention?
If it had been due to a global flood, we'd also be finding the same fossils in all the american mountain ranges (which we don't), in all african mountain ranges (which we don't) and basically in every mountain range, and everywhere else on earth. But it's not the case is it?
1. Those marine organisms where indeed at the bottom of the ocean a long time ago (bear with me for notknowing the dates out of my head) If mountains fold in colliding continental plates or similar, layers are broken up and folded upwards. Erosion does the rest. Not a miracle, but easily explained.
About the flood story: Why does that matter? if we don't see sufficient evidence for the aftermath of a ww. flood it did not happen- actually we se NO evidence typical for a flood, let go a worldwide
2.) Or the evolutionary expectations of life's development?
What has that to do with noahs flood? Evolution is about adapting to the enviorment, not evolving into some high, mangical beings or something.
3.) "still within the TOP layers tectonics are irrelevant. "
No it's not. As I can see from you sentence, you have no actual clue how mountains fold. In general, mountains are of older rock layers than the rest around it, although they formed more recently.
The reason for that are the older rocklayers on the bottom, which are pushed up first and more rapidly than the others on top, thus what you see are at the foot of a mountain some more recent layer, while the older, deeper layer cross the them and surpass them the higher you go.
What you now need to answer is why these marine fossils are not found in every other mountain range on the face of this planet if they were all once submerged. Does that not strike you as odd? It strikes me as not consistent with a ww flood, but consistent with how we think the himalayas were formed.
You are disregarding evidence, not disproving it.
Here's a video I found (second time this comment disappears!). It explains very well what I was saying about fossils and where they are found in the ground. It explains atavism too:
"Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils)"
... Genetic mutations can reduce the amount of genomic information, but that's not all they do. They can also mix it up, and they can increase it (usually by copying an existing portion of it, and putting the copy somewhere else). The creationist argument stems from our inability to observe beneficial mutations first hand. But not seeing something happening isn't a proof it didn't happen. Seeing the results of it however (in genome mapping) is supporting evidence (not proof).
Ah, so that's what increase means in evo speech. And we have seen mutations with benefits. There was a German baby who was super strong due to a mutation (but physically speaking that's only accenting current structures.) Where has copy and paste resulted in a completely new and functional organ, feature or instinct?
Yes, we've seen some beneficial mutations. CCR5 is a good example.
"Where has copy and paste resulted in a completely new and functional organ, feature or instinct?" A mutation big enough to create that would more than likely be lethal. Mutations are baby steps. The transition from fish to amphibian started with one more degree of freedom for the belly fin. Then theye got bigger, stronger. One articulation was added, then a second one, etc, etc, until a fin became a leg-like limb. Baby steps.
I am very familiar with the baby step idea and no longer (for a while now) adress it as micro and macro. Rather, "changes that matter and changes that don't." Your last couple sentences beg more than a mental slide show. You're supposing based on naturalistic philosophy rather than what anyone has repeated or documented. You figure a follow of suit in a direction never seen taken.
The same is also true for every other animal species. Their fossils appear then disappear, replaced by species very similar, which weren't there before. then these disappear, replaced by slightly different species that can't be found in earlier strata. That's evidence for evolution. If creation were true, we would expect to find these slightly different species in the same strata, showing they coexisted. Or not find any "slightly different" species at all.
Again, it depends on how and why we determine what is earlier and what is not. Fossilization itself is a whole other can of worms. We find coelocanths where there is no "modern" record past dinosaurs.
And even if the actual age of each stratum were up to debate, we still know the deeper strata are older than those laying on top of them, since they were formed by successive floods. We can therefore establish a chronology, no matter what the actual ages of the strata are.
"We find coelocanths where there is no "modern" record past dinosaurs." Right... They weren't extinct like we initially thought they were (I had to look that up on wikipedia).
You thouth they were extinct because they only appear in your 65 million year ago era and no "record" since. Also, how do we know the floods were successive?
2-Strata are layered. If there had been just one massive flood, everything would have been deposited at the same time, in one fairly homogeneous layer made of all kinds of materials, the heavy stuff at the bottom (cause it sinks faster), and the light stuff at the top. We would find fossils in no specific order. Birds above and below dinosaurs, men above and below dinosaurs, etc. It would be a mess, but isn't. It's layered & ordered.
sediment orders itself once the waters are laid down: Yes, exactly, sediment orders itself from heavy at the bottom to light at the top, and fossils would be in no particular order, except maybe for heavy at the bottom, and light at the top. Not what we see!
If creation were true, we would also expect to find birds in the earliest starta, since they apparently were created at the very beginning. We would also expect these earliest strata (meaning the oldest stratum that contains fossils) to be filled with fossils of modern species.
We would not expect to find atavism in animal genomes. Why should a whale have the gene to make legs, if the whale was created perfect in the first place?
We would expect to find evidence of the great flood, etc, etc.
Depends on how you date strata AND look at flood evidence. Strata itself is shown to be laid by water. Also, look at mesas. An indication of a previously higher land level. Also, what whale leg gene are we speaking of? (Plus I commend you for being the most open-minded atheist I've ever spoken to.)
Whale have a gene that is known to grow legs in other species, and that is not "expressed" in the whale. They basically have the genetic code to make legs. snakes have it too. Birds have the genetic code to make teeth, etc. These are called atavism. They're bits of information in the genome that are not expressed (I think that's what was called junk DNA, but I'm not 100% on that).
The dating of geologic strata is not as controversial as creationists claim it is.
I'm not sure how that's determined but I'll give you the benefit if the doubt. Probably features bred out. I see no problem with this. These aren't exactly smoking gun ties to inter-speceal (sic) changes. I bring the platypus into question of which tree he sprouted from. Mamal? Bird? Reptile (for poison)?
Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the platypus:
"monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups"
Notice how they say "is thought to". No propaganda there.
ahaha the eyes on the gorilla
XamericanX 9 months ago
Who said humans are the highest form of life? we just evolved inteligence where other animals gained speed or claws or whatever traits helped them best to survive
there are far more efffeciant forms of life on this planet
deathman1021 11 months ago
@deathman1021 Whales and dolphins have much bigger brains then us. We just lucked out with opposable thumbs.
lolcats121 7 months ago
@lolcats121 that doesnt mean their smarter than us
Most of their brains are made up of a special kind of brain matter specifically designed to keep the brain warm, we have some too but as we dont live in cold water we dont need nearly as much They are not as smart some people will tell you The size of the brain has no bearing at all on inteligence potential, my comment merely meant that while we evolved to survive the best way we can, so did everything else, and other lifeforms are better at it
deathman1021 7 months ago
Also, I'm not sure that this was said, but the banana was designed. It was designed by farmers over a few centuries.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
I wish I didn't need a body... or was invulnerable.
Ann Coulter was designed. She was born Albert Coulter... the doctors just designed her poorly. I mean I've seen more passable trannies with their giant cocks out.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
mollenth 1 year ago
Jay = "DERP DE DERP DE DERR DE DERR DERP DERR!"
prophetofpeace2010 1 year ago 2
this should have more hits
chrispaulforprez 1 year ago 2
I love how he uses dolphins as an example! LOL
PearlsBeforeSwine101 1 year ago 2
this so dumd
kirkgspencer 1 year ago
"Haha - the atheist nightmare - bitch!" Funny stuff! Christians can be so gullible...
TheRealSilentFury 1 year ago
Jay is such a douchebag. Great character!
DaveGrohI 1 year ago
I rather enjoyed that.. in a weird way.
Keep up the good work.
TooferMan 1 year ago
HEHEHE..
loved that Good Video man..
sayroni 2 years ago
no one is bitter as a theist that can't talk their way out of logic
sheppaul 2 years ago
Love the X-Men thing on mutation. :) LOL That's funny.
MaggieLovesJimmy 2 years ago
lol wen he said you hit me in the he sounded kinda jamaican lol
TheBuddha94 2 years ago
Look it completely different to say to act like gods because we came from god. Alright God didn't turn into people. Alright but evolution saids that monkeys turn into people. That's the difference
gigaboy47 2 years ago
gigaboy, your saying that if a monkey turned into a person, then the person should act like a monkey. Well why? If something turns into something else it acts like what it is not what it was. For instance, lets say I used to be a farmer, but I turned into a buisness man. Should I still act like a farmer? Whatever you came from or whatever you 'turned" into does not mean you should act like what you were.
KT45 2 years ago 8
yes and no. You should try to be but you would. If you came from the country (farmer) and went to the city (businessman) you would still have the ascent of country.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
No but the buisness man would not be a farmer anymore. A farmer is someone whose job is to farm. If he stops farming he is no longer a farmer. You say but he still has an accent. 1st an accent does not make a farmer. 2nd showing signs that you used to be a farmer doesn't make you one. Question. Would you tell a butterfly to act like a caterpillar because it came from a caterpillar? Would you tell a man to act like a child because he use to be one? You act like what you are not what you were
KT45 2 years ago 10
Look your confuse first of all I wouldn't tell him to do anything. second you that according to my logic the business man would be a farmer. That not what I'm saying. Ok and you was talking about an adult coming from a kid. Alright yea they are times in adults lifes were they act like kids. I do it you do it we all do it. Every once and a while we may missspelled a simple word. We may get mad and act like a kid. We may have and think about simple math probles because we simply forget the awsner.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
In saying that we still sometimes act like kids you actually proved the point man. Even though you didn't want to and you don't even control your own stream of thaughts as I see in other comments, but anyways...We have common behaviour features as kids (because that's us back in the days) and we also have similar behaviours with apes too. Social life, food, emotions and I could go on. We just evolved different way. They certainly are not the same they used to be. Each species evolves. It's easy.
JohnnyLee18 2 years ago
No it doesnt. Humans are a type of ape which is a type of monkey. Human are a type of monkey. Human are still monkeys.
In this case it doesn't matter if evolution is true, we would still be monkeys.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
I agree we are a type of age. I don't believe however we came from apes or monkey. Just because we are a type of something doesn't mean we came from it. You even said we are a type of ape. Evolution doesn't say we came from ape it saids ape came from monkeys and that we came from monkeys. However it does not say we came from apes or vice versa. So why think we came from monkeys Second of all if you say we came from monkeys your bacially telling someone to act like a monkey.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Evolution says we are a branch of the ape family which it's self is a branch of the monkeys. Not all monkeys act the same way. We have the transitional forms. And your missing the point.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
No I believe you are you tried to make a point and make me believe evolution. That is what all you evolutionist do you conterdict yourselves all the time. FIrst you say no that is not right because blah, blah, blah. Then you end up proving are point.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
An example please. Evolutionist isn't a word. Lets see we have transitional forms, observed speciation in mordern times, the fossil record, embryology and taxonomy.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Ok the fossil record proves Noah's flood
gigaboy47 2 years ago
No it doesn't. For example ignore all of the other problems with noah's flood 40 days and 40 nights just isn't long enough.
Try over 1000 years.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
what are you talking about.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Its very simple 40 days nad 40 nights (960 hours) just isn't long enough.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
um.......you have no concept of evolution...
Please stop, as usual, the creationists have no idea..
OSHUNLIDE 2 years ago 2
If you don't believe in transition forms of species, look at your own pictures from being kid until now and tell me if you will see yourself EXACTLY evolving on one of them...No, but it is very strong implication that with all analogy and all features of your character it is you and record of your growing up. The same with fossils of your human kind. It just fits and we don't need to see it transforming, it just makes sense and therefore makes bible irrelevant and wrong.If you want truth, study.
JohnnyLee18 2 years ago
No my science teacher told me that.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Your science teacher is an idiot if you get your ideas from him/her.
Feralus69 2 years ago
@gigaboy47 we did not fucking evolve from fn monkeys. Common family tree and branches off
party489 1 year ago
@gigaboy47 Monkeys don't turn into people. We did share a common ancestor. Also we are most close to chimps and both belong to the group of apes. Monkeys split off much longer ago when primates split between new world monkeys, old world monkeys and apes.
insainbassist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gigaboy47 Monkey's did not "turn" into people.
1234yersiman 8 months ago
The banana is a particularly hilarious creationist method of attack.
"Look how easily it fits into the human hand...how smoothly the skin peels away...God designed it perfectly for us to eat!"
One word:
Pineapple.
garethac81 2 years ago 7
LOL! If creationists were smart, they'd know that the banana wouldn't exist if it didn't evolve from plantains, back in 1805, and human intervention didn't keep it growing, so we'd have it today.
gir908922 1 year ago
@garethac81 one word: penis. because it fits in the human hand too.
prophetofpeace2010 1 year ago
That is a great vid... An awsome vid... Amazing vid... I cant decide which one it is because It rocked
charleshasideas 2 years ago
thanks for the laugh
sheppaul 2 years ago
"Haha! The atheist nightmare, BITCH!!" ROFLMAO!
rharding08 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAH
irsyffe 2 years ago
"Just b/c it looks designed doesn't mean it IS designed." I used this on a creationis friend who was using that beach analogy. Know what he said? "No, I don't think it goes both ways." Lame huh?
hike132 2 years ago 3
I'm glad that something I wrote came to some use!
KT45 2 years ago
lol hahahaha... lol this is racist. the guy is a white male .lolololol... mwahahaha...
MORE!! MOAR!! MAWR!!
Nades129 2 years ago
or ann culter lol
jdbasq 2 years ago
How has this not gotten more views than that?????
french0atheist 2 years ago
That black guy has some dumb friends. I envy him, I have no tolerance for people that stupid.
coerce1 2 years ago
Jawesome to the max. Five stars.
qdogg224 2 years ago
lol
bargains002 2 years ago
hahhahaah
ReasonTide 2 years ago
The banana hahaha
Killua2001 3 years ago 2
this is stupid funny!!!!! and a mixture of either/or.
Penlord 3 years ago
Hahahaha the banana.
And Ann Coulter.
Hahahaha
I love you, man.
Jma0322 3 years ago
LMAO he bought out the atheist nightmare.
hpufo 3 years ago
It's unbelievable that people still don't understand evolution. I mean people should stop debating about evolution, and start talking about quarks, photons, neutrinos and electromagnetism and gravity etcetera etcetera.
captainbeer3 3 years ago 10
Ehhh... THe first one was better, methinks.
This one was good, just not as good. You made the Christian too much of a prick.
andymcgaha 3 years ago
I love the part with the banana!
bluepenguins2709 3 years ago
Lol "ok KT, you made me do it. The ultimate proof. Tada!"
jayres86 3 years ago
LMFAO.
THE APE AND BABY.
LOL sorry i have a childish sense of humour.
This is ffunnyy
Bonsbooty 3 years ago 2
Hilarious.
willmeditateforfood 3 years ago
i think its time for religion to come up with a more convincing story
pencherocskull 3 years ago
This is wonderful. Creationists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. They actually believe in all the magic things done in the bible. They believe that god killed millions of innocent people, including children, in the old testament. I grew up christian and believed this myself! I had guilt and constant fear (hellfire, rapture).I spent 15 years studying theology and am now a happy, loving atheist. Thank you so much for this posting.I am afraid to "come out" to my family about my beliefs.
pammer12345 3 years ago
rofl, "do you even know what a theory is?"
"a guess"
"how about a hypothesis?"
"a guess!"
"both of those are scientific terms, so they should be different"
I laughed harder than at any other point of the video (the quotes may not be precise, I'm sorry if i can't be bothered to go back and make a direct quoting)
Cyllid 3 years ago
OH FUCK, OH SHIT! Man that ending had me belly laughing!!! "The Atheist's nightmare...BITCH!"
lordsenneian 3 years ago
Omg! It's the banana! Runnnn!
BlizBob 3 years ago
Man in my first post I had a lot of typos...mah baddd.
*videos
*buddists
*Christians
Bahaha it's cold where I am, so my hands get really cold and I can't feel where I'm typing so I mispell stuff a lot.
IHugEmos 3 years ago
And lastly,
I'd like to say that this vid makes a lot of good points on behalf of athiests.
Much love to the poster!
IHugEmos 3 years ago
I should just make a video that makes fun of EVERYONE.
How about that?
Then everyone will be satisfied and everyone will be laughing.
EVERYONE.
JUST.
GET.
OVER.
YOURSELVES.
IHugEmos 3 years ago
Hey, really guys,
it's all in good fun.
I'm pretty sure there are videoes making fun of athiests too, and buddhits, and nihilists, everything.
Not all Christians's are mindless idiots,
but I have witnessed Christians in real life act like Jay,
but also other religious groups.
IHugEmos 3 years ago
I like how all these arrogant christians are getting their panties in a wad. Now you know how atheists feel all the time. Always being looked upon as stupid or evil. You guys can make all the videos, tv shows, radio shows, billboards, CHURCHES, and any other form of advertisement you want but when someone makes fun of christianity, everyone makes a big deal about it.
freeskier93 3 years ago
I am not a Christian but I do get annoyed with how Atheists portray Christians as mindless idiots. It's just as bad as when Christians portray Atheists as immoral sinners. Using stereotypes is terrible and defeats any possibility for both sides to coexist peacefully.
skylerlittleaxe 3 years ago
I hate how they make Christians look so stupid. I'm not slamming any atheist for believing what he or she wants, so don't slam me for believing what I want to believe. In other words, grow up. Really...
I see your point on how "religion" is so foolish, since that is what most of the world sees: the effects of "religion." But that is not how it is supposed to be. Being faithful to God does not imply following man-made rules and such. It means trusting him and knowing that he loves you.
MicrosoftWindowsGuy 3 years ago
Cheer up, man. It's not all religion this video makes fun of, it's creationists. If you're one of them, then get used to it, it comes with the territory. And if you're not, you can join the ranks of those who make fun of them.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Instead of acting arrogant how about you address the points that make God a joke and naturalism factual.
UC7media 3 years ago
I never said god was a joke. What I said was that creationism is a retarded bunch of absurd crap, and as such it is laughable. Not god. Creationism. 99.99% of scientists "believe" in evolution. 40% of them believe in god. Do the math. That means you can believe in god, and not be a creationist.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Ok then, since we're both reasonable in our assessment of the existence of reality maybe you can explain why creationism is a joke. Popular opinion?
UC7media 3 years ago
Science. Quickly put, here is how it goes:
Man knows nothing, man writes bible, man puts insane explanation of how the world was created in genesis, and everybody who believes in god is TOLD to believe is this as well. Fast forward 2000 years: An insane body of evidence supports evolution. hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies, with hard supporting evidence. Creationism is still, after 2000 years supported by no evidence whatsoever. And it had a head start. Logical conclusion?
french0atheist 3 years ago
That is an unfair, immature and highly tainted view. Name 1 bit of evidence that all life had one single cell common ancestor. And if man knows nothing, how come we can't figure out many technological and structural marvels of history? Why was the earth round in Isaiah 40:22 thousands of years before Galileo and yet man knew nothing? How did we know of air currents in Ecclesiastes 1:6 and yet know nothing? Hydro cycle in Psalm 135:7? It goes on and on. Man was intelligent in the beginning.
UC7media 3 years ago
those were enlightened times.
Man knows nothing = man doesn't know WHY there is wind, does not have an explanation for bad weather, bad crops, disease, floods, infertility, earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, etc, etc. And therefore he invents an explanation, which seemed perfectly good at the time... Time to wake up.
As for abiogenesis, there is plenty of evidence, seek it instead of hiding from it.
Now abiogenesis is not evolution. First understand what you're criticizing, then criticize.
french0atheist 3 years ago
First of all, I know abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues but are often tied together and both relate to naturalism. Second "those were enlightened times" is a just-so story and, as you put it, "inventing an explanation." How can I trust the judgement of someone who claims theism is wishful thinking and then uses simple imagination to write off a gradualistic evolutionary dilemma? Do consciousness and scientific laws such as gravity get mother goose stories too? How do those fit in?
UC7media 3 years ago
What do you mean by "gradualistic evolutionary dilemma"? How is a mountain range of supporting evidence "wishful thinking"? And at what point do scientists use their "imagination" to explain stuff?
french0atheist 3 years ago
"Name 1 bit of evidence that all life had one single cell common ancestor."
DNA. the study of genetics has shown beyond a doubt that the process of evolution (descent with modification) occurred. Look up ERVs, ring species, human Chromosome 2, junk DNA, and inactive tooth-growing genes in birds. Those (along with other pieces of evidence such the fossil record) show common ancestry as a FACT. You can disagree with the Theory of Evolution, but the process of evolution is a cold, hard fact.
califoniania 3 years ago
"Why was the earth round in Isaiah 40:22 thousands of years before Galileo(?)"
It says the Earth is a "circle", not a sphere, ball, or globe (which they had a word for back then); a circle is a 2-dimensional shape. Even if we ignore that and assume the Bible meant "globe", Greek mathematicians and sailors knew that the Earth was round WAY before the Bible and since the Bible had some influence from Greek mythology and thought, it wouldn't be surprising if it got in there.
califoniania 3 years ago
Junk DNA was refuted on indianaexpress(DOT)com
And all of this information loss and a highly misrepresented fossil record prove nothing. They never find fossils in that order in the actual field. Just in textbooks.
UC7media 3 years ago
Information loss? What are you talking about? Only deletion mutations cause a decrease in genetic information. The other main types of mutations either add information (insertions, duplications) or change it (substitution). Yes they do find fossils in evolutionary order out in the field: ammonites are ALWAYS found chronologically before dinosaurs and dinosaurs are ALWAYS chronologically before modern birds and mammals.
califoniania 3 years ago
Now, sometimes layers will be missing or the layers are inverted, but we still find fossils in chronological order and we can verify this through various, INDEPENDENT dating methods. Nothing is ever EXACTLY like the textbooks, in real life scientists have to do actual work in validating their theories, while creationists just crap on all of their hard work without providing any of their own. When's the last time creation had any real world application? Well?
califoniania 3 years ago
1. The context of the verse clearly represents the point of view from above, which would be a circle.
2. Where are there insertions? And duplication is duplication. If I read a book twice what was added the second time I read it?
3. Theists founded modern science and had to do ACTUAL WORK to do so. Darwin wasn't a scientist and knowledge comes with study. It's not a talent, it's a work in progress. Evolutonists try to validate 19th century philosophy, not practiced science.
UC7media 3 years ago
1. I can't prove that when they circle, they meant CIRCLE, but it's irrelevant for the very reason I stated afterward: the Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere before the Bible was written.
2. Strawman argument. Books don't reproduce themselves with mutations. If you want to know about insertion mutations, go to Wikipedia. Seriously, I'm not going to teach you high school science; if you're going to debate at least have a general idea about the subject area.
califoniania 3 years ago
(cont'd)
and yes a duplication is a duplication, but then toss a substitution on top of it and voila, new information. It's really that simple.
3. Yes, and there are still theists in science that contribute heavily (i.e. Ken Miller). I don't have a problem with THEISTS, I have a problem with CREATIONISTS, there's a BIG difference.
califoniania 3 years ago
(cont'd)
Darwin followed the scientific method, published his journals to peer review and founded a theory that has withstood heavy scrutiny, I'd say that qualifies him as a scientist. There is no philosophy to the Theory of Evolution; if you're referring to social Darwinism, that's not part of the theory at all; it's not even from Darwin. Frankly, ToE doesn't really belong to Darwin anymore; the thousands of scientists that questioned it and improved it deserve credit too.
califoniania 3 years ago
Darwin followed the scientific method? "Different finches die off due to disadvantage and environment, so all life must've came from a single cell." Also, Darwin was a Lamarkist i.e. diet and exercise made the life form what it was generation to generation.
UC7media 3 years ago
Ok, name a substitution resulting in new organs, features or instincts.
3. What have creationists done that defies actual studied processes?
UC7media 3 years ago
That's the thing, it's not one mutation that leads to a brand new organ. Features change and as they continue to change, they eventually take on new functionality. The creationist's favorite, the flagellum, is actually a good example of this. It started out as a passive transport system (a hole that allowed nutrients in), then evolved into a more active transport system, then it evolved to produce toxins, then into a small flagellum, and of course got longer until it reached ideal length.
califoniania 3 years ago
It happened in tiny, tiny steps; as the expression goes: the man that moves the mountain does it by carrying small stones; evolution tackles the mountainous task of developing new features using small steps. The Chihuahua and the Great Dane didn't just suddenly appear overnight, it took centuries of deliberate breeding.
3) Creationists start with their conclusion and then only collect the "evidence" that conforms to creation. Working completely backwards from the scientific method.
califoniania 3 years ago
Additionally, they deny just about every field of scientific study to justify their beliefs; fields such as biology, geology, physics, chemistry, dendrochronology, archaeology, history, organic chemistry, and paleontology.
4(?) Another strawman. Darwin didn't see finches and suddenly say "Dur, my grandfather was an amoeba" (as Kent Hovind would say). He studied the comparative anatomy of creatures, he saw unique adaptations, and he saw the mechanism for all of this to happen.
califoniania 3 years ago
He didn't just look at a bunch of finches and blurt out the first anti-God idea that came to mind. He studied other animals too, such as tortoises and pigeons. But don't take it from me, after all, science encourages us to do our own research. Go to different sites (not just creationist propaganda sites like Answers in Genesis) and read scientific journals, specifically about ERVs, ring species, human chromosome 2, and even breeding.
Just so you know, Microevolution IS evolution.
califoniania 3 years ago
Creationists do not deny every field of study: they utilize them but have different conclusions than "Look, a fossil that may have been the link between land and marina mammals simply due to shorter legs and a loglike body! Aren't we observant!?" Seriously, if that's not counter-objective nothing is. Even if creationists were all ignorant worms evolutionists would be no different except they say "only what we presently sense and detect is what could result in this." How would they know?
UC7media 3 years ago
Ok. Let's kick this bucket right now. I know it's lots of tiny tiny changes building up overtime to establish something that wasn't there many generations and populations back. But where is the study on flagellum development you speak of?
UC7media 3 years ago
1. Hebrews are older than Greeks and the Bible was spread orally beforehand.
2. Not strawman, parallel. Genes carry structured information. Mutations are only scramblings and duplication. Duplication by it's own nature is nothing new. Mutations also only deal with the pre-existing and have never, over any amount of time, offered anything new.
UC7media 3 years ago
1) That's debatable, but the Greeks had a functional and powerful civilization about 1000 years before the Hebrews. And yes, the Bible was recorded orally, therefore it wasvulnerable to being changed.
2) A dripping faucet doesn't fill a bathtub unless it's been dripping for a long, long time. Sure, each individual mutation isn't HUGE, but over time you get completely different features. DNA is not like a book at all.
califoniania 3 years ago
Also, I'm not Ham or Hovind or a typical creationist. However, I do know that when changes occur they always deal with pre-existing features that do not develop previously unheld abilities over any amount of time or bundle of small alterations. Darwin's conclusions on the grand-scale level are just as un-supported as before, but much more glorified 150 years later.
UC7media 3 years ago
"name a substitution resulting in new organs, features or instincts"
Ironically, since creationists love to bring it up, the eye is an excellent example of a new feature gradually developing over many generations. Google "evolution of the eye"... and try to look at the actual science instead of the ramblings of fellow creationists for once.
As for Darwin being a Lemarckist, that's to be expected given the absence of microbiology and genetics at the time. What's your excuse for your ignorance?
SergeantSplat 3 years ago
I've looked up a lot. Including a PBS video documenting more and more worthless speculation. "Well this organism has a more primitive photosensitive organ so the eye must've evolved from there. Who wants doughtnuts?" If that's the opposite of ignorance I embrace folly in the highest extent. The existence of a lesser isn't necessarily the ancestor of the greater. Let me ask you, does it profit you to be arrogant and condescending? How exactly do you benefit from a bad representation?
UC7media 3 years ago
"Let me ask you, does it profit you to be arrogant and condescending?"
Creationists tend to distort science, quote mine, misrepresent and flat out lie. These things get me testy. I try to keep my calm but, alas, I am but human.
"The existence of a lesser isn't necessarily the ancestor of the greater."
Correct. But that's not what it's supposed to show. It merely shows that such features CAN evolve gradually since functional intermediates exist. That they DID is shown by fossils and genetics.
SergeantSplat 3 years ago
Evo's and Creo's are both human and both can and do lie to support their idea. You have the power to be civil and backspace.
2nd. DNA and Fossils follow suit of the exact same thinking. "This fossil has this and this fossil has more of it. ANCESTRY!" or "This DNA sequence can be seen here and here in both organisms. ANCESTRY." First demonstrate the process giving the result. Then you can tell me what the result is. And I mean major change overtime.
UC7media 3 years ago
If it was merely two, three, four fossils that happened to exhibit that pattern, I'd agree the conclusion of "ANCESTRY!" would not be appropriate.
But it's ALL of them. Countless fossils all fitting into a nested hierarchy, just as you'd expect from an ancestry tree. And they're not placed arbitrarily just to fit the pattern either. Sorted by time, they still all fit. I'm sorry, but reducing that to "This fossil has this and this fossil has more of it. ANCESTRY!" is just disingenuous.
SergeantSplat 3 years ago 2
Much the same goes for genetic comparisons. I invite you to watch (/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg), where a biologist explains this, among other things, much better than I could.
The process has also been demonstrated. DNA replication, as well as how mutations sneak in, has been reverse engineered and we now understand exactly how it works. And lots of small changes in short periods of time obviously lead to major changes over long periods of time.
What more do you want? A time machine?
SergeantSplat 3 years ago
How major a change are we talking about? We're not treading over the blind cave fish ground, are we?
UC7media 3 years ago
I'm speaking of how the layering and in many cases environmental setting in which the fossils are found do not match up. Marine invertibrate fossils in the Himilayas for instance. If they appeared consistently in that order with conclusive reason for classification OF such orders then it would be much different.
UC7media 3 years ago
You're kidding right? What about atavism, ERVs, chromosome 2? You're also discounting almost the entire fossil record (there wasn't much to work with 150 years ago). What about the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies with findings all consistent with the theory of evolution? And the fact that nobody has ever put forth any factual evidence that would contradict evolution? Logical conclusion?
french0atheist 3 years ago
Contradict evolution? Not when you can fit it on every scenario. "How did flying in V-formation for energy saving and aerodynamic flight patters arise? Genetic drift, mutation, selection etc. doesn't touch instinct."
" I guess your "God" did it Bwah wah haha. On to the next question."
"How did light, fragile ocean floor organisms ever survive to withstand tens to hundreds of G's of water pressure?"
"What is this? 60 minutes? Where are the people here to congratulate me?"
UC7media 3 years ago
That's not really what I'm talking about. Evolution of species and behavioral evolution maybe related, but the latter doesn't prove the former. It supports it however. Just one more thing, however far fetched, which supports evolution.
Again, where is the evidence AGAINST evolution? You should be able to produce some if evolution is nothing but wild speculations. I think you can search for a long long time, and never find anything substantial. Again, the conclusion is?
french0atheist 3 years ago
The truth is you can't look at the way nature is set up and separate the two. Look at bees and polination, and the male/female reproductive system. If there weren't corresponding, precise and correct instinctual reactions to actions, counterpart cycles and chemicals neither of those would exist, and yet both are essential to life on this planet in huge ways spanning millions of species.
UC7media 3 years ago
Right, you can't separate the two. But that's not in itself an argument against evolution. Instinct is not readily quantifiable, and has definitely not been link to genome information as of yet. If it was quantifiable though, how do you suggest it would be used as an argument against evolution?
Then of course the next question is: are there actual scientific finds that contradict evolution? Not as far as I know. Are there any that seem to contradict it? Is it enough to refute it? To improve it?
french0atheist 3 years ago
Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest (determined by the processes mentioned earlier) and many systems go in the opposite direction. Metamorphosis: What's so beneficial to be hanging helpless in a cocoon for a while for predators to devour you? Especially considering the generations in which it wasn't perfected. Also how many organisms independently figured out heterosexual life, raising young, defending young, sharing food, etc. Those are just two examples you might want to clear
UC7media 3 years ago
Ok, finally a valid argument! Yes, certain processes my seem like they're not beneficial, like the cocoon. But really what is the alternative for that species? And was the alternative more beneficial, or is it a wash? Don't forget that some species develop traits that seem detrimental (like humans having a more dangerous birth than their ape relatives), but are really the result of a beneficial trait (in our case, the big brain). Most of natural selection happens by positive trade-off.
french0atheist 3 years ago
The problem isn't so much the "result" but the journey and the touchstones therein. Let's even say it's somehow beneficial (even though there are infinite alternatives) how did it even develop? How did it know it had silk (if you will), know how to use it? know it has to stay there for a while? how did that even begin to result in a butterfly? how did it know what it's wings were for and how to fly over many generations lacking? and THEN independently know how, when and where to migrate?
UC7media 3 years ago
Actually, that's another good point. How come no matter what new feature arises instinct is there to take full advantage of it? It could be the other way around too, but I don't know the process by which it could happen. I'll look that up, I'm not an expert. Also, there may not currently be an explanation. Science doesn't know everything, or else we wouldn't be having this debate.
french0atheist 3 years ago
The more answers science gives opens more aspects to how God made the world. A misconception 1. is that Christians think miracles are responsible for everyday actions (while indirectly true) and 2. somehow nature explains it's own origins. You may look at the immune system and see evolution but I ask you how the immune system could have evolved before the need for it came or vice versa? Why exactly do you endorse atheism over other aspects?
UC7media 3 years ago
It's not really an endorsement... When people ask me why I don't believe in god, I don't say anything, because the answer is a bit harsh.
As far as evolution goes, it's really very simple. I never questioned it until I came to the US. Then I started looking into the debate, and I have yet to hear one real argument against evolution, whereas there is a mountain of evidence against creation, and in support of evolution, and an old earth. Creationists have done nothing to prove their theory.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Old earth/ young earth I can't speak of. I have no knowledge there. However, how much research of the other side have you done from their own basis? What would be a real argument against evolution? What would they have to topple?
UC7media 3 years ago
Everything that has been found so far in genome mapping... ERVs are pretty much a confirmation of common ancestry. So is chromosome 2.
The main problem with the creationist side isn't so much that they're not able to refute evolution. It's that they're not able to find a shred of evidence for their own side. Proving evolution wrong would not alone make creation right. It's not even half the battle in fact. So again: Why are they not putting any effort into it? Where is their research?
french0atheist 3 years ago
Here's something we all learn about science. There's always an aspect we're missing. If chromosome 2 and ERVs are common/ similar then that's all it is until further study. Also: The difference is we believe creation happened ONCE. You believe evolution happens all the time (just incredibly slow). By it's very nature any evidence we would give is basically redundant. "How did this get here." "It was made; it's here, isn't it?" What would be evidence for creation to you? Symbiosis?
UC7media 3 years ago
lookup ERVs (endogenous retroviruses), then tell me if you think their incidence in the exact same places of both the human and chimp genome are a coincidence.
If creation were true, then we would expect to find a certain number of things: Human fossils in all strata, new or old. We don't find human fossils in strata older than 70,000 to 100,000 years old. We find very human looking hominid fossils in strata older than that, but none in strata where we find humans...
french0atheist 3 years ago
Genes change and become lost. What may be human like could probably be human (or maybe fully ape) but never partial if we're being honest. I will look ERV's up though, even if viruses are a whole different issue. Also, humans break suit from the natural world completely. They're not suited for environments. They have to make their own.
UC7media 3 years ago
...In how species show up, then disappear, to be replaced by species very similar, who then disappear, and are replaced in turn. Chronologically, 6 day-creation doesn't fit this evidence. Constant intervention of god in creation would fit it fine though (most widely adhere to belief among creationists outside the US apparently). Evolution also fits fine with it. But 6-day creation is simply not compatible with it.
Genes becoming lost is a common misconception among creationists...
french0atheist 3 years ago
Environments have certain specifications to fit. It's only fitting that similar animals could move in and even overtake other populations. I'm confused. How can we prove or disprove a 6-day creation?
UC7media 3 years ago
6 day creation disproved by new species appearing progressively over extended periods of time, instead of all species being found in all geologic strata. Some say it's a coincidence, but the odds of that being true are... almost null.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Buoyancy, habitat, speed of the flood's overtaking (which only reached it's peak at 5 months and lasted over a year) and location during the flood are factors to take into account. Logically, mammals and birds arising from repltiles is mind boggling alone. Lung system, feathers, mammary glands, migration patterns etc. We've found sloth fossils in a supposedly marine era of time. It would only be fitting for others to die off due to being unable to adapt to the new and drastic changes.
UC7media 3 years ago
"Buoyancy, habitat, speed of the flood's overtaking"... Fine, where are the scientific studies supporting it? Really, we go around in circles. A global flood would leave a very distinct mark. Are you thinking worldwide scientific conspiracy? You really need to get over the flood story. Every mythology has one. The logical answer is that floods happen all the time. Small, big, and ultra big ones. It's not hard to think the survivors would have exaggerated their proportions.
french0atheist 3 years ago
I brought mesas into question. Marine invertibrates on the tops of the himilayas. And yes, every culture has a story of a worldwide flood. Many involving a man, his family and a boat with animals. POSSIBLY, just POSSIBLY they're not independently uniformly wrong. I'm thinking worldwide scientific conspiracy, but not the one you're thinking ;)
UC7media 3 years ago
The marine fossils in the Himalayas are explained by plate tectonic. Or is that also a point of contention?
If it had been due to a global flood, we'd also be finding the same fossils in all the american mountain ranges (which we don't), in all african mountain ranges (which we don't) and basically in every mountain range, and everywhere else on earth. But it's not the case is it?
So what's your conspiracy theory?
french0atheist 3 years ago
Even if it raised from the bottom since it's still within the TOP layers tectonics are irrelevant.
UC7media 3 years ago
1. Those marine organisms where indeed at the bottom of the ocean a long time ago (bear with me for notknowing the dates out of my head) If mountains fold in colliding continental plates or similar, layers are broken up and folded upwards. Erosion does the rest. Not a miracle, but easily explained.
About the flood story: Why does that matter? if we don't see sufficient evidence for the aftermath of a ww. flood it did not happen- actually we se NO evidence typical for a flood, let go a worldwide
Valvallaria 3 years ago
2.) Or the evolutionary expectations of life's development?
What has that to do with noahs flood? Evolution is about adapting to the enviorment, not evolving into some high, mangical beings or something.
3.) "still within the TOP layers tectonics are irrelevant. "
No it's not. As I can see from you sentence, you have no actual clue how mountains fold. In general, mountains are of older rock layers than the rest around it, although they formed more recently.
Valvallaria 3 years ago
The reason for that are the older rocklayers on the bottom, which are pushed up first and more rapidly than the others on top, thus what you see are at the foot of a mountain some more recent layer, while the older, deeper layer cross the them and surpass them the higher you go.
Valvallaria 3 years ago
valvallaria answers that in his comment.
What you now need to answer is why these marine fossils are not found in every other mountain range on the face of this planet if they were all once submerged. Does that not strike you as odd? It strikes me as not consistent with a ww flood, but consistent with how we think the himalayas were formed.
You are disregarding evidence, not disproving it.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Here's a video I found (second time this comment disappears!). It explains very well what I was saying about fossils and where they are found in the ground. It explains atavism too:
"Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils)"
french0atheist 3 years ago
Check that video's comment section.
UC7media 3 years ago
... Genetic mutations can reduce the amount of genomic information, but that's not all they do. They can also mix it up, and they can increase it (usually by copying an existing portion of it, and putting the copy somewhere else). The creationist argument stems from our inability to observe beneficial mutations first hand. But not seeing something happening isn't a proof it didn't happen. Seeing the results of it however (in genome mapping) is supporting evidence (not proof).
french0atheist 3 years ago
Ah, so that's what increase means in evo speech. And we have seen mutations with benefits. There was a German baby who was super strong due to a mutation (but physically speaking that's only accenting current structures.) Where has copy and paste resulted in a completely new and functional organ, feature or instinct?
UC7media 3 years ago
Yes, we've seen some beneficial mutations. CCR5 is a good example.
"Where has copy and paste resulted in a completely new and functional organ, feature or instinct?" A mutation big enough to create that would more than likely be lethal. Mutations are baby steps. The transition from fish to amphibian started with one more degree of freedom for the belly fin. Then theye got bigger, stronger. One articulation was added, then a second one, etc, etc, until a fin became a leg-like limb. Baby steps.
french0atheist 3 years ago
I am very familiar with the baby step idea and no longer (for a while now) adress it as micro and macro. Rather, "changes that matter and changes that don't." Your last couple sentences beg more than a mental slide show. You're supposing based on naturalistic philosophy rather than what anyone has repeated or documented. You figure a follow of suit in a direction never seen taken.
UC7media 3 years ago
The same is also true for every other animal species. Their fossils appear then disappear, replaced by species very similar, which weren't there before. then these disappear, replaced by slightly different species that can't be found in earlier strata. That's evidence for evolution. If creation were true, we would expect to find these slightly different species in the same strata, showing they coexisted. Or not find any "slightly different" species at all.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Again, it depends on how and why we determine what is earlier and what is not. Fossilization itself is a whole other can of worms. We find coelocanths where there is no "modern" record past dinosaurs.
UC7media 3 years ago
And even if the actual age of each stratum were up to debate, we still know the deeper strata are older than those laying on top of them, since they were formed by successive floods. We can therefore establish a chronology, no matter what the actual ages of the strata are.
"We find coelocanths where there is no "modern" record past dinosaurs." Right... They weren't extinct like we initially thought they were (I had to look that up on wikipedia).
Either way, there is an apparent order...
french0atheist 3 years ago
You thouth they were extinct because they only appear in your 65 million year ago era and no "record" since. Also, how do we know the floods were successive?
UC7media 3 years ago
We know the floods were successive because:
1-They still are.
2-Strata are layered. If there had been just one massive flood, everything would have been deposited at the same time, in one fairly homogeneous layer made of all kinds of materials, the heavy stuff at the bottom (cause it sinks faster), and the light stuff at the top. We would find fossils in no specific order. Birds above and below dinosaurs, men above and below dinosaurs, etc. It would be a mess, but isn't. It's layered & ordered.
french0atheist 3 years ago
When the Bible accounts for a flood it's much more massive than hurricane katrina. It was worldwide and tremendous.
Also, sediment orders itself once the waters are laid down. Even the tired Mt. St. Helens arguements sub-lake trees give testament to that.
UC7media 3 years ago
sediment orders itself once the waters are laid down: Yes, exactly, sediment orders itself from heavy at the bottom to light at the top, and fossils would be in no particular order, except maybe for heavy at the bottom, and light at the top. Not what we see!
french0atheist 3 years ago
Let's ask the marine sloth fossil what he thinks. Or observe the cambrian explosion.
UC7media 3 years ago
Not sure what the cambrean explosion has to do with noahs flood.
Valvallaria 3 years ago
Or the evolutionary expectations of life's development?
UC7media 3 years ago
If creation were true, we would also expect to find birds in the earliest starta, since they apparently were created at the very beginning. We would also expect these earliest strata (meaning the oldest stratum that contains fossils) to be filled with fossils of modern species.
We would not expect to find atavism in animal genomes. Why should a whale have the gene to make legs, if the whale was created perfect in the first place?
We would expect to find evidence of the great flood, etc, etc.
french0atheist 3 years ago
Depends on how you date strata AND look at flood evidence. Strata itself is shown to be laid by water. Also, look at mesas. An indication of a previously higher land level. Also, what whale leg gene are we speaking of? (Plus I commend you for being the most open-minded atheist I've ever spoken to.)
UC7media 3 years ago
Whale have a gene that is known to grow legs in other species, and that is not "expressed" in the whale. They basically have the genetic code to make legs. snakes have it too. Birds have the genetic code to make teeth, etc. These are called atavism. They're bits of information in the genome that are not expressed (I think that's what was called junk DNA, but I'm not 100% on that).
The dating of geologic strata is not as controversial as creationists claim it is.
...
french0atheist 3 years ago
I'm not sure how that's determined but I'll give you the benefit if the doubt. Probably features bred out. I see no problem with this. These aren't exactly smoking gun ties to inter-speceal (sic) changes. I bring the platypus into question of which tree he sprouted from. Mamal? Bird? Reptile (for poison)?
UC7media 3 years ago
Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the platypus:
"monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups"
Notice how they say "is thought to". No propaganda there.
french0atheist 3 years ago
i love the idea that god created the univeserse who created god
he always existed....nothing "just EXISTED"
come up with some facts and we'll talk
NO EXCUSES!!
Mokenofrs 3 years ago