The worst thing about Ray Comfort isn't that he doesn't understand evolution, it's that he refuses to. Anyone can deny real evidence, the question is, why? It's too late for Comfort to re evaluate his world view. He simply can't afford to reverse all the damage he has done which is reinforcing all those ignorant people out there about their bias views. He will never get it, he will never know what unbias research is, he will never know logic....he once said that he isn't dishonest he just...
I love your evolution videos! I love seeing all the connections laid out so clearly. This is the kind of thing I've always wished they would show on Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel. The history of evolution on Earth is so vast and interesting! It would make amazing TV.
I don't even know where Ray gets it. I attended catholic school even, almost 30 years ago no less,and have never heard such stupid shit in my life. They seem to going backwards if that's even possible. lol
@Aronra: Aron at 1:10 you make a comparison of the question posited by creationists about apes still existing too wolves and dogs, but isnt this an inaccurate comparison, as modern monkeys are not direct ancestors but cousins of ours who share a recent common ancestor? whereas a dog has a direct lineage to the still existing wolf...i just feel this may possibly confuse creationists who ACTUALLY think scientists believe we evolved from modern monkeys we see in the wild and in the zoo. thankyou
ummm the Chow Chow is classified as a Spitz breeds to which neither the Shi Tzu nor the Pekineses belong. so I don't think they are descending from the Chow Chow (although pet dogs taxonomy is based almost solely on morphology and opinion).
dude! that "if dogs came from wolves, why do we still have wolves" is great, I'm definitely going to be using that one in the future instead of the why do we still have Europeans one
I gave someone this example and how mutation really is possible but his response was "but it still a dog!" This coming from someone that thinks evolution's theory claims that a human was born from a monkey... sigh, I decided to move on.
Humans WERE born to monkeys. Your mother is a monkey! You are a monkey! Humans are apes and monkeys and mammals and vertebrates and animals and eukaryotes!
Humans were NOT born from a chimpanzee, lemure, orangutan, spider monkey, gorilla, squirrel monkey...
I currently live in the San Diego area and am posing as one of Ray Comforts followers. Just for shits and giggles mostly, but on a more serious note I can honestly say that he is one of the most evil men of our time. The sheer amount of lies and the price his followers have to pay are steep and irreparable. It seems every time I see him, he is always milking someone dry of their money. It bugs me that all I can do is sit and watch, for the moment I object to ANYTHING is the moment they suspect.
"A dog was blind millions and millions of years and now he can see..." And the sole reason a dog has eyes to find a bitch that suddenly appeared to fuck? Seems to me that the numskull doesn't believe in wolves, or doesn't know they exist, so he makes that asinine argument to reject evolution.
LOL, Oh my tooth-fairy, can't believe that guy said that.
Is it true that cats and dogs share a common ancestor? I heard that they had a common ancestor called mineacus. Is that true? please forgive me if I spelled the name of that animal wrong. I don't how to spell it. Have a good night.
Shit i learned in my first year in high school, that all of us "Start" as "females"(looking like ones), then we develop reproductive organs according to our chromosomes. Ray is a disgrace to everything science stands for.
The asshole in it for money, what else. *spits on the ground*
@mihaimoldo Well, even more stupid is that he thinks a single dog evolved. It would have to have been a group or groups of wolves, isolated from other wolves, perhaps in different areas than wolves, for quite a few generations before they might become a new species.
@Spocktacular96 I'm 14 and have decided to pursue a career in biology. I want to separate myself as far as possible from Creationists. I have AronRa to thank for getting me interested in it.
Not that it's hard to have a better understanding of evolution then THAT buffoon.
Although really bananaman has been TOLD (multiple times) where he's wrong, and he still repeates the same lies, even though he always claims he hasn't knowingly told a lie since he found jeebus.
And even worse, bananaman is actually one of the more BENIGN creationists probably. (Which shows you just how bad the rest of these guys are.)
Ray Comfort apologized for the banana ilustration, but, man, that didnt make him any less stupid. I'm amazed how ignorant someone can be. It's an embarrasment, christians should stand up and shut this imbecile, it's making them look like fools.
His apology was backhanded and ridiculous, claiming that he didn't realize the banana had been so hybridized, and utterly denying it had evolved. The banana is NOT hybridized. Hybridization is when two species, such as a plum and an apricot, are bred with each other. The banana was instead artificially selected by man TO EVOLVE a certain way. Ray HASN'T apologized, and CAN'T HAVE, because he STILL doesn't understand HOW he was wrong, and won't ever admit it if he does.
Sir, I can read phylogenetic trees, but I'm not aware of the meaning of the numbers on either side of the divergence lines. For example, at 6:22, at the split between domesticated dog and grey wolf, there are the numbers 93 and 100 above and below the line respectively. What do they mean? What informaiton does that share?
Likewise, going back one step in that same brach, I see a 78/100 between wolves and coyote. If there's a quick explanation, I welcome it.
you should put these on DVD and send them to ray, or announce to churches that you're going to teach them about "what evolutionists believe" make it sound like you're on their side so they let you go and show these to them, maybe even make a presentation deceptively like what they were expecting whilst showing them the evidence :P
I took a crap yesterday, which became a new species. It had eyes, ears, a mouth etc. which was good because it had to find a female. Beating all odds, it found a crap that was simultaneously taken in India which had the exact same DNA (substitute). They had a baby and named it Ray Comfort. Common sense.
Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History.Replyed re his book & No trans. fossil pics in it~"If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
@ncwdane Alright I'll prove it to you. I'll have you point out the transitional species yourself. Pick any lineage, and from that any descendant species you like. Then select whatever level ancestor species you want us to look, or time period to look in. I'll let you predict what should be found based on what we know, and then you can describe exactly what we should find if -and only if- evolution is true. Then I'll show you whatever it is you're looking for. Will that convince you?
@AronRa Archeoptrix/T-rex , wheres the Gradual developmental fossils leading to the ones we have or away
as in a couple from a few million yrs earlier & several say 2-4 million yrs apart where you know its the same species, but 2- 4 million yrs less evolved/4-8 8-12 , 12 to 16, 16 , to 20 & so forth, as I know we have 9 last I heard of archeotrix & 28 I think t-rexes & all are in the same time bracket 10's no 1-9's less evolved & no j/q/k's more evolved
@ncwdane We actually do have a fairly complete sequence of therapods showing the procession to archaopteryx and now another one leading to tyrannosaurs as well. Some of the smaller, older species of tyrannosaurs are now known to have had down like ducklings!
@AronRa Well Aron, I have seen pictures of Most of the 9 Archeoptryix & many of the 25+ t-rexes & believe if Evolution were true, obvious fossils just short of the Mtemorphic stages we have found would indeed outnumber the ones all found at the same stage, However, I would be happy to examine something more than just artist illistrations if you have them or could post a sight i can see some pictures of these alledged finds if they are water tight evidence of Obvious trans pics of same creatures
@ncwdane When I said tyrannosaurs, I wasn't just talking the largest species of that group, the T-rex. I was talking about a series of prior, lesser ones like Dilong paradoxus. And when I talked about transitions *to* archeopteryx, I obviously wasn't referring to that species itself of the fluid sequence of transitions leading up to it. A good illustration of this is shown with taxonomic references five minutes into my video, 'Falsifying Phylogeny'. /watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU&feature=related
@AronRa well, I went to your video & I saw "Illustrations"!!!, we have 9 "Rock Solid" archeoptryix creatures, & lots of pictures of the actual fossils, NO ILLUSTRATIONS Necessary, the law of averages alone, like picking out random cards from a deck, tells you your not gonna draw a 10 outta the deck everytime unless the deck only has 10's in it, I asked for you to produce the pics of the fluid fossil finds leading up to the 9 finds we have which should be in ubandant (if) EVOLUTION were true :-/
@ncwdane " I asked for you to produce the pics of the fluid fossil finds leading up to the 9 finds we have which should be in ubandant (if) EVOLUTION were true :-/" No, because fossils form very rarely and so it is unlikely, if not impossible that we get EVERY change EVER for EVERY species. The Phylogenetic trees are constructed at the species level not that of the individuals. If you watched the final episode in this series you'd understand. That is if you even bothered to listen.
@Gibbons3457 Oh yeah, but we always find so many at the same quasi "stage" , you say it is rare, & yet once we find a creature, all the rest of the creatures found are metamorphically the same FOR THAT "KIND" like the 9 archeoptryix, the very 2nd one found shoulda been more or less evolved.. OK lets say you drew 2-10's in a row, then the 3rd one shoulda been more or less evolved, same w/ 25 t-rexes, yet you argue its rare to find every stage, OK, so say ya dont draw a 7 or a 3, wheres the others
@ncwdane You're not very bright. The reason all of the species look similar to each other is because if they were too different they will be classified as a DIFFERENT species. What is your definition of MORE or LESS evolved. Why don't you understand the line: FOSSILS ARE RARE, so it's completely illogical for you to ask for anywhere near as many fossils as you demand. Either you ask for that many because you are stupid or deliberately setting ridiculous targets. Watch the last of this series.
@Gibbons3457 On the Contrary it is you who are not to bright, you say fossils are rare & ret we have 9 at one stage,! lets say those 9 were at stage 8.3 on a base 10 scale 1-10 w/ 1-10 decimal points, throw out the 1-4's cause as you said at that point we'd be argueing if it was the same creature even, but some that ar Close, say 6.2 or 7.1 or more evolved than the 9 we find, say a 8.9 or a 9.2 , something close say an 8.2 cause to clost to 8.3 might look to close to the same, odds all are 8,3?
@ncwdane Again, what is it you mean by "MORE" or "LESS" evolved, that statement doesn't make sense. Out of a population of [hundred] thousand+, we have only found 9 fossils (archaeopteryx) and 30 fossils (T Rex) and we have documented examples of creatures exhibiting more primitive versions of features held by these creatures and creatures with more specialised features e.g The feathers and wings of Icthyornis, (which is pretty much a full bird, but a bird with teeth) compared to Archaeopteryx
@Gibbons3457 "More or Less evolved" seems you kinda answered your own question but common sense would tell ya, Less evolved would be "Less primative" creatures (Less evolved) & More advanced in its Quasi evolutionary progression years later(more evolved).... even though Creatures such a trilobites have some of the most complex eyes ever, to get to the jest of the conversation, were looking for finds 1 million 2 million 3 & 4 million yrs old & so on which would show obvious expected finds (IF)..
@ncwdane Glad you clarified the fat you are a complete moron. Less primitive would mean MORE evolved, but it doesn't mean that either and never did. Because you cannot have a more primitive version of the same species, you have different families of species with the older ones USUALLY being more primitive than the newer species (it's not always the case but that's the general trend), you will not find a species that is "more evolved" than another individual of the same species. Get an education.
@Gibbons3457 Oh yeah a double negative I do stand corrected on the more primitve is less evolved, but why'd you ask ? anyways why is it the Most evolved creatures is the 1st find, you say we cant find a more evolved creature, what are the odds we always ONLY find the last yrs they existed, I think not, why wouldnt you find something 1. 2. 3. or 4 million yrs More advanced than the 1st find at times..... & for sure 1, 2, 3, or 4-150 millin years less evolved at random intervals, bet ya...comt.
@ncwdane Bet ya that next two finds, the10th & 11th of archeoptrix, are NOT at random intervals of somthing Near what we have in the privious 9 finds of say 1-20 million yrs prior, in other words something close enough to Obviously be a "MORE" Primative find of the same speicies at an earlier stage, & yet close enough to know its the same guy, yet far enough to know it is more primative as you say, Bet me, odds should be 100-1 or more in your favor, IF the evolutionary Model existed
@ncwdane What don't you get about animals CANNOT be "more" or "less" evolved. It's not that hard to understand. Things can only be more or less primitive compared to other animals and primitive does not mean less evolved it describes when a species came about, e.g prokaryotes are more primitive than eukaryotes it doesn't mean prokarytes are more or less evolved that eukaryotes.
So your argument is invalid. You can't find what you are asking for because it cannot exist.
@Gibbons3457 Now your just getting off on a Linguistics arguement,
Less evolved = more primitive ansister to the species in question, if you dont believe in Evolution just say so, does a spiecies Evolve or not, you've gotten off point The point is there is NO speicies w/ the Gradual transitional forms that would fit the evolutionary Model if it exiseted, Like drawing cards outta a deck, the finds would be Random & the amount of 2's3's-7's-8 9'swould be near the same amount of finds @each stage
@ncwdane GAHHH! Sorry your stupidity is annoying. I'm not using linguistics anywhere, you are just don't know what the theory of evolution proposes and so are making an argument that doesn't make sense. You are asking for multiple obvious different changes to be found within a tiny proportion of a population. More importantly the ones we do have are ALL different, out of the "complete" skeletons that have been found of T-rex no two are the same. Just like humans...
@Gibbons3457 thats right, they are different, because they are not related, they are NOT even distant relatives & I was asking for a Linage of relatives close enough to tell it was a relative at all & yet far enough to tell it wasnt as evolved or not as less primiative (whatch the triple negative there) lol, & you did not produce what would be abundant finds IF evolution were true !!!!!! BTW, the God says it is so obvious he exist, that YOU ARE THE FOOL to not recognize it, so dont say Im stupid
@ncwdane So how about Horses or Whales they have very good evolutionary linages. Oh yeah I forgot you already won't accept any of them because you are dogmatic.
The Bible says god is obvious but it also says Bats are Birds, Whales are Fish and that Slavery is ok, so not really going to take its word for it. Oh and it was written in the bronze age. Oh AND the Qu'ran says the exact same thing, so do ALL other religious books.
@ncwdane By the way, if you want to see a complete blow by blow evolutionary lineage why not look at the human evolutionary line which is as good as complete with hundreds of different specimens or you could what the last part of this series and have Aron explain it for you. Or you could actually try to understand the theory you are so insistent on challenging before you spout your drivel about 9s, 10s, 8.3s and the law of averages.
@Gibbons3457 Thats it, since you dont have any transitinal water tight fossils of T-Rex or archeoptrix, switch over to the alleged Human Ape-man finds, OK, do you even know what the evidences for each creature is ???
I do, so MR quasi educated, what is the bones for each creature, Nebraska Man, what is the evidence for Nebraska Man, (I KNOW) Do you ?? how bout Piltdown man, do you know the story behind Piltdown man & Cro Magnum, & Ramapithecus , museums show a Whole creature, but.....guess what
@ncwdane There are only 30 fossils of T-rex and only 3 have heads you dunce and Only 9 Archaeopteryx fossils, do you seriously think there were only 9 archaeopteryx in existence. Of course there weren't, that is why your demand is ridiculous (that's without taking into account the rarity of the fossilisation process, something else you have no clue about). Now onto your ignorant claims about Nebraska and Piltdown Man: Piltdown man was falsified USING evolution; Nebraska was media stupidity...
@Gibbons3457 Yeahtake 10 decks of cards & schuffel them, make the Cups t-rexes & the diamonds Archeoptrix, what are the odds you draw nothing but 30 (10 of clubs & 9 (10 of dimaonds) I bet ya the next 2 diamonds are 10's also, & I do that becasue I KNOW theres only 10's in all the decks, You on the other hand bet your soul the next t-rex or archeoptrix will be something other than another 10, yet you wouldnt bet 100 bucks after that draw if I bet you the next 100 cards you draw are 10's
@Gibbons3457 10 decks of cards & shuffle them, make the Clubs t-rexes & the diamonds Archaeopteryx, what are the odds you draw nothing but 30 (10 of clubs & 9 (10 of diamonds) I bet ya the next 2 diamonds are 10's also, & I do that because I KNOW there's only 10's in all the decks, You on the other hand bet your soul the next t-rex or archaeopteryx will be something other than another 10, yet you wouldnt bet 100 bucks after that draw if I bet you the next 100 cards you draw are 10's
@ncwdane For fucks sake. 1. Archaeopteryx and T-rex are from different geological time zones 2. There are thousands, if not millions of other species in the fossil record 3. FOSSILISATION IS RARE (how many times will I have to whack that into your head?) So your pack of cards is several billion in total and you'll only find certain cards in certain places and there are several thousand different suites. So your argument is invalid because it doesn't fit with reality.
@ncwdane The Piltdown hoax was disproved using evolutionary theory, Nebraska man was pure speculation being blown out of proportion by the press and Ramapithicus was more than just a single ape jaw, they were thought to be a closer cousin of humans than they actually turned out to be, it actually turned out to be a already known previous species known as Sivapithecus. However NON of these do anything to the extensive list of species which make up our evolutionary lineage.
@Gibbons3457 characteristics of the Jaw and teeth of Ramapithecus are also found in the teeth of a living, high altitude baboon known as Theropithecus Galada.11 However, the Galada baboon is certainly not on the evolutionary road to manhood., it is safe to assume that Ramapithecus is nothing more than an extinct ape. Indeed, this is precisely what some of the foremost evolutionists in the world have also concluded
@ncwdane Not entirely accurate but you are not seeing your big problem: the actual transitions (not the frauds/ misinterpretations which you use as a straw man argument, as if these mistakes would affect the validity human evolution), Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Austrilapithicus Aferiensis, Homo Ergaster etc. All of these have got multiple finds and have been cross confirmed, so get with the facts, or you could just hide from them and keep believing in fairytales.
@Gibbons3457 Your the one doing the moving Goal post, ALL these you mentioned have been debunked, I just gave you a few examples, I'm not gonna run through all of them, just to have you move the Goalpost again or change the subject like you have done by switching over tpo the human spiecies, as for how do I account for these finds, WTF you talking about, Nebraska mans a pigs tooth, proven in court, ramapithicas is a fossil of the lower jaw of a high altitude Ape living today, Coelicanths Live
@ncwdane But why am I trying to explain evolution to someone who will already dismiss out of hand any argument I put forward because of the dogmatic bullshit they have already swallowed. I have done no goal post moving, and if you care to disagree please explain where you think I have. You repeat outdated arguments which have been refuted many times by multiple people and in some cases they actually debunk your claims themselves. E.G Piltdown man which was exposed USING the theory of evolution.
@Gibbons3457 dUNNO know what you mean EXPOSED BY EVOLUTIONARY METHOD, THE FACT REMAINS, ITS A WELL KNOWN HOAX ~The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archeological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (OVER 40 years)elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.~identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown,suspects includE Dawson~ Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni"Dawson's dawn-man"
@ncwdane Of course you don't understand, that's because you don't understand what evolution is, what a theory is or why evolution is a fact. Piltdown man was a hoax and the reasons we know it is a hoax are the very same reason we know that Australapithicus is real and so are Homo habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster etc. Piltdown man was debunked USING the scientific method and more specifically using the theory of evolution. Deal with it. You are wrong,
@Gibbons3457 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey stated: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions
@ncwdane So now you've added quote mining to your list of falsehoods. I'd love it if you A. provided me with the name of the website you got the quotes off and B. When/ where the full manuscripts the quotes are taken from can be found. After you have provided me with this information (which I'm not expecting you will, as the dishonest creatard you are.) I will draw this too a close, because you refuse to accept that your position is wrong even when corrected and will lie to further your cause.
@Gibbons3457 "quot minning" you asserted i needed to get educated, when the fact is it's the other way around !!!, so, thats why I resorted to useing venues or sources you might not be prejudice against, so you would see, that you're the one who needs to get educated & are in the wrong, as for sources & wahtnot, just copy & paiste prtions of the quots, I'm sure it will take you to them, But by admition of YOUR own scientist evidence wouldnt fill a coffin & is scanty at best !!!!!!
@ncwdane The very fact that you refuse to supply me with any kind of reference to your quotes is as goods as admitting you know you are lying. I already did google your quotes and they all come up with the same thing, religious nuts like you spewing them out (out of context) to attempt prove your own bullshit myths. It'll take more than a coffin to hold all the fossils of the various species that are the proof of human evolution, now you'll need a whole Olympic swimming pool.
@Gibbons3457 The "fit all the evidence" quot was reffering to Ape-man fossils, not t-rexes & stuff like that, I'm not Lieing & I'm tired of you, your ot bright enough to find this info, you wouldnt understnd it if I rubbed your nose in it, Later my hellbound poor friend, I believed in Evolution the Day I recieved the Lord so it didnt stop me, so alls I can say is I bessech you to put the Ball in Gods court & ask him to reveal himself & truth to you, if ya dont, then you reject him, even if he is
@ncwdane Are how cute, you think I just reject your god because I don't want it to exist. I was raised Christian. I asked "the lord" to reveal itself but nothing, and I'm not one for blind faith, verifiable proof and evidence all the way, if it cannot be verified, it ain't real. Oh and if you believed in evolution, you doing it wrong. Evolution doesn't need faith, it is testable and verifiable.
Oh and I was also talking about hominid fossils as well, there are a lot of them.
@Gibbons3457 ."6 New Scientist commented: "Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive."
@ncwdane You just love repeating yourself. I have already freely admitted that Nebraska man was a mistake (not by scientists, but by the press) and the jaw of Ramapithicas, aka Sivapithecus (they are the same) was an ancient ape and is not one of the fossils thought to be a precursor to humans.
WRONG, non of the examples I gave have EVER been debunked. They are through and through transitional fossils and if you beg to differ you MUST provide the evidence to disprove them...
@ncwdane You also show no understanding of evolution either. Yes it is true that Coelacanth was thought to have been extinct as fossils of them have been found, however evolution does not dictate that if we find a fossil of a species therefore it MUST be extinct, if Coelacanth is adapted to it's environmental niche and that environment does not require it to change to that greater extent then it will remain alive, (a living fossil as it were)...
as far as the fossil record, if you cant see its all 10's by now, I guess I cant help ya
but I will bet ya 1,000 dollars the next t-rex found or archeoptryx is metamorphically the same, NOT WHAT YOU'D EXPECFT TO FIND THEM LOOK LIKE A MILLION OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 6-50 MILLION YRS EARLIER !! WHY BECAUSE I KNOW THOSE DONT EXIST ! , hey I got a deck of cards, wanna bet ya cant pull anything but 10's outta it, I'll bet ya, but ya cant see the cards face 1st
@ncwdane You're always wrong. Not only do you avoid the difficult questions I ask, but you accuse me of things and then never substantiate those accusations. You've said I've moved the goal posts but you will not specify what those goalposts are. You've repeated that same "10's" argument over and over even though I've explained why it is wrong. More over your demands aren't even possible due to the processes of fossilisation and evolution. What you are demanding isn't possible.
@ncwdane naw. it does not need to be pulling just 10 out of it. every time i get 10 i get to keep it and every time i pull something difrent i can discard it. that is natural selection.
@ncwdane Cro-magnon were actually Homosapiens (just like you and me) they were just the first ones discovered. Ramapithecus was also revised USING evolutionary theory. SO get with the facts. How does your fairytale account for their existence and why do you need to lie about their significance?
Again, Fossilisation is RARE so you cannot possible expect there to be that many fossils, we are lucky to have what we have. I gave you one lineage (humans) and you tried to reject it out of hand...
@Gibbons3457 so, we can strike out the pigs tooth Nebraska man, & it's Fairly well known that piltdown man was a hoax & Ramapithicas was only one side of a lower jaw that matches a high altidue ape living in africa today, so wanna go through the others, there has not been one find thats so caled early man that is a water tight arguement & in fact, the Hankey ankey BS behind all this rivals your BS
@Gibbons3457 Cont.... The other thing is on law of averages alone, if we find 9 at one stage, its not like we should find 9 at stage 1 & 9 at stage 2....or 9 at stage 3-9 at each stage & so on, WHAT WE SHOULD FIND ON AVERAGE IS.... 9 at stage 8.1 & 9 at stage 8.2 & 9 at stage 8.3 & so on, so like 100 at stages 6.1 thru 6.9 & 100 at stages 7.1 thru 7-9 & 100 at stage 8.1 thru 8.9 etc. IF we find say 9 at stage 10.0 , so the expected finds if Evolution were true, isnt even close !!!!!!!
@AronRa Common Aron, you actually have to ask ? just go back every 100,000 year INTERVALS & Imagine about what you might expect to see (unless you believe in spontanious generation) I think as you went along, IF evolutiuon were true, some slihghtly sub standard to the most advance of its kind found to date, a gradual degeneration ever so subtle at 1st you could no doubt tell it was the same spiecies or linage on it's way, but so many at different stages would be found, NOT ALL at JUST ONE STAGE
@AronRa well now, if evolution were true, I'd just direct you to a sight w/ all the pictures of the many fossils now wouldnt I,
but since it is NOT true, we dont have those pictires or fossils on file & i'd only be speculating what an archeoptrix would look like 100,000yrs less developed & 200,000yrs less developed, but something like less developed wings & less develelooped beak & less developed bones & bone structure, perhaps less developed legs&so on, being less developed the older the find
@ncwdane Evolution is easy to prove only because it is true. That's also why we have all the pictures that you say we don't. Another demonstration for that is that I can so easily meet challenges like yours. You say archeopteryx wings, legs, and beak would be 'less developed' on a preceding transition, right? Did you forget that archeopteryx doesn't even have a beak? How under-developed is that? Now clarify please, what sort of wings or legs would you expect on an earlier species?
one of the Guys on here in our debate said I was moving Goalpost in our debate
hahahahahahahaha. how laughable, My belief & defence is solid & the same, OMG , OMFG !!! Talk about moving Goal post, as Evolutionist over the years keep adding more & more time to the're lame theory as they learn more & figure out theirs not enough time, over & over again & are constantly cahanging text books as flaws come in annually w/ new discrovery's , Moving goal post indeed ! LOL
@ncwdane "one of the Guys on here in our debate said I was moving Goalpost in our debate" Me. Because you are. Every time you are given proof of transitional fossils you either make up some ridiculous reason why it isn't one (usually going against the very laws of evolution to do so) or you dismiss it as a fake. When you say there is no transition between species A and G and we give you species B through F you then ask us to fill all the gaps between B/ C, C/D etc. That is moving the goal post.
@ncwdane When you complain that evolution is changing what you are actually are complaining about is that evolution is advancing. You know like all those advances in medicine, made possible through our understanding of evolution. All those murderers, caught using the same principles of genetics which also prove evolution. If you think you can call evolution lame, what about gravity, it's far less supported than evolution. Your beliefs and defences are unsupported conjecture, baselessly asserted.
@Gibbons3457 & w/ those new discoveries many evolutionist, (Me oncluded) became &/or saw the obvious flaws in the poor theory & are even embaressed to have ever believed in it & we adjust our position to the truth of Creation, If yyou cant see the obvious Flaws of even the Law of averages in the fossil record & what should be there, I cant help you at this point, I mean even archeoptryix, to find to the same in a row is 1 in 10 chance, shoulda found more or less evolved 2nd find, much less 9
@ncwdane "many evolutionist, (Me oncluded) " Evolutionist? I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as an Evolutionist. Only someone as vapidly ignorant as you would believe something like evolution on faith. Whilst those with a rational mind actually accept it as a great theory which has never yet been disproven, only vindicated and built upon as our understanding of REALITY (something you don't spend much time thinking about apparently) increased.
@Gibbons3457 Takes more faith to believe in evolution than a supreme God outside the time realm w/ the evidence & especially w/ the lack of evidence, we know their are scienific Laws that you cant create something from nothing & yet everything is, & you cant go back far enough if it supposedly always was to get to the 1st day to complete it so you could have the 2nd day & eventually get to today, there for god must of Miraculasly created it & evelution is religion doctrine for human secularism
@ncwdane Your punctuation is terrible, your spelling is abysmal, your sentence structure is awful and your arguments are trash. Classic example of a creationist.
Evolution isn't a religion because it is not based on faith. It is a field of science.
You say god. If so, which one. There are thousands.
It takes NO faith to accept evolution. The evidence supporting it is demonstrable, more importantly we've had years of evolutionary study and it hasn't been disproven. Deal with it.
@Gibbons3457 I dont think my punctuation flaws are gonna fly well w/ god on your judgement day for your sins & I know you sinned a LOT cause God told me you have ! as for Evolutinary Faith based belief, of course its based on faith, NEVER has life been formed outta non life, or DNA been made/observed formed from Non DNA (& it takes 2 sides simutaniously BTW, also the scientific laws of energy you cant get something from nothing & eternal existant laws & that require faith to believe evelution
@ncwdane Oh great now you have an imaginary friend that can tell you things that are impossible to know. Plus if your god doesn't like sinners he ain't gonna like you, you lie constantly. Your literacy skills are going to get you a job in the REAL world, your god seems to be unable to grant those. There is NO scientific law which contradicts evolution, that only exists in your mind. Find me (and you must specify exactly) the scientific laws which contradict evolution.
@ncwdane You claim we "believe" something coming from nothing ( which we don't). Yet that is EXACTLY what you believe: Something (everything) comes from a non material (extremely complex) non material being, (or nothing in a scientific sense). Talk about projecting.
And just so you can ignore this: Organic chemicals form naturally, so it's not "life from non life" (oh the numbers of straw men you use in lu of an actual argument) .But life from non life is common. You eat, don't you?
@Gibbons3457 There you go yet again Hasbrow, saying i said stuff I didnt say, no wonder you cant get complex science rt,! Look,You cant have it both ways in ur Human secularist religious belief, if ur saying everything always was, then you have a law about finite things cant go back far enough in eternity to get to the 1st day to complete it so it can continue to the 2nd day, & if you say that it suddenly appeared outta nothing, you go against the science laws you cant get something from nothing
@ncwdane "you cant get something from nothing" So why do you believe that?
"There you go yet again Hasbrow, saying i said stuff I didnt say, no wonder you cant get complex science rt" Hasbrow? Could you please specify where I misquoted you?
Your argument makes no grammatical sense . Please rewrite (seriously). If you are complaining about Big Bang cosmology, just know that it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology and isn't something from nothing either. Go research it.
@Gibbons3457 "cant get something from nothing (E=M/c sq.) its sorta science 101, take a vacuum sometime, by that I mean a room or Glass dome & completely empty it of all matter & then try to make something appear or "be" it simply is against all science, that would take something Miraculous to cause that,(God for instance) it is true, some evolutionist think God got it started & then evolution took over from there, How do you propose life started, faith things popped up outta a wet lifeless rock
@ncwdane Congratulations you know about Einstein, however your argument is still invalid as Big Bang cosmology ALREADY TAKES THIS INTO ACCOUNT. You have no evidence for a god so adding one in for the sake of filling a gap in your knowledge is pointless, it doesn't explain anything.
Evolution = change in allele frequencies in populations, resulting in new species. Not something coming from nothing or the origin of life (Abiogenesis) if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know this.
@Gibbons3457 Abiogenisis did NOT create life or even DNA, it made some building blocks to life(amino acids), but thats a far cry from non life to life !!! as For God, I have Lots of evidence for God ! Go look in the mirror to see some evidnce & just realize lifeless mudd can not design & create such a creature w/ thought & Imagination ! 100% accurate prophecy is evidence of god & God says it's so obvious he exist your w/o excuse to believe "He is" why dont you ask him to reaveal himself to you ?
@ncwdane "Abiogenisis did NOT create life or even DNA, it made some building blocks to life(amino acids)" Wrong again. The theory of Abiogenesis is the theory explaining how life first arose from chemicals (which formed to make amino acids, which formed RNA, DNA etc) It is a different field of study to evolution and clearly something you know nothing about. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements such as "things popped up outta a wet lifeless rock".
@Gibbons3457 &....& & &..........!!!! it's NEVER EVER been done in a Laboratory or Onserved happening, only up to amino acids, NOT DNA !!! so, one must have Faith that that explination is true, beings it has never been able to take the Lifeless ingrediances & create life from non life, even though we know the chemical make-up of Humans & other life, w/o DNA or a seed or life to begin with, we never made a new lifeform or a copy of one in existance in an earlier state
@ncwdane " only up to amino acids, NOT DNA" Nope, sorry man. We have also created Adenine in the Lab, which as you sure know, is one of the four nucleotides of DNA and RNA
@danoso0931 four molecules become part of a very complex double helix spiral held together by other molecules yet, none of which have been produced in such experiments. Adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T), while cytosine (C) pairs with guanine (G). The two DNA strands are held together by weak bonds between the AT and CG base pairs: THIS IS NOT LIFE but only a small section of DNA which even the simplest bacteria have 0.6 million to 4.7 million of these paired AT / CG bases in a precise order
@Gibbons3457 A Bioligist who beliueves in Eolution when asked if Abiogeneses created life in a Lab he replied~ "Not yet. Abiogenesis probably takes place over the course of thousands or millions of years, which is difficult to replicate for scientists who's lives number in the tens of years. We know that when we replicate the conditions of early Earth in the lab many chemicals thought to be precursors to life can be generated".
Therefore FAITH based nothing else(probably is NOT Science) !!!
@ncwdane We have seen that organic molecules can form from inorganic ones. But the fact that science has made a prediction which has been partially confirmed and therefore a hypothesis has been proven means that no faith is required. Science never requires faith, everything predicted is based on evidence.
Try watching some of the video's which you rant at, you might learn something. Until then I refuse to respond to someone so willingly ignorant and so intellectually dishonest. Ciao
@Gibbons3457 LOL, thats NOT science, thats Faith !
The fact that you are & that the Fossil record fits evolution & the hypothisis expected for creation is what is found & the hypothisis for evolution isnt even close to whats found is science then, cause whats found is all 10's !
No 1-9 sub evolved to the creatures found & NO j/Q/K more evolved than the ctreatures found, even just the Archeopryix, odds are the 2nd one found shoulda been more or less evolved than the 1st
@ncwdane Part 3. You clearly have no idea what faith is either. Faith is an absolute convection held with no supporting evidence ( or contradictory to evidence) eg You and your faith in god/ the bible or creation. Science does not need faith because it doesn't make claims that which the evidence does not support and the evidence supports evolution, it's THE strongest scientific theory. Just deal with it. Your denial of the facts doesn't make them go away.
@ncwdane Part 4. Nor does your ignorance of evolutionary theory make your hopelessly poorly written arguments valid. Just because you have no understanding of the scientific method doesn't mean that your ignorant opinion will change it or the facts which support it.
If you understood evolutionary theory you would know that your arguments are invalid due to the nature of how animals are classified, how cladograms and phylogenetic tree's are constructed and how transitional forms are deduced.
@Gibbons3457 Yes, I EAT & I AM A LIFEFORM, dont try to Joke outta this one, Thats my point, the food does not become lifeform w/o intervention of life(Me) & you also point out we know what chemicals it takes for the physical make side to life & YET WE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LIFEFORM EVEN W/ OUT INTELEGENT INTERVENTION IN A LABORATORY W/O EXISTING LIFE OR DNA, Therefore as I said, evolutionist theory is based on Faith ! having faith that these millions of plants fish & animals just happened
@ncwdane The reason that the morphology of the fossils we find is the same is because the only way we can classify a fossil is morphologically. So if a difference is too great between two fossils is then they will be classified separately then as more are found it can be more easily seen if they are the same or just similar species. Fossilisation is a rare occurrence. We can only work we have. There are however cases of fossils showing deformities e.g Big Al
@Gibbons3457 Picture if you will for a minute, a T-rex what its ansister looked like when it was 1,000 years old.
OK, now picture a t-rex at 100,000yr intervals all the way to the 28 most Morphological one we have found & what that might look like & picture a museum w/ a full spiecies fossil for each stage set up in order for tours to look at showing the evolution of the T-Rex, now make 100 of each stage & bury them , pull them out 1 at a time & I bet you dont get 28 all at the same stage !
@ncwdane You have no idea of what a transitional species is. We don't need Every stage of development we just need those species which demonstrate the stages between species A and species G eg. Species B - F that is all. We don't need every single individual. That is another common straw man argument used by creationists. Nor are all T-rex found the same, they are of different genders and different sizes. You clearly can't use google.
@Gibbons3457 Oh No !!! Dont tell me you believe in spontanious Generation, Oh Man, thats the super far fetch Straw man argument evolution isyt that KNOW the fossil record didnt fit the evolutionary model so they had to make up somthing else to explain it, so thats the strawman theory !!! so now even though nothing is the same speices they can say its a transitional form even if it isnt just so long it kinda looks close :( thats bad
diff.genders & size isnt what i'ze saying, same era all "10"s
Ok this is just so ridiculous I'm going to respond out of amusement. You chat utter bollocks.
"Dont tell me you believe in spontanious Generation" NO, because Abiogenesis disproves that hypothesis.
Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Clearly not with the way you throw that phrase around. Just to clarify, an argument straw man is where you attack an argument never made by the person you are arguing and try to use it to rebut their actual argument.
@ncwdane Part 2. *face palm* Do you actually think that cladograms are made just on one similarity between two species. Honestly you take vapid ignorance to extreme levels. They are constructed using a variety of techniques and comparative morphology is one of them (you clearly haven't watched this video, if you had you would already know this. ). The fossil record doesn't support creation as species appear with clear precursors evident in the fossil record and at different time periods.
@Gibbons3457 Whata ya think we only find every creature in ONLY the Last Day that species existed, think back to the 1st find of each creature, T-rex/Archeoptryix/Brontasaurous/Trilobits, the Day they found each one, if Evolution were true, you'd not know if the next find might be the same creature a million or 2 or 3 o8 or 9 million yrs latter, a lil of significantly or majorly more evolved, never found one in an earlier state, always the last state of development, 1st & Last really (creation)
@Gibbons3457 Problem is... you dont have any stages
IF WE USED A 1-10 STAGE, Throw out 1-5, cause we'd be arguing if it was even an ancestor of the same species, but once you got close, there would be no question, & its not like if you found 25 at stage 10 that youd find 25 at stage 6 & 25 at stage 7 & 25 at stage 8 & 9, but more like 25 would be found at stage 7.1 & 25 more at stage 7.2 & 7.3 on up through 8.9 & 9.0 & 9.1 & yes on average & maybe none at a few atages, But not all at only 10
@ncwdane Please define (rigidly) what you mean by "stage" because atm you are making it sound like you mean individuals, which is ridiculous when we are talking about fossils. So define your terms and then maybe your argument will make more sense. After that it will be easier for us to correct your many misconceptions about evolution. eg. mud turning into men and your obsession of using words such as developed incorrectly.
@Gibbons3457 You're the one saying a more complex creature w/ hands starting to grow, 45 million yrs ago, then de-evolved to a less complex Dog , instead of useing its hands more & evolving in an advancing way, & eventually even walking uporight, but no, it's hands turned into Paws nearly mmatching the rear paws, yeah right ;-) LOL BTW did you know trilobits have some of the most complex eyes of any creature EVER !
@ncwdane You are so ignorant. Nothing can De - evolve (The evolutionary law of irreversibility). If loosing it's hands were more beneficial for a species then it is highly likely that it will. Complexity has nothing to do with evolution, survivability is all that matters, adaptation, NOT complexity. Species can evolve to be more or less complex. Again, go do some research. Trilobites have complex eyes, but that doesn't make them MORE evolved than something like Jellyfish (which have no eyes).
Hesperocyon=Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
So now what, De-evolution :-/ , Plus the amount of time they go back & wheres all the transitions leading to this speicies, it may be the dog family, but it's awefully complex to go back over 40 nillion & again, wheres the gradual speicies leading to it, Bet if they find another one, its NOT 10-5-% more or less developed than whats been found so far, Just like w/ archeoptrix, not 1 is more or less evolved
@ncwdane You ask where the transitionals are *after* they've been shown to you. Not just in fossils of course, but in genetic orthologues too, things which you can neither ignore nor address. It isn't de-volution when a generalized arboreal animal begets several lineages of high-speed super-predators.
Cant bread mules either, gotta have a Donkey & a Horse, so this isnt something the is any evidence for evolution, what would be is a Solid gradual random find of millions of fossils GRADUALLY getting a lil more & a lil more complex in an OBVIOUS unquestionable manner, the fossil records not even scanty or close, its beyond just small gaps !
Non of these brands of dogs is more or less evolved than the other..
wheres the millions of gradual fossils leading up to todays Dogs...
this is like drawing only 10's outta a deck of cards everytime...
if we only had great Danes & all the others were fossils, they'd say dotsons were 16 milion years old & poodles 12 million & then retrievers & so on, theres no fossils of dogs at 60% evolved 70% 80% etc :-/ evolutions bankrupt ! all dogs mentioned here are HERE NOW
@ncwdane Are all my critics trolls? Or do creationists never bother to watch the videos they respond to? You said all dogs mentioned here are HERE NOW. OK then, show me Hesperocyon or cynodictis for example? Where can I find a borophagine breeder? Why don't creationists ever get tired of being proven absolutely wrong about absolutely everything?
the Burden of proof is one you, where are the millions of Gradual transitions that would be there IF creation were true ??? they arnt there !!! (mybe some extinct animals) BUT NO CLEAR CUT Water tight Transitional Forms for Dogs, or any speicies for that matter, & the transitions shou far out number every species fond that happen to all be found metamorphically the same (28 t-rexes 9 archeoptyix etc etc)
@ncwdane Where are the transitions? You're looking at them. If dachshunds were now extinct, would be then demand that I produce a transition between them and other dogs? If I respond to that challenge by presenting you with a bloodhound, would that satisfy you? If I then bridge that gap with a basset hound, would you accept that? Or will you keep ignoring everything shown to you and cling to an absurd fantasy in its place?
@AronRa There ya go, Thats what I said earlier, They are all just different breeds of Dogs, I even said that if Dachshunds had gone extinct say 5,000 yrs ago, & a fossil of it was found, evolutionist would say it was a transitional form, all dogs are confined to the DNA within it's species & will never create anything other than a Dog, & it will never get feathers & fly, or gills & breath under water or start talking & inventing spaceships & cars & write books & we were never an omeba or unicell
I want one of those googly eyed pez dispensers...
AlmoTrademark 1 week ago
Great video, I just have one note:
At 8:35, you pronounced it "Digigrade", it's actually "DigiTIgrade". If this has already been pointed out, disregard everything past "Great video".
SephirothsStudent 1 week ago
might not know that he's lying. Which to me, is a testament to how ignorant he is.
Antimidation 1 week ago
The worst thing about Ray Comfort isn't that he doesn't understand evolution, it's that he refuses to. Anyone can deny real evidence, the question is, why? It's too late for Comfort to re evaluate his world view. He simply can't afford to reverse all the damage he has done which is reinforcing all those ignorant people out there about their bias views. He will never get it, he will never know what unbias research is, he will never know logic....he once said that he isn't dishonest he just...
Antimidation 1 week ago
when he said weasel, he showed a honey badger... :P
V0nAnglesmith 1 week ago
Huh, maybe Ursa Minor and Major are actually wolverines.
Wolverines are sometimes called skunkbears.
TheSkunkCat 1 week ago
The sum of the stupidity of these two together is even greater than that of them individually.
Jimk0756 2 weeks ago
I love your evolution videos! I love seeing all the connections laid out so clearly. This is the kind of thing I've always wished they would show on Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel. The history of evolution on Earth is so vast and interesting! It would make amazing TV.
GuacamoleKun 3 weeks ago
Ray banana man Comfort is from NZ, the land where men are men and sheep are nervous. Is he descended from sheep?
zaxxxon 4 weeks ago
Ray Comfort is simply offensive, an offence against intelligence.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 month ago
I don't even know where Ray gets it. I attended catholic school even, almost 30 years ago no less,and have never heard such stupid shit in my life. They seem to going backwards if that's even possible. lol
BillofRightsBrutus 1 month ago
@Aronra: Aron at 1:10 you make a comparison of the question posited by creationists about apes still existing too wolves and dogs, but isnt this an inaccurate comparison, as modern monkeys are not direct ancestors but cousins of ours who share a recent common ancestor? whereas a dog has a direct lineage to the still existing wolf...i just feel this may possibly confuse creationists who ACTUALLY think scientists believe we evolved from modern monkeys we see in the wild and in the zoo. thankyou
misterdragonboy 1 month ago
@misterdragonboy no. The modern wolf isnt completely identical to all dogs' ancestral one
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization oh i see, i second thought i guess that makes sense now - thankyou :)
misterdragonboy 1 month ago
ha, that "defective feces" jab was from Tyson's slip, wasn't it
Boxcutterfacelift 1 month ago
ummm the Chow Chow is classified as a Spitz breeds to which neither the Shi Tzu nor the Pekineses belong. so I don't think they are descending from the Chow Chow (although pet dogs taxonomy is based almost solely on morphology and opinion).
PRJking 1 month ago
When I hear Comfort try and describe evolution, I have to try very hard not to snap my laptop screen in half...
tr0ll00l 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
dude! that "if dogs came from wolves, why do we still have wolves" is great, I'm definitely going to be using that one in the future instead of the why do we still have Europeans one
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Ray Comfort - you see his lips move, when in actual fact, he's talking out of his arse
daverigby23 1 month ago
I gave someone this example and how mutation really is possible but his response was "but it still a dog!" This coming from someone that thinks evolution's theory claims that a human was born from a monkey... sigh, I decided to move on.
BeckaMorena 1 month ago
@BeckaMorena
Humans WERE born to monkeys. Your mother is a monkey! You are a monkey! Humans are apes and monkeys and mammals and vertebrates and animals and eukaryotes!
Humans were NOT born from a chimpanzee, lemure, orangutan, spider monkey, gorilla, squirrel monkey...
rkyeun 1 month ago
I currently live in the San Diego area and am posing as one of Ray Comforts followers. Just for shits and giggles mostly, but on a more serious note I can honestly say that he is one of the most evil men of our time. The sheer amount of lies and the price his followers have to pay are steep and irreparable. It seems every time I see him, he is always milking someone dry of their money. It bugs me that all I can do is sit and watch, for the moment I object to ANYTHING is the moment they suspect.
bigredphenom 2 months ago
"A dog was blind millions and millions of years and now he can see..." And the sole reason a dog has eyes to find a bitch that suddenly appeared to fuck? Seems to me that the numskull doesn't believe in wolves, or doesn't know they exist, so he makes that asinine argument to reject evolution.
LOL, Oh my tooth-fairy, can't believe that guy said that.
OverlordShamala 3 months ago
Is it true that cats and dogs share a common ancestor? I heard that they had a common ancestor called mineacus. Is that true? please forgive me if I spelled the name of that animal wrong. I don't how to spell it. Have a good night.
watcher7180 3 months ago
@watcher7180 We dont know if its completely true, but its the best exponetion we have so far. And the name its
Miacid.
shadowknigth94 3 months ago
That's what the name of it sounds like. I just don't know if it is true or not, thank you.
watcher7180 3 months ago
Completely agree when aron says that Comfort isnt stupid, he´s making millions. The real problem are always the sheeple, no exception.
very well said and something thats often overlooked
managarm1349 4 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von AronRa
I love how he chopped on Ray. LOL!
DevilChao5 4 months ago
Defective feces => PRICELESS =D
gunnerfan87 4 months ago
The STUPID!!! IT BURNS!!!!
Shit i learned in my first year in high school, that all of us "Start" as "females"(looking like ones), then we develop reproductive organs according to our chromosomes. Ray is a disgrace to everything science stands for.
The asshole in it for money, what else. *spits on the ground*
mihaimoldo 6 months ago
@mihaimoldo Well, even more stupid is that he thinks a single dog evolved. It would have to have been a group or groups of wolves, isolated from other wolves, perhaps in different areas than wolves, for quite a few generations before they might become a new species.
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
Of course the guy says that a male forms first. Christians. Anyway, that was so stupid!
zeldaofarel 6 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
Honey Badger at 12:24! Know what honey badger has to eat for the next week? Cobra.
Tropan 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tropan 6 months ago
I'm 15 and I already have a FAR better grasp of evolution than banana man Comfort
Spocktacular96 7 months ago 32
@Spocktacular96 Lol, same here.
MythicSolider989 5 months ago
@Spocktacular96 I'm 14 and have decided to pursue a career in biology. I want to separate myself as far as possible from Creationists. I have AronRa to thank for getting me interested in it.
pat5168 4 months ago
@Spocktacular96
Not that it's hard to have a better understanding of evolution then THAT buffoon.
Although really bananaman has been TOLD (multiple times) where he's wrong, and he still repeates the same lies, even though he always claims he hasn't knowingly told a lie since he found jeebus.
And even worse, bananaman is actually one of the more BENIGN creationists probably. (Which shows you just how bad the rest of these guys are.)
TheSkunkCat 1 week ago
I like how you describe the "pikeneis" (is that how you spell it), a "Guggaly eyed, yapping pez dispensor".
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
@WAZZA1235 It's 'Pekinese', as in 'from Peking', Peking being the city Beijing. Yeah, wouldn't want to have a dog like that.
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
Wow... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
That clip with Ray Comfort was brutal..
Ostrasize 8 months ago
Hey, look! It's literally a strawman 2:40
AraGuitar 8 months ago
skip to 4:55 for when it starts
setlag1 8 months ago
What is the name of this red and white colored bear at 11:53? I am sorry, I can't understand it. Would like to read more about it. Thanks.
SelfishNeuron 9 months ago
@SelfishNeuron It's a Red Panda and it isn't a bear, it is an Ailurid (family: Ailuridae).
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457: Thanks alot! :)
SelfishNeuron 8 months ago
@SelfishNeuron No prob's. :D
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
Ray Comfort apologized for the banana ilustration, but, man, that didnt make him any less stupid. I'm amazed how ignorant someone can be. It's an embarrasment, christians should stand up and shut this imbecile, it's making them look like fools.
sirdelrio 9 months ago 13
@sirdelrio
His apology was backhanded and ridiculous, claiming that he didn't realize the banana had been so hybridized, and utterly denying it had evolved. The banana is NOT hybridized. Hybridization is when two species, such as a plum and an apricot, are bred with each other. The banana was instead artificially selected by man TO EVOLVE a certain way. Ray HASN'T apologized, and CAN'T HAVE, because he STILL doesn't understand HOW he was wrong, and won't ever admit it if he does.
rkyeun 1 month ago
Sir, I can read phylogenetic trees, but I'm not aware of the meaning of the numbers on either side of the divergence lines. For example, at 6:22, at the split between domesticated dog and grey wolf, there are the numbers 93 and 100 above and below the line respectively. What do they mean? What informaiton does that share?
Likewise, going back one step in that same brach, I see a 78/100 between wolves and coyote. If there's a quick explanation, I welcome it.
lhvinny 9 months ago
Said Weasel during the honey badger clip. Honey Badgers rule - don't insult them. :-
))
JamesTheTank 9 months ago
Comment removed
soulure 9 months ago
you should put these on DVD and send them to ray, or announce to churches that you're going to teach them about "what evolutionists believe" make it sound like you're on their side so they let you go and show these to them, maybe even make a presentation deceptively like what they were expecting whilst showing them the evidence :P
Sadochrist 9 months ago
I took a crap yesterday, which became a new species. It had eyes, ears, a mouth etc. which was good because it had to find a female. Beating all odds, it found a crap that was simultaneously taken in India which had the exact same DNA (substitute). They had a baby and named it Ray Comfort. Common sense.
ksthebest 10 months ago
Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History.Replyed re his book & No trans. fossil pics in it~"If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
ncwdane 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncwdane Why do never challenge ALL my points? Is it that you cannot, will not or just don't realise they are there?
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@ncwdane Alright I'll prove it to you. I'll have you point out the transitional species yourself. Pick any lineage, and from that any descendant species you like. Then select whatever level ancestor species you want us to look, or time period to look in. I'll let you predict what should be found based on what we know, and then you can describe exactly what we should find if -and only if- evolution is true. Then I'll show you whatever it is you're looking for. Will that convince you?
AronRa 10 months ago
@AronRa Archeoptrix/T-rex , wheres the Gradual developmental fossils leading to the ones we have or away
as in a couple from a few million yrs earlier & several say 2-4 million yrs apart where you know its the same species, but 2- 4 million yrs less evolved/4-8 8-12 , 12 to 16, 16 , to 20 & so forth, as I know we have 9 last I heard of archeotrix & 28 I think t-rexes & all are in the same time bracket 10's no 1-9's less evolved & no j/q/k's more evolved
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane We actually do have a fairly complete sequence of therapods showing the procession to archaopteryx and now another one leading to tyrannosaurs as well. Some of the smaller, older species of tyrannosaurs are now known to have had down like ducklings!
AronRa 10 months ago
@AronRa Well Aron, I have seen pictures of Most of the 9 Archeoptryix & many of the 25+ t-rexes & believe if Evolution were true, obvious fossils just short of the Mtemorphic stages we have found would indeed outnumber the ones all found at the same stage, However, I would be happy to examine something more than just artist illistrations if you have them or could post a sight i can see some pictures of these alledged finds if they are water tight evidence of Obvious trans pics of same creatures
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane When I said tyrannosaurs, I wasn't just talking the largest species of that group, the T-rex. I was talking about a series of prior, lesser ones like Dilong paradoxus. And when I talked about transitions *to* archeopteryx, I obviously wasn't referring to that species itself of the fluid sequence of transitions leading up to it. A good illustration of this is shown with taxonomic references five minutes into my video, 'Falsifying Phylogeny'. /watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU&feature=related
AronRa 10 months ago
@AronRa well, I went to your video & I saw "Illustrations"!!!, we have 9 "Rock Solid" archeoptryix creatures, & lots of pictures of the actual fossils, NO ILLUSTRATIONS Necessary, the law of averages alone, like picking out random cards from a deck, tells you your not gonna draw a 10 outta the deck everytime unless the deck only has 10's in it, I asked for you to produce the pics of the fluid fossil finds leading up to the 9 finds we have which should be in ubandant (if) EVOLUTION were true :-/
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane " I asked for you to produce the pics of the fluid fossil finds leading up to the 9 finds we have which should be in ubandant (if) EVOLUTION were true :-/" No, because fossils form very rarely and so it is unlikely, if not impossible that we get EVERY change EVER for EVERY species. The Phylogenetic trees are constructed at the species level not that of the individuals. If you watched the final episode in this series you'd understand. That is if you even bothered to listen.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Oh yeah, but we always find so many at the same quasi "stage" , you say it is rare, & yet once we find a creature, all the rest of the creatures found are metamorphically the same FOR THAT "KIND" like the 9 archeoptryix, the very 2nd one found shoulda been more or less evolved.. OK lets say you drew 2-10's in a row, then the 3rd one shoulda been more or less evolved, same w/ 25 t-rexes, yet you argue its rare to find every stage, OK, so say ya dont draw a 7 or a 3, wheres the others
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane You're not very bright. The reason all of the species look similar to each other is because if they were too different they will be classified as a DIFFERENT species. What is your definition of MORE or LESS evolved. Why don't you understand the line: FOSSILS ARE RARE, so it's completely illogical for you to ask for anywhere near as many fossils as you demand. Either you ask for that many because you are stupid or deliberately setting ridiculous targets. Watch the last of this series.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 On the Contrary it is you who are not to bright, you say fossils are rare & ret we have 9 at one stage,! lets say those 9 were at stage 8.3 on a base 10 scale 1-10 w/ 1-10 decimal points, throw out the 1-4's cause as you said at that point we'd be argueing if it was the same creature even, but some that ar Close, say 6.2 or 7.1 or more evolved than the 9 we find, say a 8.9 or a 9.2 , something close say an 8.2 cause to clost to 8.3 might look to close to the same, odds all are 8,3?
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Again, what is it you mean by "MORE" or "LESS" evolved, that statement doesn't make sense. Out of a population of [hundred] thousand+, we have only found 9 fossils (archaeopteryx) and 30 fossils (T Rex) and we have documented examples of creatures exhibiting more primitive versions of features held by these creatures and creatures with more specialised features e.g The feathers and wings of Icthyornis, (which is pretty much a full bird, but a bird with teeth) compared to Archaeopteryx
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 "More or Less evolved" seems you kinda answered your own question but common sense would tell ya, Less evolved would be "Less primative" creatures (Less evolved) & More advanced in its Quasi evolutionary progression years later(more evolved).... even though Creatures such a trilobites have some of the most complex eyes ever, to get to the jest of the conversation, were looking for finds 1 million 2 million 3 & 4 million yrs old & so on which would show obvious expected finds (IF)..
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Glad you clarified the fat you are a complete moron. Less primitive would mean MORE evolved, but it doesn't mean that either and never did. Because you cannot have a more primitive version of the same species, you have different families of species with the older ones USUALLY being more primitive than the newer species (it's not always the case but that's the general trend), you will not find a species that is "more evolved" than another individual of the same species. Get an education.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Oh yeah a double negative I do stand corrected on the more primitve is less evolved, but why'd you ask ? anyways why is it the Most evolved creatures is the 1st find, you say we cant find a more evolved creature, what are the odds we always ONLY find the last yrs they existed, I think not, why wouldnt you find something 1. 2. 3. or 4 million yrs More advanced than the 1st find at times..... & for sure 1, 2, 3, or 4-150 millin years less evolved at random intervals, bet ya...comt.
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Bet ya that next two finds, the10th & 11th of archeoptrix, are NOT at random intervals of somthing Near what we have in the privious 9 finds of say 1-20 million yrs prior, in other words something close enough to Obviously be a "MORE" Primative find of the same speicies at an earlier stage, & yet close enough to know its the same guy, yet far enough to know it is more primative as you say, Bet me, odds should be 100-1 or more in your favor, IF the evolutionary Model existed
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane What don't you get about animals CANNOT be "more" or "less" evolved. It's not that hard to understand. Things can only be more or less primitive compared to other animals and primitive does not mean less evolved it describes when a species came about, e.g prokaryotes are more primitive than eukaryotes it doesn't mean prokarytes are more or less evolved that eukaryotes.
So your argument is invalid. You can't find what you are asking for because it cannot exist.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Now your just getting off on a Linguistics arguement,
Less evolved = more primitive ansister to the species in question, if you dont believe in Evolution just say so, does a spiecies Evolve or not, you've gotten off point The point is there is NO speicies w/ the Gradual transitional forms that would fit the evolutionary Model if it exiseted, Like drawing cards outta a deck, the finds would be Random & the amount of 2's3's-7's-8 9'swould be near the same amount of finds @each stage
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane GAHHH! Sorry your stupidity is annoying. I'm not using linguistics anywhere, you are just don't know what the theory of evolution proposes and so are making an argument that doesn't make sense. You are asking for multiple obvious different changes to be found within a tiny proportion of a population. More importantly the ones we do have are ALL different, out of the "complete" skeletons that have been found of T-rex no two are the same. Just like humans...
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 thats right, they are different, because they are not related, they are NOT even distant relatives & I was asking for a Linage of relatives close enough to tell it was a relative at all & yet far enough to tell it wasnt as evolved or not as less primiative (whatch the triple negative there) lol, & you did not produce what would be abundant finds IF evolution were true !!!!!! BTW, the God says it is so obvious he exist, that YOU ARE THE FOOL to not recognize it, so dont say Im stupid
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane So how about Horses or Whales they have very good evolutionary linages. Oh yeah I forgot you already won't accept any of them because you are dogmatic.
The Bible says god is obvious but it also says Bats are Birds, Whales are Fish and that Slavery is ok, so not really going to take its word for it. Oh and it was written in the bronze age. Oh AND the Qu'ran says the exact same thing, so do ALL other religious books.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@ncwdane By the way, if you want to see a complete blow by blow evolutionary lineage why not look at the human evolutionary line which is as good as complete with hundreds of different specimens or you could what the last part of this series and have Aron explain it for you. Or you could actually try to understand the theory you are so insistent on challenging before you spout your drivel about 9s, 10s, 8.3s and the law of averages.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Thats it, since you dont have any transitinal water tight fossils of T-Rex or archeoptrix, switch over to the alleged Human Ape-man finds, OK, do you even know what the evidences for each creature is ???
I do, so MR quasi educated, what is the bones for each creature, Nebraska Man, what is the evidence for Nebraska Man, (I KNOW) Do you ?? how bout Piltdown man, do you know the story behind Piltdown man & Cro Magnum, & Ramapithecus , museums show a Whole creature, but.....guess what
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane There are only 30 fossils of T-rex and only 3 have heads you dunce and Only 9 Archaeopteryx fossils, do you seriously think there were only 9 archaeopteryx in existence. Of course there weren't, that is why your demand is ridiculous (that's without taking into account the rarity of the fossilisation process, something else you have no clue about). Now onto your ignorant claims about Nebraska and Piltdown Man: Piltdown man was falsified USING evolution; Nebraska was media stupidity...
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Yeahtake 10 decks of cards & schuffel them, make the Cups t-rexes & the diamonds Archeoptrix, what are the odds you draw nothing but 30 (10 of clubs & 9 (10 of dimaonds) I bet ya the next 2 diamonds are 10's also, & I do that becasue I KNOW theres only 10's in all the decks, You on the other hand bet your soul the next t-rex or archeoptrix will be something other than another 10, yet you wouldnt bet 100 bucks after that draw if I bet you the next 100 cards you draw are 10's
ncwdane 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 10 decks of cards & shuffle them, make the Clubs t-rexes & the diamonds Archaeopteryx, what are the odds you draw nothing but 30 (10 of clubs & 9 (10 of diamonds) I bet ya the next 2 diamonds are 10's also, & I do that because I KNOW there's only 10's in all the decks, You on the other hand bet your soul the next t-rex or archaeopteryx will be something other than another 10, yet you wouldnt bet 100 bucks after that draw if I bet you the next 100 cards you draw are 10's
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane For fucks sake. 1. Archaeopteryx and T-rex are from different geological time zones 2. There are thousands, if not millions of other species in the fossil record 3. FOSSILISATION IS RARE (how many times will I have to whack that into your head?) So your pack of cards is several billion in total and you'll only find certain cards in certain places and there are several thousand different suites. So your argument is invalid because it doesn't fit with reality.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@ncwdane The Piltdown hoax was disproved using evolutionary theory, Nebraska man was pure speculation being blown out of proportion by the press and Ramapithicus was more than just a single ape jaw, they were thought to be a closer cousin of humans than they actually turned out to be, it actually turned out to be a already known previous species known as Sivapithecus. However NON of these do anything to the extensive list of species which make up our evolutionary lineage.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 characteristics of the Jaw and teeth of Ramapithecus are also found in the teeth of a living, high altitude baboon known as Theropithecus Galada.11 However, the Galada baboon is certainly not on the evolutionary road to manhood., it is safe to assume that Ramapithecus is nothing more than an extinct ape. Indeed, this is precisely what some of the foremost evolutionists in the world have also concluded
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Not entirely accurate but you are not seeing your big problem: the actual transitions (not the frauds/ misinterpretations which you use as a straw man argument, as if these mistakes would affect the validity human evolution), Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Austrilapithicus Aferiensis, Homo Ergaster etc. All of these have got multiple finds and have been cross confirmed, so get with the facts, or you could just hide from them and keep believing in fairytales.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Your the one doing the moving Goal post, ALL these you mentioned have been debunked, I just gave you a few examples, I'm not gonna run through all of them, just to have you move the Goalpost again or change the subject like you have done by switching over tpo the human spiecies, as for how do I account for these finds, WTF you talking about, Nebraska mans a pigs tooth, proven in court, ramapithicas is a fossil of the lower jaw of a high altitude Ape living today, Coelicanths Live
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Talk about moving goal post, evolutionist had Coelicanths at 95 million yrs old & they are alivce & well & exactley the same today
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane But why am I trying to explain evolution to someone who will already dismiss out of hand any argument I put forward because of the dogmatic bullshit they have already swallowed. I have done no goal post moving, and if you care to disagree please explain where you think I have. You repeat outdated arguments which have been refuted many times by multiple people and in some cases they actually debunk your claims themselves. E.G Piltdown man which was exposed USING the theory of evolution.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 dUNNO know what you mean EXPOSED BY EVOLUTIONARY METHOD, THE FACT REMAINS, ITS A WELL KNOWN HOAX ~The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archeological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (OVER 40 years)elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.~identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown,suspects includE Dawson~ Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni"Dawson's dawn-man"
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Of course you don't understand, that's because you don't understand what evolution is, what a theory is or why evolution is a fact. Piltdown man was a hoax and the reasons we know it is a hoax are the very same reason we know that Australapithicus is real and so are Homo habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster etc. Piltdown man was debunked USING the scientific method and more specifically using the theory of evolution. Deal with it. You are wrong,
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey stated: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane So now you've added quote mining to your list of falsehoods. I'd love it if you A. provided me with the name of the website you got the quotes off and B. When/ where the full manuscripts the quotes are taken from can be found. After you have provided me with this information (which I'm not expecting you will, as the dishonest creatard you are.) I will draw this too a close, because you refuse to accept that your position is wrong even when corrected and will lie to further your cause.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 "quot minning" you asserted i needed to get educated, when the fact is it's the other way around !!!, so, thats why I resorted to useing venues or sources you might not be prejudice against, so you would see, that you're the one who needs to get educated & are in the wrong, as for sources & wahtnot, just copy & paiste prtions of the quots, I'm sure it will take you to them, But by admition of YOUR own scientist evidence wouldnt fill a coffin & is scanty at best !!!!!!
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane The very fact that you refuse to supply me with any kind of reference to your quotes is as goods as admitting you know you are lying. I already did google your quotes and they all come up with the same thing, religious nuts like you spewing them out (out of context) to attempt prove your own bullshit myths. It'll take more than a coffin to hold all the fossils of the various species that are the proof of human evolution, now you'll need a whole Olympic swimming pool.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 The "fit all the evidence" quot was reffering to Ape-man fossils, not t-rexes & stuff like that, I'm not Lieing & I'm tired of you, your ot bright enough to find this info, you wouldnt understnd it if I rubbed your nose in it, Later my hellbound poor friend, I believed in Evolution the Day I recieved the Lord so it didnt stop me, so alls I can say is I bessech you to put the Ball in Gods court & ask him to reveal himself & truth to you, if ya dont, then you reject him, even if he is
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane Are how cute, you think I just reject your god because I don't want it to exist. I was raised Christian. I asked "the lord" to reveal itself but nothing, and I'm not one for blind faith, verifiable proof and evidence all the way, if it cannot be verified, it ain't real. Oh and if you believed in evolution, you doing it wrong. Evolution doesn't need faith, it is testable and verifiable.
Oh and I was also talking about hominid fossils as well, there are a lot of them.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 ."6 New Scientist commented: "Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive."
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane You just love repeating yourself. I have already freely admitted that Nebraska man was a mistake (not by scientists, but by the press) and the jaw of Ramapithicas, aka Sivapithecus (they are the same) was an ancient ape and is not one of the fossils thought to be a precursor to humans.
WRONG, non of the examples I gave have EVER been debunked. They are through and through transitional fossils and if you beg to differ you MUST provide the evidence to disprove them...
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@ncwdane You also show no understanding of evolution either. Yes it is true that Coelacanth was thought to have been extinct as fossils of them have been found, however evolution does not dictate that if we find a fossil of a species therefore it MUST be extinct, if Coelacanth is adapted to it's environmental niche and that environment does not require it to change to that greater extent then it will remain alive, (a living fossil as it were)...
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 , "moving Goalpost again I see
as far as the fossil record, if you cant see its all 10's by now, I guess I cant help ya
but I will bet ya 1,000 dollars the next t-rex found or archeoptryx is metamorphically the same, NOT WHAT YOU'D EXPECFT TO FIND THEM LOOK LIKE A MILLION OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 6-50 MILLION YRS EARLIER !! WHY BECAUSE I KNOW THOSE DONT EXIST ! , hey I got a deck of cards, wanna bet ya cant pull anything but 10's outta it, I'll bet ya, but ya cant see the cards face 1st
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane You're always wrong. Not only do you avoid the difficult questions I ask, but you accuse me of things and then never substantiate those accusations. You've said I've moved the goal posts but you will not specify what those goalposts are. You've repeated that same "10's" argument over and over even though I've explained why it is wrong. More over your demands aren't even possible due to the processes of fossilisation and evolution. What you are demanding isn't possible.
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@ncwdane naw. it does not need to be pulling just 10 out of it. every time i get 10 i get to keep it and every time i pull something difrent i can discard it. that is natural selection.
gooddarkjedi 9 months ago
@ncwdane Cro-magnon were actually Homosapiens (just like you and me) they were just the first ones discovered. Ramapithecus was also revised USING evolutionary theory. SO get with the facts. How does your fairytale account for their existence and why do you need to lie about their significance?
Again, Fossilisation is RARE so you cannot possible expect there to be that many fossils, we are lucky to have what we have. I gave you one lineage (humans) and you tried to reject it out of hand...
Gibbons3457 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 so, we can strike out the pigs tooth Nebraska man, & it's Fairly well known that piltdown man was a hoax & Ramapithicas was only one side of a lower jaw that matches a high altidue ape living in africa today, so wanna go through the others, there has not been one find thats so caled early man that is a water tight arguement & in fact, the Hankey ankey BS behind all this rivals your BS
ncwdane 10 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Cont.... The other thing is on law of averages alone, if we find 9 at one stage, its not like we should find 9 at stage 1 & 9 at stage 2....or 9 at stage 3-9 at each stage & so on, WHAT WE SHOULD FIND ON AVERAGE IS.... 9 at stage 8.1 & 9 at stage 8.2 & 9 at stage 8.3 & so on, so like 100 at stages 6.1 thru 6.9 & 100 at stages 7.1 thru 7-9 & 100 at stage 8.1 thru 8.9 etc. IF we find say 9 at stage 10.0 , so the expected finds if Evolution were true, isnt even close !!!!!!!
ncwdane 10 months ago
@AronRa well..... you failed
ncwdane 10 months ago
@ncwdane What traits would you expect to see in a precursor to archaeopteryx?
AronRa 9 months ago
@AronRa Common Aron, you actually have to ask ? just go back every 100,000 year INTERVALS & Imagine about what you might expect to see (unless you believe in spontanious generation) I think as you went along, IF evolutiuon were true, some slihghtly sub standard to the most advance of its kind found to date, a gradual degeneration ever so subtle at 1st you could no doubt tell it was the same spiecies or linage on it's way, but so many at different stages would be found, NOT ALL at JUST ONE STAGE
ncwdane 9 months ago
@ncwdane Answer the question. What traits would you expect to see in a precursor to archeopteryx?
AronRa 9 months ago
@AronRa well now, if evolution were true, I'd just direct you to a sight w/ all the pictures of the many fossils now wouldnt I,
but since it is NOT true, we dont have those pictires or fossils on file & i'd only be speculating what an archeoptrix would look like 100,000yrs less developed & 200,000yrs less developed, but something like less developed wings & less develelooped beak & less developed bones & bone structure, perhaps less developed legs&so on, being less developed the older the find
ncwdane 9 months ago
@ncwdane Evolution is easy to prove only because it is true. That's also why we have all the pictures that you say we don't. Another demonstration for that is that I can so easily meet challenges like yours. You say archeopteryx wings, legs, and beak would be 'less developed' on a preceding transition, right? Did you forget that archeopteryx doesn't even have a beak? How under-developed is that? Now clarify please, what sort of wings or legs would you expect on an earlier species?
AronRa 9 months ago
@ncwdane your own failure to understand reality is the only fail in here.
gooddarkjedi 9 months ago
@gooddarkjedi OK, Lets Talk Reality
In the Beginning GOD , OK, Now, you are Made of dirt (I can easily Prove this) now who but God cant take dirt & make it into a Human ?
Can you, ? are you so intelligent that you can take dirt & make self replicating Humans ????
or do you believe dirt left unattended can make self replicating Humans all by itself ?
well, can it ??? lemme tell ya reality, NOT IN A MIILION YEARS !!! Not 10 or 100 Million Years !!!
ncwdane 9 months ago
hahahahahahahah....!!!!
one of the Guys on here in our debate said I was moving Goalpost in our debate
hahahahahahahaha. how laughable, My belief & defence is solid & the same, OMG , OMFG !!! Talk about moving Goal post, as Evolutionist over the years keep adding more & more time to the're lame theory as they learn more & figure out theirs not enough time, over & over again & are constantly cahanging text books as flaws come in annually w/ new discrovery's , Moving goal post indeed ! LOL
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane "one of the Guys on here in our debate said I was moving Goalpost in our debate" Me. Because you are. Every time you are given proof of transitional fossils you either make up some ridiculous reason why it isn't one (usually going against the very laws of evolution to do so) or you dismiss it as a fake. When you say there is no transition between species A and G and we give you species B through F you then ask us to fill all the gaps between B/ C, C/D etc. That is moving the goal post.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@ncwdane When you complain that evolution is changing what you are actually are complaining about is that evolution is advancing. You know like all those advances in medicine, made possible through our understanding of evolution. All those murderers, caught using the same principles of genetics which also prove evolution. If you think you can call evolution lame, what about gravity, it's far less supported than evolution. Your beliefs and defences are unsupported conjecture, baselessly asserted.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 & w/ those new discoveries many evolutionist, (Me oncluded) became &/or saw the obvious flaws in the poor theory & are even embaressed to have ever believed in it & we adjust our position to the truth of Creation, If yyou cant see the obvious Flaws of even the Law of averages in the fossil record & what should be there, I cant help you at this point, I mean even archeoptryix, to find to the same in a row is 1 in 10 chance, shoulda found more or less evolved 2nd find, much less 9
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane "many evolutionist, (Me oncluded) " Evolutionist? I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as an Evolutionist. Only someone as vapidly ignorant as you would believe something like evolution on faith. Whilst those with a rational mind actually accept it as a great theory which has never yet been disproven, only vindicated and built upon as our understanding of REALITY (something you don't spend much time thinking about apparently) increased.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Takes more faith to believe in evolution than a supreme God outside the time realm w/ the evidence & especially w/ the lack of evidence, we know their are scienific Laws that you cant create something from nothing & yet everything is, & you cant go back far enough if it supposedly always was to get to the 1st day to complete it so you could have the 2nd day & eventually get to today, there for god must of Miraculasly created it & evelution is religion doctrine for human secularism
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Your punctuation is terrible, your spelling is abysmal, your sentence structure is awful and your arguments are trash. Classic example of a creationist.
Evolution isn't a religion because it is not based on faith. It is a field of science.
You say god. If so, which one. There are thousands.
It takes NO faith to accept evolution. The evidence supporting it is demonstrable, more importantly we've had years of evolutionary study and it hasn't been disproven. Deal with it.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 I dont think my punctuation flaws are gonna fly well w/ god on your judgement day for your sins & I know you sinned a LOT cause God told me you have ! as for Evolutinary Faith based belief, of course its based on faith, NEVER has life been formed outta non life, or DNA been made/observed formed from Non DNA (& it takes 2 sides simutaniously BTW, also the scientific laws of energy you cant get something from nothing & eternal existant laws & that require faith to believe evelution
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Oh great now you have an imaginary friend that can tell you things that are impossible to know. Plus if your god doesn't like sinners he ain't gonna like you, you lie constantly. Your literacy skills are going to get you a job in the REAL world, your god seems to be unable to grant those. There is NO scientific law which contradicts evolution, that only exists in your mind. Find me (and you must specify exactly) the scientific laws which contradict evolution.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@ncwdane You claim we "believe" something coming from nothing ( which we don't). Yet that is EXACTLY what you believe: Something (everything) comes from a non material (extremely complex) non material being, (or nothing in a scientific sense). Talk about projecting.
And just so you can ignore this: Organic chemicals form naturally, so it's not "life from non life" (oh the numbers of straw men you use in lu of an actual argument) .But life from non life is common. You eat, don't you?
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 There you go yet again Hasbrow, saying i said stuff I didnt say, no wonder you cant get complex science rt,! Look,You cant have it both ways in ur Human secularist religious belief, if ur saying everything always was, then you have a law about finite things cant go back far enough in eternity to get to the 1st day to complete it so it can continue to the 2nd day, & if you say that it suddenly appeared outta nothing, you go against the science laws you cant get something from nothing
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane "you cant get something from nothing" So why do you believe that?
"There you go yet again Hasbrow, saying i said stuff I didnt say, no wonder you cant get complex science rt" Hasbrow? Could you please specify where I misquoted you?
Your argument makes no grammatical sense . Please rewrite (seriously). If you are complaining about Big Bang cosmology, just know that it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology and isn't something from nothing either. Go research it.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 "cant get something from nothing (E=M/c sq.) its sorta science 101, take a vacuum sometime, by that I mean a room or Glass dome & completely empty it of all matter & then try to make something appear or "be" it simply is against all science, that would take something Miraculous to cause that,(God for instance) it is true, some evolutionist think God got it started & then evolution took over from there, How do you propose life started, faith things popped up outta a wet lifeless rock
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Congratulations you know about Einstein, however your argument is still invalid as Big Bang cosmology ALREADY TAKES THIS INTO ACCOUNT. You have no evidence for a god so adding one in for the sake of filling a gap in your knowledge is pointless, it doesn't explain anything.
Evolution = change in allele frequencies in populations, resulting in new species. Not something coming from nothing or the origin of life (Abiogenesis) if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know this.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Abiogenisis did NOT create life or even DNA, it made some building blocks to life(amino acids), but thats a far cry from non life to life !!! as For God, I have Lots of evidence for God ! Go look in the mirror to see some evidnce & just realize lifeless mudd can not design & create such a creature w/ thought & Imagination ! 100% accurate prophecy is evidence of god & God says it's so obvious he exist your w/o excuse to believe "He is" why dont you ask him to reaveal himself to you ?
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane "Abiogenisis did NOT create life or even DNA, it made some building blocks to life(amino acids)" Wrong again. The theory of Abiogenesis is the theory explaining how life first arose from chemicals (which formed to make amino acids, which formed RNA, DNA etc) It is a different field of study to evolution and clearly something you know nothing about. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements such as "things popped up outta a wet lifeless rock".
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 &....& & &..........!!!! it's NEVER EVER been done in a Laboratory or Onserved happening, only up to amino acids, NOT DNA !!! so, one must have Faith that that explination is true, beings it has never been able to take the Lifeless ingrediances & create life from non life, even though we know the chemical make-up of Humans & other life, w/o DNA or a seed or life to begin with, we never made a new lifeform or a copy of one in existance in an earlier state
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane " only up to amino acids, NOT DNA" Nope, sorry man. We have also created Adenine in the Lab, which as you sure know, is one of the four nucleotides of DNA and RNA
danoso0931 11 months ago
@danoso0931 four molecules become part of a very complex double helix spiral held together by other molecules yet, none of which have been produced in such experiments. Adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T), while cytosine (C) pairs with guanine (G). The two DNA strands are held together by weak bonds between the AT and CG base pairs: THIS IS NOT LIFE but only a small section of DNA which even the simplest bacteria have 0.6 million to 4.7 million of these paired AT / CG bases in a precise order
ncwdane 11 months ago
@dano-cont.~Humans have 3 BILLION paired bases that form their DNA.
ncwdane 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncwdane "Humans have 3 BILLION paired bases that form their DNA." Your point?
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 A Bioligist who beliueves in Eolution when asked if Abiogeneses created life in a Lab he replied~ "Not yet. Abiogenesis probably takes place over the course of thousands or millions of years, which is difficult to replicate for scientists who's lives number in the tens of years. We know that when we replicate the conditions of early Earth in the lab many chemicals thought to be precursors to life can be generated".
Therefore FAITH based nothing else(probably is NOT Science) !!!
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane We have seen that organic molecules can form from inorganic ones. But the fact that science has made a prediction which has been partially confirmed and therefore a hypothesis has been proven means that no faith is required. Science never requires faith, everything predicted is based on evidence.
Try watching some of the video's which you rant at, you might learn something. Until then I refuse to respond to someone so willingly ignorant and so intellectually dishonest. Ciao
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 LOL, thats NOT science, thats Faith !
The fact that you are & that the Fossil record fits evolution & the hypothisis expected for creation is what is found & the hypothisis for evolution isnt even close to whats found is science then, cause whats found is all 10's !
No 1-9 sub evolved to the creatures found & NO j/Q/K more evolved than the ctreatures found, even just the Archeopryix, odds are the 2nd one found shoulda been more or less evolved than the 1st
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Part 3. You clearly have no idea what faith is either. Faith is an absolute convection held with no supporting evidence ( or contradictory to evidence) eg You and your faith in god/ the bible or creation. Science does not need faith because it doesn't make claims that which the evidence does not support and the evidence supports evolution, it's THE strongest scientific theory. Just deal with it. Your denial of the facts doesn't make them go away.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago 2
@ncwdane Part 4. Nor does your ignorance of evolutionary theory make your hopelessly poorly written arguments valid. Just because you have no understanding of the scientific method doesn't mean that your ignorant opinion will change it or the facts which support it.
If you understood evolutionary theory you would know that your arguments are invalid due to the nature of how animals are classified, how cladograms and phylogenetic tree's are constructed and how transitional forms are deduced.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago 2
@Gibbons3457 Yes, I EAT & I AM A LIFEFORM, dont try to Joke outta this one, Thats my point, the food does not become lifeform w/o intervention of life(Me) & you also point out we know what chemicals it takes for the physical make side to life & YET WE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LIFEFORM EVEN W/ OUT INTELEGENT INTERVENTION IN A LABORATORY W/O EXISTING LIFE OR DNA, Therefore as I said, evolutionist theory is based on Faith ! having faith that these millions of plants fish & animals just happened
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane The reason that the morphology of the fossils we find is the same is because the only way we can classify a fossil is morphologically. So if a difference is too great between two fossils is then they will be classified separately then as more are found it can be more easily seen if they are the same or just similar species. Fossilisation is a rare occurrence. We can only work we have. There are however cases of fossils showing deformities e.g Big Al
Now go and get an education.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Picture if you will for a minute, a T-rex what its ansister looked like when it was 1,000 years old.
OK, now picture a t-rex at 100,000yr intervals all the way to the 28 most Morphological one we have found & what that might look like & picture a museum w/ a full spiecies fossil for each stage set up in order for tours to look at showing the evolution of the T-Rex, now make 100 of each stage & bury them , pull them out 1 at a time & I bet you dont get 28 all at the same stage !
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane You have no idea of what a transitional species is. We don't need Every stage of development we just need those species which demonstrate the stages between species A and species G eg. Species B - F that is all. We don't need every single individual. That is another common straw man argument used by creationists. Nor are all T-rex found the same, they are of different genders and different sizes. You clearly can't use google.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Oh No !!! Dont tell me you believe in spontanious Generation, Oh Man, thats the super far fetch Straw man argument evolution isyt that KNOW the fossil record didnt fit the evolutionary model so they had to make up somthing else to explain it, so thats the strawman theory !!! so now even though nothing is the same speices they can say its a transitional form even if it isnt just so long it kinda looks close :( thats bad
diff.genders & size isnt what i'ze saying, same era all "10"s
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Part 1.
Ok this is just so ridiculous I'm going to respond out of amusement. You chat utter bollocks.
"Dont tell me you believe in spontanious Generation" NO, because Abiogenesis disproves that hypothesis.
Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Clearly not with the way you throw that phrase around. Just to clarify, an argument straw man is where you attack an argument never made by the person you are arguing and try to use it to rebut their actual argument.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago 3
@ncwdane Part 2. *face palm* Do you actually think that cladograms are made just on one similarity between two species. Honestly you take vapid ignorance to extreme levels. They are constructed using a variety of techniques and comparative morphology is one of them (you clearly haven't watched this video, if you had you would already know this. ). The fossil record doesn't support creation as species appear with clear precursors evident in the fossil record and at different time periods.
Gibbons3457 11 months ago 2
@Gibbons3457 Whata ya think we only find every creature in ONLY the Last Day that species existed, think back to the 1st find of each creature, T-rex/Archeoptryix/Brontasaurous/Trilobits, the Day they found each one, if Evolution were true, you'd not know if the next find might be the same creature a million or 2 or 3 o8 or 9 million yrs latter, a lil of significantly or majorly more evolved, never found one in an earlier state, always the last state of development, 1st & Last really (creation)
ncwdane 11 months ago
@Gibbons3457 Problem is... you dont have any stages
IF WE USED A 1-10 STAGE, Throw out 1-5, cause we'd be arguing if it was even an ancestor of the same species, but once you got close, there would be no question, & its not like if you found 25 at stage 10 that youd find 25 at stage 6 & 25 at stage 7 & 25 at stage 8 & 9, but more like 25 would be found at stage 7.1 & 25 more at stage 7.2 & 7.3 on up through 8.9 & 9.0 & 9.1 & yes on average & maybe none at a few atages, But not all at only 10
ncwdane 9 months ago
@ncwdane Please define (rigidly) what you mean by "stage" because atm you are making it sound like you mean individuals, which is ridiculous when we are talking about fossils. So define your terms and then maybe your argument will make more sense. After that it will be easier for us to correct your many misconceptions about evolution. eg. mud turning into men and your obsession of using words such as developed incorrectly.
Gibbons3457 9 months ago
@Gibbons3457 You're the one saying a more complex creature w/ hands starting to grow, 45 million yrs ago, then de-evolved to a less complex Dog , instead of useing its hands more & evolving in an advancing way, & eventually even walking uporight, but no, it's hands turned into Paws nearly mmatching the rear paws, yeah right ;-) LOL BTW did you know trilobits have some of the most complex eyes of any creature EVER !
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane You are so ignorant. Nothing can De - evolve (The evolutionary law of irreversibility). If loosing it's hands were more beneficial for a species then it is highly likely that it will. Complexity has nothing to do with evolution, survivability is all that matters, adaptation, NOT complexity. Species can evolve to be more or less complex. Again, go do some research. Trilobites have complex eyes, but that doesn't make them MORE evolved than something like Jellyfish (which have no eyes).
Gibbons3457 11 months ago
Hesperocyon=Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
So now what, De-evolution :-/ , Plus the amount of time they go back & wheres all the transitions leading to this speicies, it may be the dog family, but it's awefully complex to go back over 40 nillion & again, wheres the gradual speicies leading to it, Bet if they find another one, its NOT 10-5-% more or less developed than whats been found so far, Just like w/ archeoptrix, not 1 is more or less evolved
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane You ask where the transitionals are *after* they've been shown to you. Not just in fossils of course, but in genetic orthologues too, things which you can neither ignore nor address. It isn't de-volution when a generalized arboreal animal begets several lineages of high-speed super-predators.
AronRa 11 months ago 3
Cant bread mules either, gotta have a Donkey & a Horse, so this isnt something the is any evidence for evolution, what would be is a Solid gradual random find of millions of fossils GRADUALLY getting a lil more & a lil more complex in an OBVIOUS unquestionable manner, the fossil records not even scanty or close, its beyond just small gaps !
ncwdane 11 months ago
Non of these brands of dogs is more or less evolved than the other..
wheres the millions of gradual fossils leading up to todays Dogs...
this is like drawing only 10's outta a deck of cards everytime...
if we only had great Danes & all the others were fossils, they'd say dotsons were 16 milion years old & poodles 12 million & then retrievers & so on, theres no fossils of dogs at 60% evolved 70% 80% etc :-/ evolutions bankrupt ! all dogs mentioned here are HERE NOW
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Are all my critics trolls? Or do creationists never bother to watch the videos they respond to? You said all dogs mentioned here are HERE NOW. OK then, show me Hesperocyon or cynodictis for example? Where can I find a borophagine breeder? Why don't creationists ever get tired of being proven absolutely wrong about absolutely everything?
AronRa 11 months ago
@AronRa I didnt say any Dogs arnt extinct
I said: "All Dogs that are Here, are here now"
the Burden of proof is one you, where are the millions of Gradual transitions that would be there IF creation were true ??? they arnt there !!! (mybe some extinct animals) BUT NO CLEAR CUT Water tight Transitional Forms for Dogs, or any speicies for that matter, & the transitions shou far out number every species fond that happen to all be found metamorphically the same (28 t-rexes 9 archeoptyix etc etc)
ncwdane 11 months ago
@ncwdane Where are the transitions? You're looking at them. If dachshunds were now extinct, would be then demand that I produce a transition between them and other dogs? If I respond to that challenge by presenting you with a bloodhound, would that satisfy you? If I then bridge that gap with a basset hound, would you accept that? Or will you keep ignoring everything shown to you and cling to an absurd fantasy in its place?
AronRa 11 months ago
@AronRa There ya go, Thats what I said earlier, They are all just different breeds of Dogs, I even said that if Dachshunds had gone extinct say 5,000 yrs ago, & a fossil of it was found, evolutionist would say it was a transitional form, all dogs are confined to the DNA within it's species & will never create anything other than a Dog, & it will never get feathers & fly, or gills & breath under water or start talking & inventing spaceships & cars & write books & we were never an omeba or unicell