Ugh, in three days, I'm going to be totally over this creationism bullshit. I've learned a lot on the way, but these people are just starting to bore me.
Ugh, in three days, I'm going to be totally over this creationism bullshit. I've learned a lot on the way, but these people are just starting to bore me.
You're still lying. The closest your video comes is at the very end when it says, "The mechanism or mechanisms that cause evolution to happen will be covered in another video."
You're lying. No process have ever been observed to add new genetic information (i.e. genetic information that has never existed in any organism) to an organism's genetic code. To prove you're not lying, all you have to do is give one example. State what specific information never existed in any organism, what organism's genetic code it was added to, and by what process it was added.
Define "information." Your argument lies in your inability or unwillingness to define this term.
You COULD just go to the tinyurl link I posted. They give a few examples and more are found in the references. Learning requires legwork from the learner.
But then again, if you weren't lazy and dishonest, you wouldn't be a creationist.
The proof of your folly is manifested in your inability to provide an example of a process that has been observed to add new genetic information (i.e. genetic information that has never existed in any organism) to an organism's genetic code. .
You're lying --there are no examples in the URL you posted.
God says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"
"You're lying --there are no examples in the URL you posted."
O RLY?
"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur."
Directly from that link. There, an example. Now who's lying?
Scientists can't prove living tissue is made of cells? atoms? gravity
(gravity is a mathematical law not a thing)? I guess the definition of a qualifier is "just in case I'm wrong" which is fine as long as both parties in the debate get to use it. Sadly most atheists, evolutionists, whatever only want their "authority" to be recognized as "Look at me, I'm so smooth and understated with confidence that the rest of the world is beneath me" i.e. complete bulls*(&^
@TheZooCrew UofM? Michigan Tech here. Anywho, you have heard of an electron microscope? Are you an engineer or a philosopher? You're the big head and we disappear when you sleep, right?
I wonder how many scientist even give the bible a good read. The fact of the matter is they cant "prove" anything. No scientist can disprove the bible either. Its all a bunch of ppl running from their creator. Useing science to mask their sin. As the wisest man ever, king solomon said, the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge: but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction. It doesnt matter if u admit it or not. There is a God and he is HOLY! A fool says in his heart, there is no god.
Please tell me why humans are the only thing on earth that has a conscience. Why this is not found in animals. The bible tells us that God made us in His image..
@DonExodus2 I wonder why you haven't updated this vid Don? Science has confirmed that actually Neanderthals were human and all non African human races contain about 5% or more Neanderthal genome.
I realize at the time of this vid that wasn't the case, but since then it has been confirmed.
Well, my faith is strong and the eyes of my heart have been opened. What people are so afraid of condemnation because people don't want to feel guilty. So by denying God people can pretend they have no guilt.
You can lie all you want about the intentions of other people, but it doesn't change the fact that you are apparently denying reality. Your rant is a non sequitur.
Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are douches. They don't practice what they preach. If you were to ask them "Where did their god come from" they would say "god existed before time and will always exist."
This reply is very illogical as they aren't providing any proof. They are only providing words from their bible which they take on faith as being true. They use no science to prove it is true. They use no facts to support the claim.
Faith can not be reasoned with; it is a belief without facts.
You really ought to update your vid. It has been proven that Neanderthal was indeed human. All modern populations of people not of 100% African decent have at least approximately 3-5% Neanderthal genes.
You know, I actually saw one of these clowns say that dinosaurs and man did live together but that Noah made the door on the ark too small and they couldn't get in, thats why they all died! LMFAO!
Why haven't we found populations of these hominid-transitional-fossils, rather then just a few Isolated specimens - scattered across the earth? One would think, during the course of evolution, these hominids would have populated dense areas of the earth... like Dinosaurs. So correct me if I'm wrong, but over the course of 150yrs... shouldn't we have discovered such archaeological sites by now?
We don't just find "a few isolated specimens" at a time. We usually find several in the same dig site.
In addition, fossilization is an extremely rare event. There were also orders of magnitude more dinosaurs through history than hominids (even just by time, dinosaurs were the dominant animal for 160 million years, while hominids have only been around for 14 million).
Judging liars, thieves, murderers, etc is. . .tyranny??
If evolution were true --if humans were just chance chemicals acting-- then rape, child molestation (& humans committing genocide) would be no different morally than baking soda reacting with vinegar.
You're obviously not atheist. Every time u judge, you're acknowledging & appealing to a standard by which judgments SHOULD be made (God).
But unlike your judgments & mine, God's judgments are pure and perfect.
You demonstrate the number 1 problem on this planet.
Groups of ignorant bigots still think where someone comes from is more important than where they go.
So what if we're merely products of evolution? Why does that mean anything concerning morality? Do you really need mommy to tuck you in every night and tell you how much of an angel you are to feel any sense of worth? Are you really so incapable of doing anything worthwhile that you must cling to your notion of inherent value?
See, rationalists are perfectly comfortable with our origins. We really don't care about fate or if we were put here "for a reason." This is because our lives are defined by what we do with them, not by where we're from.
"Judging liars, thieves, murderers, etc is. . .tyranny??"
Ordering backtalking children, nonvirgins, people who work on saturdays to death is tyranny
"If evolution were true... would be no different morally than baking soda reacting with vinegar"
Wrong, part of evolutionary survival also entails social orderes and social morality. You don't see any of those things going on in a herd of Cows, do you?
HaHa, you're funny! I grew up on a farm, and I always wondered why the animals held court and called in witnesses, and upheld such things as "innocent until proven guilty," etc, etc, etc. hahaha! Thanks for the laugh!
Humans are created in the image of God. That's why we hold to abstract concepts (which, btw, are non-material and cannot be accounted for by atheistic evolution) such as "innocent until proven guilty," etc.
You are aware that in the U.S. the laws are not based on "God's word" right? IF they were we would have the same justice system as Islamic law nations
"Humans are created in the image of God"
God is created int eh image of man...its the only way to explain why an allknowing allpowerflu being could be so insicure as to need our worship, not to mention why he would care about people's sex lives
Re: "3 witnesses" and "guilty until proven innocent"
You don't do your research before u take pot shots. & u must not do your research before you make your other wild claims. The witnesses required in the OT was more than what's required 2put someone to death in the US. And since you claim to know the Bible so well, tell me where the God in the Bible supposedly endorsed "guilty until proven innocent." I studied it quite a bit in law school, and you've got it quite backwards.
In US, people are put 2death on the testimony of only ONE witness. What part of "2 or 3 is greater than 1" don't u understand? Also, there was examination of the witnesses in OT law, and if the witness was found to be lying, the punishment was equal to the crime for which the witness lied, & etc. Again, this is a much stronger protection 4 the accused in a capital case than what is found in US criminal law. Like I said, u obviously don't do your research before u make wild claims.
"In US, people are put 2death on the testimony of only ONE witness"
You are a liar to claim you attended classes and law and think that.
death penalties in the U.S. require enough evidence to get a unanimous vote of guilty from a 12 person Jury taht all agree guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, and on top of that contains YEARS of appeal processes. And 1 witness is enver enough.
If you are going to lie there is no point discussing anything with you
« That's why we hold to abstract concepts [...] such as "innocent until proven guilty," »
No, we hold to that concept purely because of reason, in order to minimize the number of innocent people put away for a crime they didn't commit. Gods have nothing to do with it.
« which, btw, are non-material and cannot be accounted for by atheistic evolution »
There's a word for such nonsense: your comment is fractally wrong. That means it's wrong on every level one cares to examine it at. For starters, there's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Furthermore, it is not the job of evolution to account for anything but biological diversity.
Regarding Everest's "rate of growth:" Nice try, WhiteOwl, but your claim to know the rate at which Everest rose in the past is an unfounded unproven assumption not supported by any real science. It's mere opinion.
Actualy, I back tracked it based on its current rate of growth to show that I wasn't dtermining it at its current height, which would have been unfair to teh creationist side
As to Geography at that time...the world Could not have been flat, because rising of mountains that fast would pretty much rip the crust apart.
Sorry, your myths just don't hold up.
And no, there isn't enough water and no it wasn't flat
Re: rising of mountains that fast would pretty much rip the crust apart
uh yep. pretty much. There are some theories of catastrophic plate tectonics out there that explain the mid-oceanic ridge that wraps around the earth like the seam of a baseball that runs parallel to the major mountain ranges. You probably
The author of this video sounds very confident - let me tell them that they cannot nor ever will beat God - Jesus is going to come again to judge the world whether you believe that or not - in your opinion would Jesus have been an "evolved bacteria"? Remember again, that Jesus is going to be your judge, before you reply.
Are u open 2d possibility that d God of d Bible is NOT "a genocidal maniac not worth worshiping?" Millions have come 2a markedly different conclusion (doesn't mean they're right --just that you're arrogant if you don't closely examine how I might have come 2 that conclusion b4 u judge me). Are u too closed-minded 2b open 2d possibility that there's something you've missed when reading d Bible? Have you even read d most influential literature of history in its entirety (the Bible)?
there is a problem with your focus...Reading the Bible in its entirety is WHY we veiw the Judeo-Christian god as Genocidal...Its all over the place.
A God worth worshiping would be more just than slaughtering an entire planets woth of life because they wern't following the rules, or turning a person to a pillar of salt for looking back.
Especialy since a worl wide flood is impossible. And the salt thing dosn't sound to feasible either
@whiteowl1415 I don't know for sure, but I don't think it would require more water than what we have. Actually, it should be dependent on how much flooding we are talking about. Complete land submersion including to the top of the highest mountains? Does this water then have to be all at equal level and not just higher on certain areas? Disclaimer, I am not religious.
I did a video with the math, but caught an error and have to fix it before reposting.
the story says it covered all the mountains.
reducing Everest by its rate of groth to flood time, I found it would require a little about 3 1/4 times as much water as we have be added to what we have now.
Also, water can't be higher on certain areas...as a liquid it will seek to even out by its nature. Try gettin the middle of a bowl of water higher than the edge
@whiteowl1415 That's true about leveling out. I was more thinking along the lines at everything flooding to the same level. I know water tops out eventually to the same level. But I totally disregarded the bible story lol. Yea, God flooded by rain so the water would have risen at a consistent and equal rate. Man, I think I just did a horrible job of describing my thoughts. Hopefully you got the point :P
@iz2sicc 1 The Bible tells us that water came from two sources: below the earth and above the earth. Evidently, the source for water below the ground was in great subterranean pools, or “fountains” of fresh water, which were broken open by volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity
The Pentateuch is a compilation of local cultural myths likely put together by Ezra.
The first "evidence" is the result of tectonic uplift, which can be proven.
The rest are vague statements with no actual meaning in context. All of those things happen in localized areas, but never on a global scale in history. You're obviously not a scientist or anything close.
There's more than plenty of water on our planet to flood the entire earth, provided the geography were more level (i.e. if the mountains were not too high and ocean valleys not too deep). Your outlandish claim (that a world-wide flood was not possible about 4,000 years ago) assumes you know what the geography was like at that time, which you obviously don't.
@MegaFloyd100 That is the least of the problems. If a worldwide flood happened, there would be tons of evidence suggesting that it happened. This is simply not the case. Also, you need to realize that the majority of sea life would have been killed off if a worldwide flood happened. Mix fresh water and salt water together then put salt water and fresh water sea life into that mix and see what happens.
Lets move on to a different aspect, how about the fact that Civilizations were continueing on through the time period with out being phased in the least?
Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms intact, Chinese Empire unbothered, India moving right along, Minoans, Myceneans, Indo-Europeans all over the place,
@MegaFloyd100 Wow, you can pull quotes from a creationist website. Great job. Let's just totally ignore the majority of scientific data that's published, supported, and taught throughout science institutions and classes.
@MegaFloyd100 Evidence 1-If your explanation for this occurrence is in fact true, then why don't we find fossilized sea creatures all over the world on mountain tops? Fact is, this occurrence isn't a common one and has been explained. Again, read a credible source and you'll see what causes this. Layman's terms... tetonic movement causing uplift pushes said fossils up.
@MegaFloyd100 Evidence 2- Not even sure what you are getting at here... rapid burial of plants and animals by way of flood? Is this the only explanation? What about say, a huge meteorite around 7 miles across?
re: "we veiw the Judeo-Christian god as Genocidal"
Why do you to say it was wrong for God to kill every person from a certain genetic "family?" To say it was wrong, you would have to know whether they were innocent or guilty, what He did with them after they died, etc. Do you claim to know these things?
He who makes the world makes the rules and determines the punishment. And both you and I have knowingly broken His rules.
re: "I don't claim that I'm right & everyone else is wrong."
Yes u do. U might not claim it directly, but it is the inevitable reality for all beliefs which contradict your beliefs (law of non-contradiction). & u definitely have strong beliefs/judgments --you've asserted some here. The assertion of ANY belief/judgment IS logically a claim that all contradictory beliefs r wrong --especially when u mock those who disagree. I'm not so arrogant as 2believe I could not be wrong. Are u?
"YOUR world view says rape, child molestation, and genocide are wrong because ____________?"
Because they HURT people, dickhead. Is your preferred mythology really the only thing preventing you from going on murder and rape sprees? If so, get professional help.
IF either one of us (or anyone, for that matter) is right about any belief, then any contradictory belief MUST be untrue --according to the law of non-contradiction (but of course, this law too could not exist without God).
Friend, what IS your religious belief?
I'm not going to chase every rabbit. You've been wrong before. Give me the essence of your supposed scientific evidence HERE for altruism hardwired into our Biology.
Not ignoring -just can't type fast -be patient, my friend. There's no scientific evidence that altruism is hardwired into our BIOLOGY. There IS extreme evidence that knowing we SHOULD be altruistic is hardwired into us SOMEHOW. The Bible says it's our "conscience," which is why u know u should do what "benefits as many lives as possible." Whether God uses our biology (or 2 what degree), I honestly don't know.
Friend, everyone thinks that what they believe is right (def. of belief).
"Friend, everyone thinks that what they believe is right "
Skeptics don't. In fact, anyone who's not stupid enough to see the world in black and white thinks this. We merely believe what we think is "mostly" right.
Zoo bear with me for a few questions while I try and set up the situation, or the argument. You get what I'm saying here in a minute. It's about morality. But I must start somewhere else. Let's start with what truth is.
If I were to say that I am communicating to you. That would be true.
I don't want to hear your stupid fucking argument about morality that will probably be riddled with logical fallacies and utter ignorance of science. But go ahead anyway, if you must.
"you tend to get mean and nasty when people don't accept your world view."
I really don't care. I've had my fill of creationists. At least I don't commit genocide when people don't "agree with my worldview," unlike religious zealots.
You tend to project your own faults onto others. Feel free to never come back.
Basing morality on "what's best for mankind" IS a moral judgment. What would make the humanist moral judgment the morally right one? Again, you used the Christian world view as a foundation to prop up the atheistic world view. If there were no God, then this "humanistic" foundation you used is no more morally valid than any other, including the idea that whatever is worst for mankind is the morally right thing.
Unlike religious zealots, I don't claim that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I just do what I think is right...what lets me sleep at night and what benefits as many lives as possible.
Actually, scratch that. Human life is not about what the majority decides what's right. It's what distilled from the human experience as being beneficial to the species.
In addition, you've done a great job of totally avoiding the topic. God and evolution are two mutually exclusive ideas. You're just incapable of distinguishing because you don't have two neurons to rub together and it's easier to believe a straw man.
If there really were no God, then every competing view of morality would be equally valid. Is it morally wrong for baking soda 2 react with vinegar? Of course not! Then how could it be wrong for chemicals in a person's brain 2 make him want to rape a woman or molest a child? It's just the random result of chance. My world view says those things are wrong because GOD (our Creator) says they're wrong & He gave us a conscience 2 know it.Your world view says they're wrong because _____??
"Your world view says they're wrong because _____??"
Firstly, I'm not an atheists.
Second, one does not need to be a theist to oppose suffering. In fact, the vast majority of theists believe in a God that both condones and commands that other people suffer. The God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac not worth worshiping. You don't believe me? Read Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
"If there really were no God, then every competing view of morality would be equally valid."
Depends on what you mean by "valid." Human life is all about what the majority decides is right. In addition, altruism is hardwired into our biology. You just like to credit a mythical deity because you're ignorant.
Actually, I do NOT believe that atheists have no morals. ALL atheists DO have morals! (eg: they know it's wrong to lie, steal, murder...). Haven't you learned ANYTHING from Ray Comfort about the Christian world view? Although atheists have morals, they can't EXPLAIN HOW anything could be morally right or wrong USING their atheistic world view. They HAVE morals, they're just (willfully) ignorant of WHY they do. They cannot logically account for moral right and wrong without God.
"They cannot logically account for moral right and wrong without God."
Wrong. Most atheists are humanists...as in, they base their morality on what's best for mankind. Humanism is usually tied to utilitarianism in this fashion.
" It's just the random result of chance."
I see why you take your moral cues from Ray Comfort...it's easier than having an IQ greater than your shoe size.
Thank you. This is the first I've seen the number or title. Hopefully I'll have time to look at it this weekend.
Why are you being so angry & mean?
If atheistic evolution were true, there'd be nothing wrong with being ignorant (or even with wanting to stay ignorant), so why r u so judgmental?
And what does the title have to do with sexual intercourse? Your use of the "f" word displays a poor command of the English language -but maybe I've just had too many massive brain aneurysms ;)
Because you're lazy, willfully ignorant, dishonest, and there's far too many of you.
"If atheistic evolution were true, there'd be nothing wrong with being ignorant "
This is by far the dumbest thing I've heard all week. This doesn't even make sense. This stems from the rather odd straw man that atheists have no morals...as if obeying a genocidal tyrant of a deity is somehow moral.
Remember, I'm challenging you to state the actual evidence, which is why I asked where your evidence is. I won't "do your homework" for you by searching for something that I don't believe exists. I believe the reason you cannot tell me what the evidence is nor where it's documented is because there isn't any.
I gave you a doi number. That will give you the exact paper I detailed below.
I guess it doesn't matter what I say. You have no interest in learning. You could request a blue marker, I could put one in front of you, and you would deny it and insist it's red without batting an eyelash. How this doesn't cause a massive brain aneurysm is beyond me.
You didn't present any facts to support your Nylon-consuming bacteria claim. Wishful thinking doesn't equal facts. Where's the evidence?
It's easy to call people liars. Apparently you're not able to present scientific facts as evidence to support your claim. Instead of presenting facts, you retreat to name calling.
Evolutionists have had 13 YEARS to find EVIDENCE to prove Spetner wrong; instead of presenting evidence, the best they come up with is they don't like his "credentials"
"You didn't present any facts to support your Nylon-consuming bacteria claim. "
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.
"Evolutionists have had 13 YEARS to find EVIDENCE to prove Spetner wrong"
There's no need to prove wrong what was never implied in the first place. Why should scientists waste their time debunking every invented bullshit argument?
If you're referring to the list of fossils at the end of this video, tell me which fossil you think is the best evidence, & tell me what scientific facts you have as evidence to support that claim (since he doesn't give any!) Pick your BEST (1) example. If I can refute it, your claim is discredited. I won't waste my time refuting his unsupported claims for all those fossils. Can you provide evidence for ONE fossil that I can't refute?
So here's my challenge to those like you who claim that antibiotic resistance is evidence FOR evolution: Give me ONE example of antibiotic resistance that resulted from an INCREASE in genetic information.
Your other 5 supposed "examples" can be dismantled 1 by 1.
God is just and He will judge us for breaking His laws (like lying) on judgment day. Because He loves us, He paid the penalty we deserve for breaking those laws. We must obey Him & follow Jesus Christ. I invite u 2 Heaven
Lee Spetner is yet another liar. He is not an expert on mutations. He has no life science qualifications. Notice how your source is not only 13 years old, but it's a hack job...not a peer-reviewed publications.
You also mentioned "antibiotic resistance" as evidence. Again, it's the opposite of evolution. For those antibiotic resistances that have resulted from mutations, see the Lee Spetner quote in my 2nd comment below. A "beneficial" mutation does not equal an information-increasing mutation. Example: An antibiotic causes H pylori bacterium (HPB) to produce an enzyme which kills itself. HPB mutated by loosing the ability to produce the enzyme. The mutated HPB survived by LOOSING DNA info.
@yie1yie1 u r correct! claiming antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution is like saying ''deaf people have evolved resistance to nagging wives!'' or bald people have evolved resistance to nits'',or ''blind people have evolved resistance to sun glare!'
The ''fine print'' in these exagerated claims are willfully ignored to bolster claims that support their athiest dogma.
You mentioned "observed speciation" as evidence FOR evolution. You're not aware that this process is the OPPOSITE of evolution? All new species that we've observed being formed have LESS DNA information than the parent population from which they came! That's a LOSS of functional information. For evolution to have occurred, there would had to have been billions upon billions of increases of functional information in DNA. Yet, you cannot provide even ONE example that's been observed.
Lee Spetner, an expert on mutations, says: "ALL point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to REDUCE the genetic information and not to increase it." (Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, New York; Judaica Press, p138, 1998)
If this expert on mutations is wrong, then simply provide one example.
My use of the word "new" was redundant -if anything evolved, it obviously was new at the time it evolved.
I'm not aware of ANY scientific evidence for ANY organ evolving; hence my quest for some scientific evidence. For example, has it ever been OBSERVED to happen? Has any process that could even POSSIBLY cause it to happen ever been observed? (such as a mutation causing new functional information)? If so, where's the evidence for it? Who observed it? what did they observe? & when?
I'm still waiting for you to present some evidence (operational or observational science as opposed to mere [albeit popular] opinion) for a new organ evolving (or for that matter for ANY new information in DNA evolving). These are simple questions I'm asking: What organ has been OBSERVED to be evolving (versus BELIEVED to have evolved)? & What information in DNA has been observed to evolve (i.e. through mutations)? The answer is NONE. If I'm wrong, simply present the evidence.
It appears you missed the "IF" in "If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA)." You presented no evidence --I'm inviting you to present specific EVIDENCE for it. Pick your best example, and tell me what operational science ("facts") you have as EVIDENCE for your claim (should be very easy if so many peer-reviewed articles really have any). Pick your BEST (one) example --if I can refute it, your claims are discredited.
You don't need a law degree or to pass the bar exam on your 1st attempt (I did both) to know that criminal convictions (in the US) occur when guilt is proven "beyond REASONABLE doubt" rather than "proven by RE-CREATING the crime" in a lab. History cannot be re-created in a lab like a test for the boiling point of water, which was my point. It's not REASONABLE to believe the laws of science were different when the crime occurred, which is why operational science is used in court.
I love Ray's ambush of the college kids. Only creationist thinking would consider evolution to work in giant leaps, much as would happen if being done by a god with a magic wand.
Big lies out of Kirk there about gaps in fossil records and lack of transitional forms. In his defense, isn't lying really the only way in this day and age that one can support Yahweh's holy book?
If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA) in the present, is it reasonable to believe it occurred millions of times in the past? (& for new information in DNA: billions upon billions of times in the past?) You can believe it happened, but let's be clear: that's no longer operational science, & it's not supported by operational science. Creation is supported by and consistent w/ operational science - evolution isn't.
"If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA) in the present"
But we have. Lying about things like nutritive milk in cockroaches, cryptocyanin in crabs, antibiotic resistance, cecal valves in wall lizards, observed speciation, polyploidy, and duplication events don't make them disappear.
"Creation is supported by and consistent w/ operational science - evolution isn't."
300,000+ peer-reviewed publications say otherwise.
This applies to everyone, regardless whether you're an evolutionist or creationist -it's just the nature of historical events vs pure scientific laws such as the boiling point of water. Operational science can shed light on the past, but it can't "scientifically prove" it one way or the other. I was trying to ask "Where are the examples of things that are scientifically observed (observational science) of things like, for example, a new organ evolving (i.e. new information in DNA).
"Operational science can shed light on the past, but it can't "scientifically prove" it one way or the other."
Wrong. If this were true, then no one could ever be convicted of a crime because "you can't prove the laws of physics weren't radically different at the time of the murder." There is such thing as evidence for which there is only one explanation.
Making wild demands on YouTube and then ignoring responses to those wild demands is pathetic.
Brinda, are you aware of the difference between "operational science" & "speculative science" such as "origins science?" Eg: if I want to test a hypothesis about the boiling point of water, I can do an experiment in the present (today) to test the temp @which water boils (under certain conditions-pure water at sea level). But "origins science" by its very nature is not "testable" in the same sense because it necessarily involves assumptions about that past that are un-testable.
Contradiction: you speak as if what you are saying is 100% fact, yet your opening argument insisted that science is speculation. Therein lies the problem.
@whiteowl1415 . . . and the standard evolutionary pathway for irreducibly complex organs would be . . . . .??? & please don't answer with any of the following: 1) evolutionists believe or or imagine or hypothesize _______ (i.e. observational science only please), 2) the answer is somewhere else (you don't understand the argument well enough to give a brief synopsis , or 3) insults or personal attacks (meaning you don't have a reasonable answer).
Funny how you make such crazy demands of others, yet don't apply that same standard of scrutiny to either your own beliefs or even the question itself. You're begging the question with an implied straw man, so it's not worth answering.
"If there really were evidence for evolution why not just mention some here???"
Fine. ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades.
Famed evolutionist Stephen J Gould said "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not evidence of fossils." Natural History,Vol. 86:5(May 1977),p.14. Educated evolutionists are afraid to admit this today, but the facts remain the same. If evolution was true, there'd be millions transit
Watched less than 1 minute and turned it off. Any argument that could be made was lost (to me a least) because of the resort to foul language and name calling. Grow up people and make mature presentations of your arguments. You lose all credibility with such childishness.
@AWEF321 Sorry, I was not finished. I was irked when I sent that comment yesterday. The point I was trying to make which I obviously did not was I think that his argument (or any arguement for that matter) would be better if insults were left out and just the facts were presented.
You are offended that he terms Ray Comfort as being the idiot he is?
Listen to Comfort, He has no arguments with any validity what so ever. I agree calling names is immature and detracts from debate, and would not apply such term to most people, Creationist or Evolutionist, but Comfort is one of the few people who truely deserves it
To egamble22: Thank-you for clarifying what God wrote in the bible. Yes, many things must come to pass before Jesus returns in the clouds for his "Bride-the church." I thank-you for telling me the Ten Commandments on here. This is called "The Law" given to Moses by the finger of God written on stone tablets for the Israelites and Gentiles to follow. Even to this day. Jesus came to earth as God in the flesh to "fulfill" the Laws of the Old Testament Dear One. I am praying you know Jesus. Amen.
I'm not "angry." I'm slightly frustrated that we have free education in this country, yet cretins like you dismiss it as unimportant only to spout off about topics they know nothing about.
Where are all the fossils with half a lung, for example? or half a wing? or half or part of ANY irreducibly complex organ/limb/structure for that matter? Isn't the theory of evolution itself inconsistent, since it mandates that these partially formed organs/limbs/structures would be selected AGAINST prior to the time they provide a functional advantage?
" Isn't the theory of evolution itself inconsistent"
No. Your straw man of evolution might be, but that's because you have no clue what evolution is. This creationist talking point was never right; it was formulated for the purpose of exploiting ignorant bastards like yourself.
There is no such thing as Irreducably complex. Lets take your wing example.
Initialy you find reptiles which beigin to prodce odd grows. these growths help to insulate them and over time develop into feather.
the feathers (like fur) serve as insulation and keep the reptile eggs warm. Only over time do they become flight wings, in SOME cases. i.e. You want to see a 1/2 wing? Look at an Emu
p.s. On my page I have a vid on evolution of the eye if you like to check it out
"There is no such thing as irreducible complexity."
Oops. The peer-reviewed literature disagrees with you on that: see Thornhill and Ussery's Journal of Theoretical Biology paper on irreducible complexity. The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex in that deleting a core component results in a loss of the original function. This means that the standard evolutionary pathway of gradually improving a basic function does not explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
No, it wasn't, because you obviously haven't read Thornhill and Ussery's paper. Their paper does not claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. They do however argue that IC biological systems do exist: that assertion was not refuted by Matzke's article. And since when is Matzke's paper supposed to trump over a peer-reviewed paper?
It's amazing how instinctive it is for Christians to lie their asses off in support of their God.
pastafarianprophet 2 days ago
I love this video!
Beyoncefan230 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ugh, in three days, I'm going to be totally over this creationism bullshit. I've learned a lot on the way, but these people are just starting to bore me.
Nervousification 4 days ago
Ugh, in three days, I'm going to be totally over this creationism bullshit. I've learned a lot on the way, but these people are just starting to bore me.
Nervousification 4 days ago
You're still lying. The closest your video comes is at the very end when it says, "The mechanism or mechanisms that cause evolution to happen will be covered in another video."
Lame. sooo very lame.
The wicked says in his heart, 'There is no God.'
yie1yie1 6 days ago
@yie1yie1
You COULD go to the next video.
You COULD actually go to the tinyurl link I posted that I just quoted (and apparently you just ignored for whatever reason).
But you're more comfortable being lazy and dishonest like all creationists.
TheZooCrew 6 days ago
@yie1yie1
I don't say in my heart "There is no God." Doesn't the Bible admonish against judgments and bearing false witness?
TheZooCrew 6 days ago
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code. NONE.
/watch?v=8wXVUh-9OyM
yie1yie1 1 week ago
@yie1yie1
Polyploidy. Duplication and mutation. Frame shift mutation. There are others.
tinyurl . com / 5j5chg
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
You really are sad.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
You're lying. No process have ever been observed to add new genetic information (i.e. genetic information that has never existed in any organism) to an organism's genetic code. To prove you're not lying, all you have to do is give one example. State what specific information never existed in any organism, what organism's genetic code it was added to, and by what process it was added.
yie1yie1 1 week ago
@yie1yie1
Define "information." Your argument lies in your inability or unwillingness to define this term.
You COULD just go to the tinyurl link I posted. They give a few examples and more are found in the references. Learning requires legwork from the learner.
But then again, if you weren't lazy and dishonest, you wouldn't be a creationist.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
The proof of your folly is manifested in your inability to provide an example of a process that has been observed to add new genetic information (i.e. genetic information that has never existed in any organism) to an organism's genetic code. .
You're lying --there are no examples in the URL you posted.
God says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"
yie1yie1 1 week ago
@yie1yie1
"You're lying --there are no examples in the URL you posted."
O RLY?
"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur."
Directly from that link. There, an example. Now who's lying?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@yie1yie1 watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 to bad you lose..
speciwacy 6 days ago
Scientists can't prove living tissue is made of cells? atoms? gravity
(gravity is a mathematical law not a thing)? I guess the definition of a qualifier is "just in case I'm wrong" which is fine as long as both parties in the debate get to use it. Sadly most atheists, evolutionists, whatever only want their "authority" to be recognized as "Look at me, I'm so smooth and understated with confidence that the rest of the world is beneath me" i.e. complete bulls*(&^
jimprjayp 1 week ago in playlist Way of the Master- Lies and Ignorance Exposed
@jimprjayp
"Scientists can't prove living tissue is made of cells? atoms? gravity"
No. "Proof" implies absolute certainty, and science cannot provide this. We can't absolutely prove ANYTHING exists.
The rest of your post is meaningless twaddle.
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew UofM? Michigan Tech here. Anywho, you have heard of an electron microscope? Are you an engineer or a philosopher? You're the big head and we disappear when you sleep, right?
What the hell is twaddle? meaningless? Yes.
jimprjayp 4 days ago
When you start to think and gain information that's when religion steps aside.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
I wonder how many scientist even give the bible a good read. The fact of the matter is they cant "prove" anything. No scientist can disprove the bible either. Its all a bunch of ppl running from their creator. Useing science to mask their sin. As the wisest man ever, king solomon said, the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge: but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction. It doesnt matter if u admit it or not. There is a God and he is HOLY! A fool says in his heart, there is no god.
kraigero 2 weeks ago
@kraigero
"The fact of the matter is they cant "prove" anything."
That's a blatant lie.
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
"No scientist can disprove the bible either. "
Science can disprove most of what appears in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Unless you intend to argue that there's no such thing as fact.
"Its all a bunch of ppl running from their creator. "
What a pompous thing to say. You are totally ignorant of reality.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
Please tell me why humans are the only thing on earth that has a conscience. Why this is not found in animals. The bible tells us that God made us in His image..
maisonet1966 2 weeks ago
@maisonet1966
"Please tell me why humans are the only thing on earth that has a conscience. "
Simple...we're not. Altruism is rampant not only among primates but among nearly every species of social creature.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
I've been banned from 'Way of the Trickster' its a cult innit?
scarletharlot69 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonExodus2 I wonder why you haven't updated this vid Don? Science has confirmed that actually Neanderthals were human and all non African human races contain about 5% or more Neanderthal genome.
I realize at the time of this vid that wasn't the case, but since then it has been confirmed.
redddbaron 2 weeks ago
another good vid!
SoCalAries 2 weeks ago
Well, my faith is strong and the eyes of my heart have been opened. What people are so afraid of condemnation because people don't want to feel guilty. So by denying God people can pretend they have no guilt.
stridercowboy 3 weeks ago
@stridercowboy
You can lie all you want about the intentions of other people, but it doesn't change the fact that you are apparently denying reality. Your rant is a non sequitur.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@stridercowboy
Why do you deny Thor? Odin? Zoroaster? Krishna?
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
I think your the one who has been fed lies by the enemy (Satan) and have believed them. I feel bad for you:(
stridercowboy 3 weeks ago
@stridercowboy
Is really that easy to dismiss reality? Just lie to yourself?
"If ur faith is strong enuff, facts dont matter"
-random Texas Baptist church
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are douches. They don't practice what they preach. If you were to ask them "Where did their god come from" they would say "god existed before time and will always exist."
This reply is very illogical as they aren't providing any proof. They are only providing words from their bible which they take on faith as being true. They use no science to prove it is true. They use no facts to support the claim.
Faith can not be reasoned with; it is a belief without facts.
digitalbeachbum 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonExodus2
You really ought to update your vid. It has been proven that Neanderthal was indeed human. All modern populations of people not of 100% African decent have at least approximately 3-5% Neanderthal genes.
redddbaron 1 month ago
You know, I actually saw one of these clowns say that dinosaurs and man did live together but that Noah made the door on the ark too small and they couldn't get in, thats why they all died! LMFAO!
skweakykitty 1 month ago
Why haven't we found populations of these hominid-transitional-fossils, rather then just a few Isolated specimens - scattered across the earth? One would think, during the course of evolution, these hominids would have populated dense areas of the earth... like Dinosaurs. So correct me if I'm wrong, but over the course of 150yrs... shouldn't we have discovered such archaeological sites by now?
MrJazzeman 1 month ago
@MrJazzeman
We don't just find "a few isolated specimens" at a time. We usually find several in the same dig site.
In addition, fossilization is an extremely rare event. There were also orders of magnitude more dinosaurs through history than hominids (even just by time, dinosaurs were the dominant animal for 160 million years, while hominids have only been around for 14 million).
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
Re ". . . you're guilty That is YOUR judgement, not a devine one"
Are you really denying your guilt??? Are you really claiming to be morally perfect??? Are you really claiming you're NEVER done ANYTHING wrong??
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Judging liars, thieves, murderers, etc is. . .tyranny??
If evolution were true --if humans were just chance chemicals acting-- then rape, child molestation (& humans committing genocide) would be no different morally than baking soda reacting with vinegar.
You're obviously not atheist. Every time u judge, you're acknowledging & appealing to a standard by which judgments SHOULD be made (God).
But unlike your judgments & mine, God's judgments are pure and perfect.
& you're guilty
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
You demonstrate the number 1 problem on this planet.
Groups of ignorant bigots still think where someone comes from is more important than where they go.
So what if we're merely products of evolution? Why does that mean anything concerning morality? Do you really need mommy to tuck you in every night and tell you how much of an angel you are to feel any sense of worth? Are you really so incapable of doing anything worthwhile that you must cling to your notion of inherent value?
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
See, rationalists are perfectly comfortable with our origins. We really don't care about fate or if we were put here "for a reason." This is because our lives are defined by what we do with them, not by where we're from.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"Judging liars, thieves, murderers, etc is. . .tyranny??"
Ordering backtalking children, nonvirgins, people who work on saturdays to death is tyranny
"If evolution were true... would be no different morally than baking soda reacting with vinegar"
Wrong, part of evolutionary survival also entails social orderes and social morality. You don't see any of those things going on in a herd of Cows, do you?
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415
Re: "part of evolutionary survival also entails social orderes and social morality"
You're still confusing facts with your wishful thinking. That's not a fact, and there's no science to prove your wishful thinking.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Re: "social morality"
HaHa, you're funny! I grew up on a farm, and I always wondered why the animals held court and called in witnesses, and upheld such things as "innocent until proven guilty," etc, etc, etc. hahaha! Thanks for the laugh!
Humans are created in the image of God. That's why we hold to abstract concepts (which, btw, are non-material and cannot be accounted for by atheistic evolution) such as "innocent until proven guilty," etc.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"I grew up on a farm, and I always wondered..."
You are aware that in the U.S. the laws are not based on "God's word" right? IF they were we would have the same justice system as Islamic law nations
"Humans are created in the image of God"
God is created int eh image of man...its the only way to explain why an allknowing allpowerflu being could be so insicure as to need our worship, not to mention why he would care about people's sex lives
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"such as "innocent until proven guilty," etc"
God IS an abstract concept of our own creation.
And Biblicaly, it was guilty till proven innocent, actualy you didn't even get that...3 "witnessess" say guilty and you die
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Re: "3 witnesses" and "guilty until proven innocent"
You don't do your research before u take pot shots. & u must not do your research before you make your other wild claims. The witnesses required in the OT was more than what's required 2put someone to death in the US. And since you claim to know the Bible so well, tell me where the God in the Bible supposedly endorsed "guilty until proven innocent." I studied it quite a bit in law school, and you've got it quite backwards.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"The witnesses required in the OT was more than what's required 2put someone to death in the US"
Trying to find the exact passage, but it specfies 2-3 Witnesses is all tahts required to put someone to death
Go back and reread Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteraonomy, there is alot of, if thier accused kill them going on in those ones
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
In US, people are put 2death on the testimony of only ONE witness. What part of "2 or 3 is greater than 1" don't u understand? Also, there was examination of the witnesses in OT law, and if the witness was found to be lying, the punishment was equal to the crime for which the witness lied, & etc. Again, this is a much stronger protection 4 the accused in a capital case than what is found in US criminal law. Like I said, u obviously don't do your research before u make wild claims.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
"In US, people are put 2death on the testimony of only ONE witness."
This is a baldfaced lie. You clearly have no understanding of US law. This is no surprise, seeing as you've lied about everything else.
Go to school.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"In US, people are put 2death on the testimony of only ONE witness"
You are a liar to claim you attended classes and law and think that.
death penalties in the U.S. require enough evidence to get a unanimous vote of guilty from a 12 person Jury taht all agree guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, and on top of that contains YEARS of appeal processes. And 1 witness is enver enough.
If you are going to lie there is no point discussing anything with you
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415
Regarding ". . you're guilty That is YOUR judgement, not a devine one"
Are you really claiming you're NEVER done ANYTHING wrong???
Are you really denying your guilt??? Are you really claiming to be morally perfect???
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
« That's why we hold to abstract concepts [...] such as "innocent until proven guilty," »
No, we hold to that concept purely because of reason, in order to minimize the number of innocent people put away for a crime they didn't commit. Gods have nothing to do with it.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
« which, btw, are non-material and cannot be accounted for by atheistic evolution »
There's a word for such nonsense: your comment is fractally wrong. That means it's wrong on every level one cares to examine it at. For starters, there's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Furthermore, it is not the job of evolution to account for anything but biological diversity.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"But unlike your judgments & mine, God's judgments are pure and perfect.
& you're guilty"
That is YOUR jusdgement, not a devine one
I don't fear your god. There are only 3 opitions...
He dosn't exist, and it dosn't matter
He exists and is just enough to realize that punishing someone for questioning the world around them is nuts
He Exists and punishes for lack of beleif, and thus is an ass not worth following
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Re: "there are only 3 options"
You conveniently left out the Christian Biblical option, which is that God punishes only for violating that which you KNOW is wrong.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415
Re ". . . you're guilty That is YOUR judgement, not a devine one"
Are you really denying your guilt??? Are you really claiming to be morally perfect??? Are you really claiming you're NEVER done ANYTHING wrong??
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415, @MegaFloyd100
Regarding Everest's "rate of growth:" Nice try, WhiteOwl, but your claim to know the rate at which Everest rose in the past is an unfounded unproven assumption not supported by any real science. It's mere opinion.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Actualy, I back tracked it based on its current rate of growth to show that I wasn't dtermining it at its current height, which would have been unfair to teh creationist side
As to Geography at that time...the world Could not have been flat, because rising of mountains that fast would pretty much rip the crust apart.
Sorry, your myths just don't hold up.
And no, there isn't enough water and no it wasn't flat
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Re: rising of mountains that fast would pretty much rip the crust apart
uh yep. pretty much. There are some theories of catastrophic plate tectonics out there that explain the mid-oceanic ridge that wraps around the earth like the seam of a baseball that runs parallel to the major mountain ranges. You probably
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
« the mid-oceanic ridge that wraps around the earth »
Not quite. Better study your geology and tectonics a bit closer.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@yie1yie1 -thanx 4 your input yy! geology aint my strong suite.
MegaFloyd100 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100 , @whiteowl1415
tain't my strong suite either.
And yes, I meant INTERcontinental
yie1yie1 1 month ago
I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying this, thank you!
allidock11 1 month ago
The author of this video sounds very confident - let me tell them that they cannot nor ever will beat God - Jesus is going to come again to judge the world whether you believe that or not - in your opinion would Jesus have been an "evolved bacteria"? Remember again, that Jesus is going to be your judge, before you reply.
IELTSExamination 1 month ago in playlist Way of the Master- Lies and Ignorance Exposed
@IELTSExamination
Nice off-topic rant.
Try telling all of that to a billion Hindus or several million Muslims.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Are u open 2d possibility that d God of d Bible is NOT "a genocidal maniac not worth worshiping?" Millions have come 2a markedly different conclusion (doesn't mean they're right --just that you're arrogant if you don't closely examine how I might have come 2 that conclusion b4 u judge me). Are u too closed-minded 2b open 2d possibility that there's something you've missed when reading d Bible? Have you even read d most influential literature of history in its entirety (the Bible)?
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Read the post to TheZooCrew.
there is a problem with your focus...Reading the Bible in its entirety is WHY we veiw the Judeo-Christian god as Genocidal...Its all over the place.
A God worth worshiping would be more just than slaughtering an entire planets woth of life because they wern't following the rules, or turning a person to a pillar of salt for looking back.
Especialy since a worl wide flood is impossible. And the salt thing dosn't sound to feasible either
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 Why is a worldwide flood impossible?
MegaFloyd100 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100
Because it would require more than trippling all the existing water on the planet.
I had a vid on it, but realized I made a math error and have since corrected it, I jsut havn't reposted the corrected version yet
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 I don't know for sure, but I don't think it would require more water than what we have. Actually, it should be dependent on how much flooding we are talking about. Complete land submersion including to the top of the highest mountains? Does this water then have to be all at equal level and not just higher on certain areas? Disclaimer, I am not religious.
iz2sicc 1 month ago in playlist Atheism is great
@iz2sicc
I did a video with the math, but caught an error and have to fix it before reposting.
the story says it covered all the mountains.
reducing Everest by its rate of groth to flood time, I found it would require a little about 3 1/4 times as much water as we have be added to what we have now.
Also, water can't be higher on certain areas...as a liquid it will seek to even out by its nature. Try gettin the middle of a bowl of water higher than the edge
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 That's true about leveling out. I was more thinking along the lines at everything flooding to the same level. I know water tops out eventually to the same level. But I totally disregarded the bible story lol. Yea, God flooded by rain so the water would have risen at a consistent and equal rate. Man, I think I just did a horrible job of describing my thoughts. Hopefully you got the point :P
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc
Nah, you were clear
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@iz2sicc 1 The Bible tells us that water came from two sources: below the earth and above the earth. Evidently, the source for water below the ground was in great subterranean pools, or “fountains” of fresh water, which were broken open by volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity
MegaFloyd100 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100
The Pentateuch is a compilation of local cultural myths likely put together by Ezra.
The first "evidence" is the result of tectonic uplift, which can be proven.
The rest are vague statements with no actual meaning in context. All of those things happen in localized areas, but never on a global scale in history. You're obviously not a scientist or anything close.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
There's more than plenty of water on our planet to flood the entire earth, provided the geography were more level (i.e. if the mountains were not too high and ocean valleys not too deep). Your outlandish claim (that a world-wide flood was not possible about 4,000 years ago) assumes you know what the geography was like at that time, which you obviously don't.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100 That is the least of the problems. If a worldwide flood happened, there would be tons of evidence suggesting that it happened. This is simply not the case. Also, you need to realize that the majority of sea life would have been killed off if a worldwide flood happened. Mix fresh water and salt water together then put salt water and fresh water sea life into that mix and see what happens.
iz2sicc 1 month ago in playlist Atheism is great
@iz2sicc i agree there should b tons of evidence for a global flood.Does the following evidence count?
Evidence 1-Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
Evidence 2- Rapid burial of plants and animals
Evidence 3 -Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
Evidence 4- Sediment transported long distances
Evidence 5 -Rapid or no erosion between strata
Evidence 6 -Many strata laid down in rapid sucsession
MegaFloyd100 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100
Evidence 1- Riseing techtonic shifts from prebelow sea level
Evidence 2- Fabricated bull crap
Evidence 3- See 2
Evidence 4- Glaciers
Evidence 5 - You obviously don't understand the idea at all
Evidence 6- See 2
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Glaciers leave different patterns of sediment layers than does moving water. Some of the intercontinental movements were made by water, not glaciers.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
I think you mean INTRAcontinental, in which case you would be refering to areas like Mid South america, which was underwater for a while
Or Perhaps you mean the real low level strata from the prePAngea breakup that transends continents, because they wern't seperate yet
Pure incompetence.
The only way to make creationism soud remotely feasible is to ignore about 85% of what we know from science, You guys are nutcases
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Lets move on to a different aspect, how about the fact that Civilizations were continueing on through the time period with out being phased in the least?
Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms intact, Chinese Empire unbothered, India moving right along, Minoans, Myceneans, Indo-Europeans all over the place,
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
Re: "the fact that civilizations were continuing through the [flood] time period without being phased [by the flood]"
You're again confusing your opinion with facts.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
"You're again confusing your opinion with facts"
No, I am not.
Flood date has been calculated using the Bible as a source
"The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years" Answers in Genesis
There is NO sign of sudden extermination and rebuilding of ANY of the cultures going on at this time, or within several centuries to either side
Facts, Learn to deal with them
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@iz2sicc, @MegaFloyd100
I'll add a few comments to Megafloyd's
Evid 1 -The sea creature fossils are found on the top of EVERY mountain on earth.
Evid 3-Some of these "vast areas" are INTERCONTINENTAL, not capable of being laid down by a mere "local" flood
Evid 4-Ditto above
Evid 5-Mere decades of years, let alone thousands or millions would have left erosion marks between strata, etc.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Evid 1- No they arn't.
Evid 3- Bull crap...Cite a source
Evid 4-Ditto above
Evid 5- You also lack understanding of Strata
Creationism feeds on ignorance such as yours
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100 Wow, you can pull quotes from a creationist website. Great job. Let's just totally ignore the majority of scientific data that's published, supported, and taught throughout science institutions and classes.
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100 Evidence 1-If your explanation for this occurrence is in fact true, then why don't we find fossilized sea creatures all over the world on mountain tops? Fact is, this occurrence isn't a common one and has been explained. Again, read a credible source and you'll see what causes this. Layman's terms... tetonic movement causing uplift pushes said fossils up.
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@MegaFloyd100 Evidence 2- Not even sure what you are getting at here... rapid burial of plants and animals by way of flood? Is this the only explanation? What about say, a huge meteorite around 7 miles across?
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
re: "we veiw the Judeo-Christian god as Genocidal"
Why do you to say it was wrong for God to kill every person from a certain genetic "family?" To say it was wrong, you would have to know whether they were innocent or guilty, what He did with them after they died, etc. Do you claim to know these things?
He who makes the world makes the rules and determines the punishment. And both you and I have knowingly broken His rules.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Just shove it already.
The Bible has been found lacking Historic validity, Internal consistancy and Scentific validity
Its broze age myth, no more vaild than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Works of Homer.
Even if you were right..."He who makes the world makes the rules and determines the punishment" would be tyrany, not justice.
You are welcome to live in sevitude to an invisable Wizard, just keep it in the Church where it bleongs
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew
re: "I don't claim that I'm right & everyone else is wrong."
Yes u do. U might not claim it directly, but it is the inevitable reality for all beliefs which contradict your beliefs (law of non-contradiction). & u definitely have strong beliefs/judgments --you've asserted some here. The assertion of ANY belief/judgment IS logically a claim that all contradictory beliefs r wrong --especially when u mock those who disagree. I'm not so arrogant as 2believe I could not be wrong. Are u?
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Conservative Christian Logic: /watch?v=UDBYGXWMAOw
csmcmillion 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
If you're really done corresponding with me, let me say 5 things:
1) Thank you for corresponding,
2) If anything I said came across unkind or offensive, plse forgive me -I didn't mean it that way,
3) I care about you,
4) If you ever want to correspond more, you can get a hold of me here (if you'd rather correspond privately, let me know), and
4) I wish you well!
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
YOUR world view says rape, child molestation, and genocide are wrong because ____________?
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
Last comment.
"YOUR world view says rape, child molestation, and genocide are wrong because ____________?"
Because they HURT people, dickhead. Is your preferred mythology really the only thing preventing you from going on murder and rape sprees? If so, get professional help.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
I was using the definition of "belief" that's in accord with common usage in the English language.
"belief" according to Mirriam-Webster:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
IF either one of us (or anyone, for that matter) is right about any belief, then any contradictory belief MUST be untrue --according to the law of non-contradiction (but of course, this law too could not exist without God).
Friend, what IS your religious belief?
I'm not going to chase every rabbit. You've been wrong before. Give me the essence of your supposed scientific evidence HERE for altruism hardwired into our Biology.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"I'm not going to chase every rabbit."
Then stop making stupid assertions.
"You've been wrong before. "
What does this even mean?
I gave you the links.
I'm done here. I'm done with your sheer willful ignorance and single-digit IQ.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Not ignoring -just can't type fast -be patient, my friend. There's no scientific evidence that altruism is hardwired into our BIOLOGY. There IS extreme evidence that knowing we SHOULD be altruistic is hardwired into us SOMEHOW. The Bible says it's our "conscience," which is why u know u should do what "benefits as many lives as possible." Whether God uses our biology (or 2 what degree), I honestly don't know.
Friend, everyone thinks that what they believe is right (def. of belief).
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"There's no scientific evidence that altruism is hardwired into our BIOLOGY."
O RLY?
tinyurl . com / 6ruaq2b
tinyurl . com / 3sbuht4
Ignorance still isn't an argument.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"Friend, everyone thinks that what they believe is right "
Skeptics don't. In fact, anyone who's not stupid enough to see the world in black and white thinks this. We merely believe what we think is "mostly" right.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
Zoo bear with me for a few questions while I try and set up the situation, or the argument. You get what I'm saying here in a minute. It's about morality. But I must start somewhere else. Let's start with what truth is.
If I were to say that I am communicating to you. That would be true.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
I don't want to hear your stupid fucking argument about morality that will probably be riddled with logical fallacies and utter ignorance of science. But go ahead anyway, if you must.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
never mind my love I don't think you are in the right state of mind to have a logical debate. Also I don't care for the way you comment.
you tend to get mean and nasty when people don't accept your world view.
God bless you and your family and have a merrry Christmas
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"you tend to get mean and nasty when people don't accept your world view."
I really don't care. I've had my fill of creationists. At least I don't commit genocide when people don't "agree with my worldview," unlike religious zealots.
You tend to project your own faults onto others. Feel free to never come back.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Basing morality on "what's best for mankind" IS a moral judgment. What would make the humanist moral judgment the morally right one? Again, you used the Christian world view as a foundation to prop up the atheistic world view. If there were no God, then this "humanistic" foundation you used is no more morally valid than any other, including the idea that whatever is worst for mankind is the morally right thing.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
I guess you just decided to ignore the parts where I'm not an atheist, altruism is part of biology, and this is off topic.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
Unlike religious zealots, I don't claim that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I just do what I think is right...what lets me sleep at night and what benefits as many lives as possible.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
Actually, scratch that. Human life is not about what the majority decides what's right. It's what distilled from the human experience as being beneficial to the species.
In addition, you've done a great job of totally avoiding the topic. God and evolution are two mutually exclusive ideas. You're just incapable of distinguishing because you don't have two neurons to rub together and it's easier to believe a straw man.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
If there really were no God, then every competing view of morality would be equally valid. Is it morally wrong for baking soda 2 react with vinegar? Of course not! Then how could it be wrong for chemicals in a person's brain 2 make him want to rape a woman or molest a child? It's just the random result of chance. My world view says those things are wrong because GOD (our Creator) says they're wrong & He gave us a conscience 2 know it.Your world view says they're wrong because _____??
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"Your world view says they're wrong because _____??"
Firstly, I'm not an atheists.
Second, one does not need to be a theist to oppose suffering. In fact, the vast majority of theists believe in a God that both condones and commands that other people suffer. The God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac not worth worshiping. You don't believe me? Read Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"If there really were no God, then every competing view of morality would be equally valid."
Depends on what you mean by "valid." Human life is all about what the majority decides is right. In addition, altruism is hardwired into our biology. You just like to credit a mythical deity because you're ignorant.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
I forgot to aim my last post at you. It's directly below.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
Actually, I do NOT believe that atheists have no morals. ALL atheists DO have morals! (eg: they know it's wrong to lie, steal, murder...). Haven't you learned ANYTHING from Ray Comfort about the Christian world view? Although atheists have morals, they can't EXPLAIN HOW anything could be morally right or wrong USING their atheistic world view. They HAVE morals, they're just (willfully) ignorant of WHY they do. They cannot logically account for moral right and wrong without God.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"They cannot logically account for moral right and wrong without God."
Wrong. Most atheists are humanists...as in, they base their morality on what's best for mankind. Humanism is usually tied to utilitarianism in this fashion.
" It's just the random result of chance."
I see why you take your moral cues from Ray Comfort...it's easier than having an IQ greater than your shoe size.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Thank you. This is the first I've seen the number or title. Hopefully I'll have time to look at it this weekend.
Why are you being so angry & mean?
If atheistic evolution were true, there'd be nothing wrong with being ignorant (or even with wanting to stay ignorant), so why r u so judgmental?
And what does the title have to do with sexual intercourse? Your use of the "f" word displays a poor command of the English language -but maybe I've just had too many massive brain aneurysms ;)
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
"Why are you being so angry & mean?"
Because you're lazy, willfully ignorant, dishonest, and there's far too many of you.
"If atheistic evolution were true, there'd be nothing wrong with being ignorant "
This is by far the dumbest thing I've heard all week. This doesn't even make sense. This stems from the rather odd straw man that atheists have no morals...as if obeying a genocidal tyrant of a deity is somehow moral.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
I don't see a "doi" number below. Give it again, please.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
You can find it on PubMed:
PMID: 8285701
You could also have just searched the fucking title. This isn't hard.
You're trying far too hard to remain ignorant. Plus, it's not like you'll understand anything in the paper.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Remember, I'm challenging you to state the actual evidence, which is why I asked where your evidence is. I won't "do your homework" for you by searching for something that I don't believe exists. I believe the reason you cannot tell me what the evidence is nor where it's documented is because there isn't any.
yie1yie1 1 month ago
@yie1yie1
I gave you a doi number. That will give you the exact paper I detailed below.
I guess it doesn't matter what I say. You have no interest in learning. You could request a blue marker, I could put one in front of you, and you would deny it and insist it's red without batting an eyelash. How this doesn't cause a massive brain aneurysm is beyond me.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
You didn't present any facts to support your Nylon-consuming bacteria claim. Wishful thinking doesn't equal facts. Where's the evidence?
It's easy to call people liars. Apparently you're not able to present scientific facts as evidence to support your claim. Instead of presenting facts, you retreat to name calling.
Evolutionists have had 13 YEARS to find EVIDENCE to prove Spetner wrong; instead of presenting evidence, the best they come up with is they don't like his "credentials"
yie1yie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
"You didn't present any facts to support your Nylon-consuming bacteria claim. "
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.
"Evolutionists have had 13 YEARS to find EVIDENCE to prove Spetner wrong"
There's no need to prove wrong what was never implied in the first place. Why should scientists waste their time debunking every invented bullshit argument?
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimdandy2499
RE: "Listing of fossils at the end = epic win"
If you're referring to the list of fossils at the end of this video, tell me which fossil you think is the best evidence, & tell me what scientific facts you have as evidence to support that claim (since he doesn't give any!) Pick your BEST (1) example. If I can refute it, your claim is discredited. I won't waste my time refuting his unsupported claims for all those fossils. Can you provide evidence for ONE fossil that I can't refute?
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew
So here's my challenge to those like you who claim that antibiotic resistance is evidence FOR evolution: Give me ONE example of antibiotic resistance that resulted from an INCREASE in genetic information.
Your other 5 supposed "examples" can be dismantled 1 by 1.
God is just and He will judge us for breaking His laws (like lying) on judgment day. Because He loves us, He paid the penalty we deserve for breaking those laws. We must obey Him & follow Jesus Christ. I invite u 2 Heaven
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
Nylon-consuming bacteria.
Also look up polyploidy.
Lee Spetner is yet another liar. He is not an expert on mutations. He has no life science qualifications. Notice how your source is not only 13 years old, but it's a hack job...not a peer-reviewed publications.
Keep lying. See how far you get.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
You also mentioned "antibiotic resistance" as evidence. Again, it's the opposite of evolution. For those antibiotic resistances that have resulted from mutations, see the Lee Spetner quote in my 2nd comment below. A "beneficial" mutation does not equal an information-increasing mutation. Example: An antibiotic causes H pylori bacterium (HPB) to produce an enzyme which kills itself. HPB mutated by loosing the ability to produce the enzyme. The mutated HPB survived by LOOSING DNA info.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1 u r correct! claiming antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution is like saying ''deaf people have evolved resistance to nagging wives!'' or bald people have evolved resistance to nits'',or ''blind people have evolved resistance to sun glare!'
The ''fine print'' in these exagerated claims are willfully ignored to bolster claims that support their athiest dogma.
MegaFloyd100 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
You mentioned "observed speciation" as evidence FOR evolution. You're not aware that this process is the OPPOSITE of evolution? All new species that we've observed being formed have LESS DNA information than the parent population from which they came! That's a LOSS of functional information. For evolution to have occurred, there would had to have been billions upon billions of increases of functional information in DNA. Yet, you cannot provide even ONE example that's been observed.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
Lee Spetner, an expert on mutations, says: "ALL point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to REDUCE the genetic information and not to increase it." (Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, New York; Judaica Press, p138, 1998)
If this expert on mutations is wrong, then simply provide one example.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@odinata
My use of the word "new" was redundant -if anything evolved, it obviously was new at the time it evolved.
I'm not aware of ANY scientific evidence for ANY organ evolving; hence my quest for some scientific evidence. For example, has it ever been OBSERVED to happen? Has any process that could even POSSIBLY cause it to happen ever been observed? (such as a mutation causing new functional information)? If so, where's the evidence for it? Who observed it? what did they observe? & when?
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew
I'm still waiting for you to present some evidence (operational or observational science as opposed to mere [albeit popular] opinion) for a new organ evolving (or for that matter for ANY new information in DNA evolving). These are simple questions I'm asking: What organ has been OBSERVED to be evolving (versus BELIEVED to have evolved)? & What information in DNA has been observed to evolve (i.e. through mutations)? The answer is NONE. If I'm wrong, simply present the evidence.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
actually lucy is australopithecus afarensis so he didnt leave it out :) and its paranthropus god damnit! lol
skinsfb89 2 months ago
Listing of fossils at the end = epic win
jimdandy2499 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew
It appears you missed the "IF" in "If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA)." You presented no evidence --I'm inviting you to present specific EVIDENCE for it. Pick your best example, and tell me what operational science ("facts") you have as EVIDENCE for your claim (should be very easy if so many peer-reviewed articles really have any). Pick your BEST (one) example --if I can refute it, your claims are discredited.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
You need to explain which "organ" you are talking about, and what you think science says about it "evolveing" "new".
odinata 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew
You don't need a law degree or to pass the bar exam on your 1st attempt (I did both) to know that criminal convictions (in the US) occur when guilt is proven "beyond REASONABLE doubt" rather than "proven by RE-CREATING the crime" in a lab. History cannot be re-created in a lab like a test for the boiling point of water, which was my point. It's not REASONABLE to believe the laws of science were different when the crime occurred, which is why operational science is used in court.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
I love Ray's ambush of the college kids. Only creationist thinking would consider evolution to work in giant leaps, much as would happen if being done by a god with a magic wand.
Big lies out of Kirk there about gaps in fossil records and lack of transitional forms. In his defense, isn't lying really the only way in this day and age that one can support Yahweh's holy book?
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@brinda191727
If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA) in the present, is it reasonable to believe it occurred millions of times in the past? (& for new information in DNA: billions upon billions of times in the past?) You can believe it happened, but let's be clear: that's no longer operational science, & it's not supported by operational science. Creation is supported by and consistent w/ operational science - evolution isn't.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
"If we've never observed something like a new organ evolving (or for that matter ANY new information in DNA) in the present"
But we have. Lying about things like nutritive milk in cockroaches, cryptocyanin in crabs, antibiotic resistance, cecal valves in wall lizards, observed speciation, polyploidy, and duplication events don't make them disappear.
"Creation is supported by and consistent w/ operational science - evolution isn't."
300,000+ peer-reviewed publications say otherwise.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@brinda191727
This applies to everyone, regardless whether you're an evolutionist or creationist -it's just the nature of historical events vs pure scientific laws such as the boiling point of water. Operational science can shed light on the past, but it can't "scientifically prove" it one way or the other. I was trying to ask "Where are the examples of things that are scientifically observed (observational science) of things like, for example, a new organ evolving (i.e. new information in DNA).
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
"Operational science can shed light on the past, but it can't "scientifically prove" it one way or the other."
Wrong. If this were true, then no one could ever be convicted of a crime because "you can't prove the laws of physics weren't radically different at the time of the murder." There is such thing as evidence for which there is only one explanation.
Making wild demands on YouTube and then ignoring responses to those wild demands is pathetic.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@brinda191727
Brinda, are you aware of the difference between "operational science" & "speculative science" such as "origins science?" Eg: if I want to test a hypothesis about the boiling point of water, I can do an experiment in the present (today) to test the temp @which water boils (under certain conditions-pure water at sea level). But "origins science" by its very nature is not "testable" in the same sense because it necessarily involves assumptions about that past that are un-testable.
yie1yie1 2 months ago
Contradiction: you speak as if what you are saying is 100% fact, yet your opening argument insisted that science is speculation. Therein lies the problem.
brinda191727 2 months ago
@whiteowl1415 . . . and the standard evolutionary pathway for irreducibly complex organs would be . . . . .??? & please don't answer with any of the following: 1) evolutionists believe or or imagine or hypothesize _______ (i.e. observational science only please), 2) the answer is somewhere else (you don't understand the argument well enough to give a brief synopsis , or 3) insults or personal attacks (meaning you don't have a reasonable answer).
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
Funny how you make such crazy demands of others, yet don't apply that same standard of scrutiny to either your own beliefs or even the question itself. You're begging the question with an implied straw man, so it's not worth answering.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@whiteowl1415
Why are evolutionists always saying "The evidence is over there?" If there really were evidence for evolution why not just mention some here???
yie1yie1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yie1yie1
"If there really were evidence for evolution why not just mention some here???"
Fine. ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Famed evolutionist Stephen J Gould said "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not evidence of fossils." Natural History,Vol. 86:5(May 1977),p.14. Educated evolutionists are afraid to admit this today, but the facts remain the same. If evolution was true, there'd be millions transit
yie1yie1 2 months ago
Watched less than 1 minute and turned it off. Any argument that could be made was lost (to me a least) because of the resort to foul language and name calling. Grow up people and make mature presentations of your arguments. You lose all credibility with such childishness.
murfdawg007 2 months ago
@murfdawg007
Foul language? Name-calling?
Grow the fuck up. The arguments made aren't invalid just because you're too sensitive to go outside.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@murfdawg007 i think you're the one needs to grow up. Judge the video on the arguments not the language he uses.
AWEF321 2 months ago
@AWEF321 You are right, the video should be judged on the arguments and not my disapproval of the way it was presented.
murfdawg007 2 months ago
@AWEF321 Sorry, I was not finished. I was irked when I sent that comment yesterday. The point I was trying to make which I obviously did not was I think that his argument (or any arguement for that matter) would be better if insults were left out and just the facts were presented.
murfdawg007 2 months ago
@murfdawg007
You are offended that he terms Ray Comfort as being the idiot he is?
Listen to Comfort, He has no arguments with any validity what so ever. I agree calling names is immature and detracts from debate, and would not apply such term to most people, Creationist or Evolutionist, but Comfort is one of the few people who truely deserves it
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
To egamble22: Thank-you for clarifying what God wrote in the bible. Yes, many things must come to pass before Jesus returns in the clouds for his "Bride-the church." I thank-you for telling me the Ten Commandments on here. This is called "The Law" given to Moses by the finger of God written on stone tablets for the Israelites and Gentiles to follow. Even to this day. Jesus came to earth as God in the flesh to "fulfill" the Laws of the Old Testament Dear One. I am praying you know Jesus. Amen.
idahopaula 2 months ago
My name is Alvin. What's yours? Why are you so angry?
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
I'm not "angry." I'm slightly frustrated that we have free education in this country, yet cretins like you dismiss it as unimportant only to spout off about topics they know nothing about.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
Whatch Aronra's vids on evolution, he shows quite well that it isn't inconsistent in the least
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
Where are all the fossils with half a lung, for example? or half a wing? or half or part of ANY irreducibly complex organ/limb/structure for that matter? Isn't the theory of evolution itself inconsistent, since it mandates that these partially formed organs/limbs/structures would be selected AGAINST prior to the time they provide a functional advantage?
yie1yie1 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
Clearly you don't know anything about anything.
" Isn't the theory of evolution itself inconsistent"
No. Your straw man of evolution might be, but that's because you have no clue what evolution is. This creationist talking point was never right; it was formulated for the purpose of exploiting ignorant bastards like yourself.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@yie1yie1
There is no such thing as Irreducably complex. Lets take your wing example.
Initialy you find reptiles which beigin to prodce odd grows. these growths help to insulate them and over time develop into feather.
the feathers (like fur) serve as insulation and keep the reptile eggs warm. Only over time do they become flight wings, in SOME cases. i.e. You want to see a 1/2 wing? Look at an Emu
p.s. On my page I have a vid on evolution of the eye if you like to check it out
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@whiteowl1415
"There is no such thing as irreducible complexity."
Oops. The peer-reviewed literature disagrees with you on that: see Thornhill and Ussery's Journal of Theoretical Biology paper on irreducible complexity. The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex in that deleting a core component results in a loss of the original function. This means that the standard evolutionary pathway of gradually improving a basic function does not explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques
Thornhill, R. H. and Ussery, D. W. (2000), I pressume
This was refuted not long after by N. J. Matzke (2003) "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum"
It is true that you cannot reduce the flagellum and maintain its use as a flagellum but....
/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w for an animated breakdown of Flagellum evolution if you don't want to read the paper
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@whiteowl1415
"This was refuted..."
No, it wasn't, because you obviously haven't read Thornhill and Ussery's paper. Their paper does not claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. They do however argue that IC biological systems do exist: that assertion was not refuted by Matzke's article. And since when is Matzke's paper supposed to trump over a peer-reviewed paper?
Genomiques 2 months ago