@REALITY2point0 If you would place evolution under science fiction we might consider your request.
Thank you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
@BereanBeacon1 please remember YOUR DEATH is certain. The hour of your MORTALITY is coming. YOU are going to DIE. Somewhere around the corner is the bottomless, gaping, subconscious FEAR that you cannot honestly confront without your blanket of fairy tales. A cold COFFIN that awaits you. yet still YOUR DEATH draws closer. you can't STOP it. Its coming.. Inexorably the deep black NOTHINGNESS beckons for you and your wasted, dishonest, fearful life.. Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur.
@REALITY2point0 You cannot understand because the Bible says you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
@REALITY2point0 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. James 4:14
@BereanBeacon1 its seems that you've descended to the level of a mere parrot regurgitating bible verses at me, desperately trying to draw the threadbare blanket of your fairy tale myths around you, but death is coming for YOU. DEATH cares not for fairy tales. When you DIE (and I am sensing this may be SOON for you) in your last gasping doubtful breath, you will think of me. DEATH is coming for you.. its coming.. *tick* *tock* it draws every nearer and it cares not for fairy tales.
@BereanBeacon1 all you've got is the regurgitation of yet more Bible verses? you do realize that this is perhaps the single least impressive thing you could have done in an attempt to rebut me right? lets face facts, intellectually you DIED a very, very long time ago.. hence why you're an evolution denying creationist christian fundamentalist right? :) You seem desperate enough in your need for DEATH denial to need the last word. I'm going to let you have it..
@REALITY2point0 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Philippians 1:21-24.
Another great video! I take comfort in learning about the great design to all life.
No one can, reasonably, deny common design at the heart of all science. Science has many exciting things we are learning about, we really shouldn't pay much mind to the idling philosophers, the secterian evolutionists
"Someone plz tell me which came first the chicken or the egg?"
You'd say "Chicken!" because you are, I take it, a creationist. Then again, you might also say "Egg!" for the same reason. The problem with this question is that it offers only two choices (chicken or egg).
Neither choice is correct, not even for the creationist! For a question constructed by a creationist, you'd think he'd at least have the sense to answer "God, the Father!" or "Omnipotent, supernatural being!"
The actual answer is "Neither!" We know this much! Now, as we gather scientific evidence, find transition fossils, and observe natural selection occurring in nature, we are able to answer An ancestor of the chicken came first!
For you to acknowledge any of the things I have said here, however, you could only convince yourself if you were to actually look at the evidence presented in the text book I recommended earlier, titled Evolutionary Analysis.
and who came before that ancester. We could go at this all day. The answer to the question is simple. The observer comes first, for without the observer everything would already be known. Consciousness is the answer. Its kind of like that picture of two hands drawing each other, but who is really drawing them.
Sweet! I'm a naturalist like Einstein too! I'm glad you're not a creationist! You had me worried there, especially with your claim that Einstein supposedly was a creationist when in fact he wasn't. I'm glad you came to my side about intelligent design vs. evolution! Or did you really?...
The problem is, you go a step beyond science and say that there had to be an observer. I object! By 'observer' I would presume you imply a supernatural being except that you said you were a naturalist. So I'm left with the term 'observer' thinking you must mean something natural, am I right? My objection is that science is looking for a natural explanation for the universe and there is no scientific evidence that supports there being an 'observer'. You need to study Stephen Hawking's universe...
But wasn't our little discussion about intelligent design vs. evolution anyway?
There is no controversy among scientists about whether evolution is real, is occuring, and is the means by which life has arisen. Evolution actually is real, is occurring, and is the means by which life has arisen. The supposed controversy is actually the religious base refusing to accept this fact, and I'm worried about what they are trying to teach our kids!
Well if you consider consciousness and intelligence one of the same then both can be true. Evolution is a part of nature just as consciousness is. I do agree that we need to step away from religion (real lies going on). I believe most religions do have some truth in them though. I think of the bible as one big metaphor to explain spirituality.
You said, "I do refuse to believe however that we came from monkeys." Well, that's your problem! You and I are apes (great apes if you want to be technical). Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean you aren't wrong. You and I are apes and there is nothing you can do to change that.
I remember when I was in 2nd grade... I had told a classmate that people were animals. He told me I was wrong and so we asked the teacher. Hmm, so don't try telling me that we're not apes!
I choose not to refer to nature as god, because I think it is misleading and I think it is an incorrect use of the term. Science excludes the term 'god' because it is scientifically meaningless and undescriptive.
I see, well this is were the debate started. To say that their is no truth behind any religion is ignorant in my opinion. Sure the story's are far fetched, but to say that all of it is nonsense without researching any of the literature just shows how close minded you really are to the unknown. For you "seeing is believing", but when you add into the equation that their is a whole spectrum of information our senses can't pick up, then your left to ask questions that can't be easily tested.
Yes, you can go ahead and call consciousness intelligence. But no one has an explanation of consciousness beyond the fact that it requires a network of neurons in order to function and maybe even to exist! To suggest that consciousness came before life is to be ignorant of the fact that consciousness was an outcome of natural selection. Consciousness was an adaptive trait that increased fitness.
When you think of yourself do you think of yourself as neurons, as cells, as atoms, as organic material, or do you think of yourself as something different from all that. They are all true, but we dont recognize ourselves as such, we consider ourselves independent of all those characteristics. For as a whole I am me, a single entity experiencing itself subjectively in this universe.
You said, "For without the observer who's to say the egg or chicken even exist?"
Who has to say it? Don't they exist anyway? You weren't conscious of my existence, but I did exist didn't I? My great grampa is dead, but he existed and I am genetically and physically different from him, right?
I'm not here to tell you that consciousness is an explanation of the universe as it seems you are. I'm here to tell you that all living things have evolved, including humans.
Lol my point exactly. They would exist anyway, just not in our reality. My point is though without the observer how would we know that they exist at all. When you say "natural selection", your referring to natures way of selecting the predominant spices for evolution? Consciousness is universal btw. No doubt we did come from single celled organisms, something can't come from nothing per say. But from monkeys? I have yet to see true testimony to this. I will look it up though.
You keep saying "I would like to see evidence to support this". I gave you a text book recommendation that supports my message. I suggested you speak with professors of genetics. Go to a museum and speak with a biologist there!
Are you so lazy that you want me to send you every transition fossil in existence? Maybe you want me to present a single paragraph or video with all the evidence for evolutionary biology? That's some wishful thinking.
If you actually wanted to know, you'd do the things I suggested.
You said, "My point is though without the observer how would we know that they exist at all."
Now you're using the term observer in a differrent context. You're saying that no one can prove evolution because there were no observers in the past to witness it occuring. To this I say, the same is true for the orbit of Pluto. No one has witnessed the complete orbit of Pluto around the sun, but it is a fact that it happens. There's just as much evidence for evolution as there is for Pluto's orbit.
Also, if you admit that one of our ancestors was a single-celled organism, how do you suspect monkeys got here? How do you suspect any multicellular organism got here? Non-evolution? If there is so much evidence that suggests we diverged from the same ancestor as chimps, bonobos, etc. how do you find it so unbelievable? And no, we didn't gradually come from chimps, humans and chimps gradually came from a common ancestor. You're all screwed up.
Oh, and one last point I missed... You said, "To say that their is no truth behind any religion is ignorant in my opinion."
You obviously don't understand my stance on religion then. Let me first note that my stance on religion has nothing to do with the validity of evolution...
Sure, many people derive moral truths from the study of their religion. I am for the moral truths, but I am against faith-based belief systems and so I am against religion. We don't need religion for our ethics.
I have never heard of this 2% DNA difference between a cow and a human. Furthermore, the only success I've had searching for such a statistic revealed that "goat EST sequences were matched to bovine, sheep, human, mouse and rat genes with 92, 95, 88, 78 and 78%, respectively".
Go ahead and say that mice are similar to humans in DNA instead, but scientists have never looked at comparative genomics and seen a contradiction to evolution.
well consciousness is intelligence, is it not. So then what we all are is consciousness experiencing itself subjectively in this world, for matter isn't actually solid, it is merely atoms vibrating at a certain frequency that our senses can pick up. The unified field theory explains this in great detail. Which you will be happy to hear is basically the "theory of everything" Einstein was working on before he died.
I am not referring to a supernatural being. The observer is human consciousness. For without the observer who's to say the egg or chicken even exist? Consciousness is natural, it is the one that is all. This is fact not fiction. Look up Quantum physics and consciousness. Everything in this world is viewed from the inside out, not from the outside in. Their are a whole spectrum of possibility's which we can't even concieve at this point in time.
Well, from a naturalist perspective, when coined to the term God. I refer to all that is, not a single entity pulling some strings in 7 days. But everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I do refuse to believe however that we came from monkeys.
Im not a creationist im a naturalist similar to Einstein, im neither religious or aithiest. I simply believe that all is one. thats it. The answer to the question is neither. "The observer comes first."
I do agree though that this presentation does not in any way scientifically support creationism, its mearly an oppinion on the matter. To answer your last question, the reason for evolution in the first place is to adapt to new environments or conditions, no legible evidence has been found to support this claim on the macro lvl, if you find evidence plz send it my way I love to be prooven wrong, for to be wrong is to commend someone with knowledge of whats right.
You need to read up on some things because you are making some drastic, misinformed assertions.
You said, "Darwinism is out-dated...evidence against it is astronomical...it simply needs revising..." - Firstly, all theories start out as imperfect, falsifiable hypotheses. It is the process that follows (the scientific process) that either strengthens or weakens an infant theory. All successful theories have, in their development, required revisions to reflect compatibility with modern science.
If you're serious about wanting evidence for evolution, why are you asking me? Go to a university and talk to (not just any biologist) but an evolutionary biologist and a geneticist. If you ask me, I'm going to tell you to pick up a couple of text books. Namely, Essential Cell Biology (2nd ed.), Genetics: Analysis & Principles (3rd ed.), and Evolutionary Analysis.
Sorry, but Intelligent Design is a failed hypothesis. Evolution is the only remaining, still-standing explanation for modern life.
Well im not gonna spend time reading a text book on the matter, he said it himself, a single cell has enough information for 1000 text books (this could be false, its what he said). But creationism isn't a failing theory either. That is not to say we didn't evolve, we very well might have, but whatever the case, the debate will never end, I will research the subject more and get back to you. New Quantum phisics supports many creationists claims, might want to check that out.
No, not all theories are replaced. Take Einstein's E = mc2 for example, it was finally proven after 103 years just a few months ago! The Theory of Evolution is actually the most widely tested and supported theory we have ever had; so much so that evolution is a fact and only a theory in the sense that we don't know 'exactly' how the first life started. (I'd bet the RNA World Hypothesis is a pretty good bet, though.) All evidence that supports evolution contradicts intelligent design.
Yes, creationism (intelligent design) isn't fail[ing]; it's already fail[ed]. Do you know why? For one thing, it's not science. For another, it's relevance depends on the failure of the Theory of Evolution. Lastly, it's self-contradictory because to imply creation is to imply a beginning before creation in the first place. (You might need to think about that.)
Quantum physics doesn't support creationism, sorry. The greatest physicist alive is an atheist... (Stephen Hawking)
Einstein spoke of God, yes. But you have to understand that him speaking of God was him speaking of nature and not some bearded man in the sky. Einstein was a pantheist. "Pantheists believe that nature itself deserves to be called 'God'."
Einstein wasn't a creationist, he was an agnostic pantheist.
I'll give you an example of a creationist physicist... Isaac Newton! Then again, Darwin wasn't even born yet during Newton's time... Even some Christains take evolution as fact (rightfully so).
This is true and i said that, before it can ever be accepted i must be revised. The current Darwin theory is mearly an understanding at this point in time and new theorys will be developed to replace it the more knowledge we obtain. This is true for all theorys. But i am not misinformed, if i am then plz explain how and i will be happy to admite im wrong.
Anyone who claims that cellular structures are examples of intelligent design is deluded. They think that evolution is "just a theory", however evolution is a fact and a theory. And to call evolution "just a theory" is to be ingnorant of the significance of a theory. In FACT, there is not a single example of irreducible complexity in cells! I recommend, to the advocates of intelligent design, that they purchase and study a Genetics & Evolution AND an Essential Cell Biology text book. Seriously!
Not Much. Just over 150 years of careful research and experimentation in the fields of biology, genetics, chemistry, and geology. And with each year that goes by, a little bit more of how things really work gets discovered and understood. "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Mavericks like Stephen J. Gould and Barbara McClintock have made marvelous discoveries that have extended the field of evolutionary biology tremendously.
Well for one evolution is not a fact, it's a fact on the micro lvl but not on the macro lvl. Though i will admite life is ever changing or evolving, that is not to controdict the creationist perspective. All he is saying is he complexity of each cell through the geometry and pattern on how they work simply suports the creationist perspective. However, i agree that this neither prooves or refutes evolution. If your curious simply look up the darwin/creationist debate.darwin is a dieing theory.
Evolution occurs at the molecular level, yes! However, you are wrong to separate things that happen at the molecular level from things that happen at the macroscopic level from an evolutionary perspective.
The guy is delusional if he thinks cellular complexity favors creationism. I'm sorry, but every bit of research has gone on in contradiction to his creationist view. He can show the different parts as if they couldn't possibly have evolved, but one has to wonder why he ignores that it has.
The first part is true, you can not separate things on the micro(small) lvl from the macro(big) lvl. It must be scientifically true on the smallest lvl aswell on the largest lvl for any theory to be accepted. thats to say proof is needed on the cellular lvl aswell as the universal lvl to proove evolution. Darwinism is out-dated though the evidence against it is astronomical. Thats not to say its competly inaccurate, just that it simply needs revising before it can be accepted.
That's what you say, but if it were observable in nature you certainly would include it as part of evolution.And if it is reproduced in a science lab it proves it takes pre-existing intelligence(the scientists,dead and alive,and their shared intelligences). It would also prove that life requires intentionality to bring about specified functional complexity of organisation. Not just brute chemicals in random catenations forming reproducing RNA by themselves. Where did intelligent instincts arise?
And you are the almighty arbiter of what is and is not science? Life from non life has never been seen in nature and never been produced in a science lab, even with all that we know about chemistry and molecular biology and all the money spent to make life from chemicals it is still too complicated for mankind to do? Study again, yourself. There is an atheist website than offers 1,000,000 for proof of abiogenesis. Go tell them how funny the subject is.
The mouse trap analogy is a great example of the flagellum motor and it's individual parts. Science at my level. Inspiring. I want to go back to school!
The singing at the beginning had to be from, "Man of Constant Sorrow", made famous by the film 'Brother Where Art Thou', performed by 'The Soggy Bottom Boys', recorded and popularized by 'The Stanley Brothers' in the 40's. Top tune, which is apparently down to Dick Burnett circa 1913. Cecil Sharp collected the tune in 1918.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
This contradicts Genesis chapt 1 where Adam was created some time before Eve. Of course it's senseless to point this out since it's just a creation myth that the Jews plagerized from the Summerians.
You can't start a population from a single pair, or there would be terrible inbreeding like there is with Cheetahs.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." This is an overview followed by detail. The first pair of humans were perfect in the physical sense, so inbreeding was not a problem, but after their fall future generations would have this problem so God introduced command ments against it.
"The first pair of humans were perfect in the physical sense"
Do you mean to say that Adam and Eve's eyes, had the optical nerve on the backside, instead of the front, like ALL vertabrates have? What about the defective primate liver that doesn't sythesize vitamin C?
Do you realy think I'm dumb enough to believe that these design flaws in nature, occured because some rib woman ate a piece of fruit??
Jesus wasn't an evolutionist because there is no such official term, and because there was no established theory of evolution in his day. Why do you think evolution has anything to do with the validity of personal faith? For faith to mean anything, the person embracing that faith should be a rationale, thinking human being. So accepting the science, while at the same time rejecting the empty atheistic philosophy often attached to it, is the best way to approach evolution in my opinion.
There is only one philosophical, fundamental difference between creation and evolution. Creation began with information and evolution arrived at information. But you can have both. That is what the atheistic philosophers don't want you to know. Evolution says nothing about God or the absolute nature of reality. It's simply what has been observed and inferred, and it makes perfect sense to be a theistic evolutionist. Just read the Science Of God by Gerald Schroeder.
Just read the book of genesis. If you think evolution did all this "with Gods Help" then you cant think the book of genesis is true at all.....then why think any of it is true.
Ever read Genesis in the original Hebrew? Why think anything is true at all? I mean, you might as well just say that. What if there is just one minor error in the entire book of Genesis, does that discredit the entire Bible? That would be like saying one Christian who has doubt discredits Christianity. It's just such a futile way to approach something if you expect it to have any truth value at all.
Surely this video was meant to be under Youtube's comedy performer section? please consider reclassifying it. thanks
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
@REALITY2point0 If you would place evolution under science fiction we might consider your request.
Thank you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
Comment removed
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 please remember YOUR DEATH is certain. The hour of your MORTALITY is coming. YOU are going to DIE. Somewhere around the corner is the bottomless, gaping, subconscious FEAR that you cannot honestly confront without your blanket of fairy tales. A cold COFFIN that awaits you. yet still YOUR DEATH draws closer. you can't STOP it. Its coming.. Inexorably the deep black NOTHINGNESS beckons for you and your wasted, dishonest, fearful life.. Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur.
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@REALITY2point0 You cannot understand because the Bible says you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@REALITY2point0 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. James 4:14
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 its seems that you've descended to the level of a mere parrot regurgitating bible verses at me, desperately trying to draw the threadbare blanket of your fairy tale myths around you, but death is coming for YOU. DEATH cares not for fairy tales. When you DIE (and I am sensing this may be SOON for you) in your last gasping doubtful breath, you will think of me. DEATH is coming for you.. its coming.. *tick* *tock* it draws every nearer and it cares not for fairy tales.
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
Comment removed
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
Comment removed
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 all you've got is the regurgitation of yet more Bible verses? you do realize that this is perhaps the single least impressive thing you could have done in an attempt to rebut me right? lets face facts, intellectually you DIED a very, very long time ago.. hence why you're an evolution denying creationist christian fundamentalist right? :) You seem desperate enough in your need for DEATH denial to need the last word. I'm going to let you have it..
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
@REALITY2point0 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Philippians 1:21-24.
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD is an alien from another planet
NitroPTY 1 year ago
So this guy supposedly has a masters in biology and believes in creationism and denies evolution?
Well I think we can tell the quality of education that goes on at that 'university'.
superwowie111 1 year ago
Face palm! No wonder nobody wants to take them seriously...
Creationism is just plain FAILURE!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
hmm sure is personal incredulity and appeal to authority in here.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Another great video! I take comfort in learning about the great design to all life.
No one can, reasonably, deny common design at the heart of all science. Science has many exciting things we are learning about, we really shouldn't pay much mind to the idling philosophers, the secterian evolutionists
decetorial 2 years ago
Bahaha, Mr. Ashcraft was my biology teacher!
NOberon11 2 years ago
test message
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Someone plz tell me which came first the chicken or the egg?
MadManMik3 3 years ago
"Someone plz tell me which came first the chicken or the egg?"
You'd say "Chicken!" because you are, I take it, a creationist. Then again, you might also say "Egg!" for the same reason. The problem with this question is that it offers only two choices (chicken or egg).
Neither choice is correct, not even for the creationist! For a question constructed by a creationist, you'd think he'd at least have the sense to answer "God, the Father!" or "Omnipotent, supernatural being!"
Continued...
tombapilot04 3 years ago
The actual answer is "Neither!" We know this much! Now, as we gather scientific evidence, find transition fossils, and observe natural selection occurring in nature, we are able to answer An ancestor of the chicken came first!
For you to acknowledge any of the things I have said here, however, you could only convince yourself if you were to actually look at the evidence presented in the text book I recommended earlier, titled Evolutionary Analysis.
Continued...
tombapilot04 3 years ago
You asked for evidence but you seem unwilling to look it in the face
tombapilot04 3 years ago
and who came before that ancester. We could go at this all day. The answer to the question is simple. The observer comes first, for without the observer everything would already be known. Consciousness is the answer. Its kind of like that picture of two hands drawing each other, but who is really drawing them.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Sweet! I'm a naturalist like Einstein too! I'm glad you're not a creationist! You had me worried there, especially with your claim that Einstein supposedly was a creationist when in fact he wasn't. I'm glad you came to my side about intelligent design vs. evolution! Or did you really?...
Continued...
tombapilot04 3 years ago
The problem is, you go a step beyond science and say that there had to be an observer. I object! By 'observer' I would presume you imply a supernatural being except that you said you were a naturalist. So I'm left with the term 'observer' thinking you must mean something natural, am I right? My objection is that science is looking for a natural explanation for the universe and there is no scientific evidence that supports there being an 'observer'. You need to study Stephen Hawking's universe...
tombapilot04 3 years ago
But wasn't our little discussion about intelligent design vs. evolution anyway?
There is no controversy among scientists about whether evolution is real, is occuring, and is the means by which life has arisen. Evolution actually is real, is occurring, and is the means by which life has arisen. The supposed controversy is actually the religious base refusing to accept this fact, and I'm worried about what they are trying to teach our kids!
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Well if you consider consciousness and intelligence one of the same then both can be true. Evolution is a part of nature just as consciousness is. I do agree that we need to step away from religion (real lies going on). I believe most religions do have some truth in them though. I think of the bible as one big metaphor to explain spirituality.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
MadManMik3,
You said, "I do refuse to believe however that we came from monkeys." Well, that's your problem! You and I are apes (great apes if you want to be technical). Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean you aren't wrong. You and I are apes and there is nothing you can do to change that.
I remember when I was in 2nd grade... I had told a classmate that people were animals. He told me I was wrong and so we asked the teacher. Hmm, so don't try telling me that we're not apes!
tombapilot04 3 years ago
I choose not to refer to nature as god, because I think it is misleading and I think it is an incorrect use of the term. Science excludes the term 'god' because it is scientifically meaningless and undescriptive.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
I see, well this is were the debate started. To say that their is no truth behind any religion is ignorant in my opinion. Sure the story's are far fetched, but to say that all of it is nonsense without researching any of the literature just shows how close minded you really are to the unknown. For you "seeing is believing", but when you add into the equation that their is a whole spectrum of information our senses can't pick up, then your left to ask questions that can't be easily tested.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Yes, you can go ahead and call consciousness intelligence. But no one has an explanation of consciousness beyond the fact that it requires a network of neurons in order to function and maybe even to exist! To suggest that consciousness came before life is to be ignorant of the fact that consciousness was an outcome of natural selection. Consciousness was an adaptive trait that increased fitness.
There is no Theory of Everything yet.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
When you think of yourself do you think of yourself as neurons, as cells, as atoms, as organic material, or do you think of yourself as something different from all that. They are all true, but we dont recognize ourselves as such, we consider ourselves independent of all those characteristics. For as a whole I am me, a single entity experiencing itself subjectively in this universe.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
You said, "For without the observer who's to say the egg or chicken even exist?"
Who has to say it? Don't they exist anyway? You weren't conscious of my existence, but I did exist didn't I? My great grampa is dead, but he existed and I am genetically and physically different from him, right?
I'm not here to tell you that consciousness is an explanation of the universe as it seems you are. I'm here to tell you that all living things have evolved, including humans.
Evolution is fact.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Lol my point exactly. They would exist anyway, just not in our reality. My point is though without the observer how would we know that they exist at all. When you say "natural selection", your referring to natures way of selecting the predominant spices for evolution? Consciousness is universal btw. No doubt we did come from single celled organisms, something can't come from nothing per say. But from monkeys? I have yet to see true testimony to this. I will look it up though.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
You keep saying "I would like to see evidence to support this". I gave you a text book recommendation that supports my message. I suggested you speak with professors of genetics. Go to a museum and speak with a biologist there!
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Are you so lazy that you want me to send you every transition fossil in existence? Maybe you want me to present a single paragraph or video with all the evidence for evolutionary biology? That's some wishful thinking.
If you actually wanted to know, you'd do the things I suggested.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
You said, "My point is though without the observer how would we know that they exist at all."
Now you're using the term observer in a differrent context. You're saying that no one can prove evolution because there were no observers in the past to witness it occuring. To this I say, the same is true for the orbit of Pluto. No one has witnessed the complete orbit of Pluto around the sun, but it is a fact that it happens. There's just as much evidence for evolution as there is for Pluto's orbit.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Also, if you admit that one of our ancestors was a single-celled organism, how do you suspect monkeys got here? How do you suspect any multicellular organism got here? Non-evolution? If there is so much evidence that suggests we diverged from the same ancestor as chimps, bonobos, etc. how do you find it so unbelievable? And no, we didn't gradually come from chimps, humans and chimps gradually came from a common ancestor. You're all screwed up.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Oh, and one last point I missed... You said, "To say that their is no truth behind any religion is ignorant in my opinion."
You obviously don't understand my stance on religion then. Let me first note that my stance on religion has nothing to do with the validity of evolution...
Sure, many people derive moral truths from the study of their religion. I am for the moral truths, but I am against faith-based belief systems and so I am against religion. We don't need religion for our ethics.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
I would like to see evidence to support this plz. You do know next to the monkey were also closely related to cows by a mear 2% dna difference.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
I have never heard of this 2% DNA difference between a cow and a human. Furthermore, the only success I've had searching for such a statistic revealed that "goat EST sequences were matched to bovine, sheep, human, mouse and rat genes with 92, 95, 88, 78 and 78%, respectively".
Go ahead and say that mice are similar to humans in DNA instead, but scientists have never looked at comparative genomics and seen a contradiction to evolution.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
well consciousness is intelligence, is it not. So then what we all are is consciousness experiencing itself subjectively in this world, for matter isn't actually solid, it is merely atoms vibrating at a certain frequency that our senses can pick up. The unified field theory explains this in great detail. Which you will be happy to hear is basically the "theory of everything" Einstein was working on before he died.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
I am not referring to a supernatural being. The observer is human consciousness. For without the observer who's to say the egg or chicken even exist? Consciousness is natural, it is the one that is all. This is fact not fiction. Look up Quantum physics and consciousness. Everything in this world is viewed from the inside out, not from the outside in. Their are a whole spectrum of possibility's which we can't even concieve at this point in time.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Well, from a naturalist perspective, when coined to the term God. I refer to all that is, not a single entity pulling some strings in 7 days. But everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I do refuse to believe however that we came from monkeys.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Im not a creationist im a naturalist similar to Einstein, im neither religious or aithiest. I simply believe that all is one. thats it. The answer to the question is neither. "The observer comes first."
MadManMik3 3 years ago
I do agree though that this presentation does not in any way scientifically support creationism, its mearly an oppinion on the matter. To answer your last question, the reason for evolution in the first place is to adapt to new environments or conditions, no legible evidence has been found to support this claim on the macro lvl, if you find evidence plz send it my way I love to be prooven wrong, for to be wrong is to commend someone with knowledge of whats right.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
You need to read up on some things because you are making some drastic, misinformed assertions.
You said, "Darwinism is out-dated...evidence against it is astronomical...it simply needs revising..." - Firstly, all theories start out as imperfect, falsifiable hypotheses. It is the process that follows (the scientific process) that either strengthens or weakens an infant theory. All successful theories have, in their development, required revisions to reflect compatibility with modern science.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
If you're serious about wanting evidence for evolution, why are you asking me? Go to a university and talk to (not just any biologist) but an evolutionary biologist and a geneticist. If you ask me, I'm going to tell you to pick up a couple of text books. Namely, Essential Cell Biology (2nd ed.), Genetics: Analysis & Principles (3rd ed.), and Evolutionary Analysis.
Sorry, but Intelligent Design is a failed hypothesis. Evolution is the only remaining, still-standing explanation for modern life.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Well im not gonna spend time reading a text book on the matter, he said it himself, a single cell has enough information for 1000 text books (this could be false, its what he said). But creationism isn't a failing theory either. That is not to say we didn't evolve, we very well might have, but whatever the case, the debate will never end, I will research the subject more and get back to you. New Quantum phisics supports many creationists claims, might want to check that out.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
No, not all theories are replaced. Take Einstein's E = mc2 for example, it was finally proven after 103 years just a few months ago! The Theory of Evolution is actually the most widely tested and supported theory we have ever had; so much so that evolution is a fact and only a theory in the sense that we don't know 'exactly' how the first life started. (I'd bet the RNA World Hypothesis is a pretty good bet, though.) All evidence that supports evolution contradicts intelligent design.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
Yes, creationism (intelligent design) isn't fail[ing]; it's already fail[ed]. Do you know why? For one thing, it's not science. For another, it's relevance depends on the failure of the Theory of Evolution. Lastly, it's self-contradictory because to imply creation is to imply a beginning before creation in the first place. (You might need to think about that.)
Quantum physics doesn't support creationism, sorry. The greatest physicist alive is an atheist... (Stephen Hawking)
tombapilot04 3 years ago
You do know that Einstein was a creationist lmao.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Einstein spoke of God, yes. But you have to understand that him speaking of God was him speaking of nature and not some bearded man in the sky. Einstein was a pantheist. "Pantheists believe that nature itself deserves to be called 'God'."
Einstein wasn't a creationist, he was an agnostic pantheist.
I'll give you an example of a creationist physicist... Isaac Newton! Then again, Darwin wasn't even born yet during Newton's time... Even some Christains take evolution as fact (rightfully so).
tombapilot04 3 years ago
This is true and i said that, before it can ever be accepted i must be revised. The current Darwin theory is mearly an understanding at this point in time and new theorys will be developed to replace it the more knowledge we obtain. This is true for all theorys. But i am not misinformed, if i am then plz explain how and i will be happy to admite im wrong.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
WOOO Mr. ASHCRAFT!
KingdomHeartsFire 3 years ago
Anyone who claims that cellular structures are examples of intelligent design is deluded. They think that evolution is "just a theory", however evolution is a fact and a theory. And to call evolution "just a theory" is to be ingnorant of the significance of a theory. In FACT, there is not a single example of irreducible complexity in cells! I recommend, to the advocates of intelligent design, that they purchase and study a Genetics & Evolution AND an Essential Cell Biology text book. Seriously!
tombapilot04 3 years ago 2
Okay then, what makes evolution a fact huh?
KingdomHeartsFire 3 years ago
Not Much. Just over 150 years of careful research and experimentation in the fields of biology, genetics, chemistry, and geology. And with each year that goes by, a little bit more of how things really work gets discovered and understood. "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Mavericks like Stephen J. Gould and Barbara McClintock have made marvelous discoveries that have extended the field of evolutionary biology tremendously.
magick205 3 years ago
Well for one evolution is not a fact, it's a fact on the micro lvl but not on the macro lvl. Though i will admite life is ever changing or evolving, that is not to controdict the creationist perspective. All he is saying is he complexity of each cell through the geometry and pattern on how they work simply suports the creationist perspective. However, i agree that this neither prooves or refutes evolution. If your curious simply look up the darwin/creationist debate.darwin is a dieing theory.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
Evolution occurs at the molecular level, yes! However, you are wrong to separate things that happen at the molecular level from things that happen at the macroscopic level from an evolutionary perspective.
The guy is delusional if he thinks cellular complexity favors creationism. I'm sorry, but every bit of research has gone on in contradiction to his creationist view. He can show the different parts as if they couldn't possibly have evolved, but one has to wonder why he ignores that it has.
tombapilot04 3 years ago
The first part is true, you can not separate things on the micro(small) lvl from the macro(big) lvl. It must be scientifically true on the smallest lvl aswell on the largest lvl for any theory to be accepted. thats to say proof is needed on the cellular lvl aswell as the universal lvl to proove evolution. Darwinism is out-dated though the evidence against it is astronomical. Thats not to say its competly inaccurate, just that it simply needs revising before it can be accepted.
MadManMik3 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombapilot04 Homochirality destroys abiogenesis!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
That's what you say, but if it were observable in nature you certainly would include it as part of evolution.And if it is reproduced in a science lab it proves it takes pre-existing intelligence(the scientists,dead and alive,and their shared intelligences). It would also prove that life requires intentionality to bring about specified functional complexity of organisation. Not just brute chemicals in random catenations forming reproducing RNA by themselves. Where did intelligent instincts arise?
dingorex 3 years ago
And you are the almighty arbiter of what is and is not science? Life from non life has never been seen in nature and never been produced in a science lab, even with all that we know about chemistry and molecular biology and all the money spent to make life from chemicals it is still too complicated for mankind to do? Study again, yourself. There is an atheist website than offers 1,000,000 for proof of abiogenesis. Go tell them how funny the subject is.
dingorex 3 years ago
Wonderfull Video
Thanks a lot
Texoki.
Texoki 3 years ago
The mouse trap analogy is a great example of the flagellum motor and it's individual parts. Science at my level. Inspiring. I want to go back to school!
The singing at the beginning had to be from, "Man of Constant Sorrow", made famous by the film 'Brother Where Art Thou', performed by 'The Soggy Bottom Boys', recorded and popularized by 'The Stanley Brothers' in the 40's. Top tune, which is apparently down to Dick Burnett circa 1913. Cecil Sharp collected the tune in 1918.
MandoMohan 3 years ago
Jesus was no evolutionist, why should a Christian be one?
Jesus says: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ( Mark 10,6 )
lannopez 3 years ago 2
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
This contradicts Genesis chapt 1 where Adam was created some time before Eve. Of course it's senseless to point this out since it's just a creation myth that the Jews plagerized from the Summerians.
You can't start a population from a single pair, or there would be terrible inbreeding like there is with Cheetahs.
Doublecharge 3 years ago
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." This is an overview followed by detail. The first pair of humans were perfect in the physical sense, so inbreeding was not a problem, but after their fall future generations would have this problem so God introduced command ments against it.
BereanBeacon 3 years ago
"The first pair of humans were perfect in the physical sense"
Do you mean to say that Adam and Eve's eyes, had the optical nerve on the backside, instead of the front, like ALL vertabrates have? What about the defective primate liver that doesn't sythesize vitamin C?
Do you realy think I'm dumb enough to believe that these design flaws in nature, occured because some rib woman ate a piece of fruit??
Doublecharge 3 years ago
Jesus wasn't an evolutionist because there is no such official term, and because there was no established theory of evolution in his day. Why do you think evolution has anything to do with the validity of personal faith? For faith to mean anything, the person embracing that faith should be a rationale, thinking human being. So accepting the science, while at the same time rejecting the empty atheistic philosophy often attached to it, is the best way to approach evolution in my opinion.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Thanks for the video:
The walls of evolution keep tumbling down!
bornagain7777777 3 years ago
Can you find me a supporter of ID who ISN'T a monotheist??
I can name hundreds of evolutionary biologists who are christian.
Doublecharge 3 years ago
it doesnt make one bit of sence to be an evolutionary christian
josiahdallas 3 years ago 5
"it doesnt make one bit of sence to be an evolutionary christian"
If that's the case, then it doesn't make sense to be a christian at all. It contradicts too many observable facts.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
There is only one philosophical, fundamental difference between creation and evolution. Creation began with information and evolution arrived at information. But you can have both. That is what the atheistic philosophers don't want you to know. Evolution says nothing about God or the absolute nature of reality. It's simply what has been observed and inferred, and it makes perfect sense to be a theistic evolutionist. Just read the Science Of God by Gerald Schroeder.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Just read the book of genesis. If you think evolution did all this "with Gods Help" then you cant think the book of genesis is true at all.....then why think any of it is true.
josiahdallas 3 years ago
Ever read Genesis in the original Hebrew? Why think anything is true at all? I mean, you might as well just say that. What if there is just one minor error in the entire book of Genesis, does that discredit the entire Bible? That would be like saying one Christian who has doubt discredits Christianity. It's just such a futile way to approach something if you expect it to have any truth value at all.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
@josiahdallas Homochirality destroys abiogenesis!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@josiahdallas Well, I should definitely take advice from someone who spells sense as "sence".
luke6377 4 months ago