Complete Creation, 2nd Ed., Part 12 with Wazooloo

[Eaglewing17]

hallelujah

[nicholighkun]

What about the DNA repair robots? And the fact that there have never been known examples of positive mutations, which add information? Plus the repair robots come and remove the mutations.

[ishaofpistis1]

"Evolution needs the mutations, but the repair mechanism removes the mutations". Evolution is impossible because of this fact alone. The fact that abiogenesis is impossible really destroys the foundation of evolution theory, but this destroys the mechanism that should be driving evolution. This can't be covered up any longer, people will learn the truth, or deny it willfully.

[odinata]

@ishaofpistis1

Oh, I see. the fact that foxes are related to wolves is a vast conspiracy....

Idiot.

[coolvideo28]

The Truth

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day

[athlete117]

You're a great voice for God, Ian. Great stuff.

[RationalEmotive]

Proving faith by science! I love it!

[Iraqveterankill4real]

@RationalEmotive Science and God compliment one another astoundingly. God made it that way I am certain of that.

[9pt9]

evolution = pwned

[odinata]

@9pt9

Funny how its not the case at all.....

[9pt9]

@9pt9 Oh it is quite the case. No fossils, no beneficial mutations, no mechanism. PWNED!!!!

[MajSmJz]

1,6% of 3,2 billion is 51,2 million.

[JesusFreak142]

Great work Ian! =)

If you guys hate these videos then why watch them?

God Bless

[ChuckChucksTheory]

Sure is funny how science is showing more and more that evolution is still unatainable. It sure must be hard on you that want to (by choice)be pond scum .

[mindwis3]

Scratch beneath the surface and most, if not all, of his arguments fall apart.

You can 'thumbs down' this comment right away.. or scratch beneath the surface yourself.

You'll find he:

- misrepresents evolution (with his flagellum, this is actually very well understood).

- cannot present even 1 example of something 'irreducibly complex'

- misrepresents the Urey-Miller experiment.

- Does not understand the 2nd law of TD.

(or he forgets the earth has an outside(!) energy source we call the sun).

[mindwis3]

On average a human child has 100 mutations not present in either parent.

Individuals do not 'evolve' 25:30.

It is one thing to present a case for Intelligent Design, nothing wrong with that.

But trying to do that with a misrepresentation is -imo- intellectually dishonest.

Why doesn't he present a case for his hypotheses, why not actual evidence rather then "i cannot believe this happened".

Especially since there is quite some literature on How most examples he gave most likely did happen.

[mindwis3]

talk about the 'which came first' 20:50 when he refers to the Mitochondria, he fails to mention that MytochondrialDNA is passed on from the Mothers side exclusively.

That makes one wonder, since that means that Adam had MTDna from his mothers side..

The parts that are compared with human and chimps are the important parts in dna, the GENES !

Well, though i don't think my comments are abusive or rude. I guess they will be 'spammed down' soon anyway.

before i 'drown':

Find out for yourself.

[biggbaddjohn]

Adam had no biological father either, yet he had the portion of DNA that would have come from his father.

Do yourself a favor, find out about genetic hot spots. We have been totally misled by statements like "Chimp and Human DNA are 98% the same" because they function in totally different ways. google "chimp human genes hotspot"

I have a lot of respect for you, just because we don't agree, doesn't make us enemies. You have been totally cool & i appreciate it.

[mindwis3]

"We have been totally misled by statements like "Chimp and Human DNA are 98% the same" because they function in totally different ways"

I'm sorry, but that's plain nonsense. The genes that are Identical between humans and chimps is quite high and they do have an identical function.

On top of that, there are ERV's we share, if that is design, god designed them to mislead us in to making the logical conclusion, in which case i think you have to believe in a deceiving god..

[biggbaddjohn]

He presents a clear case, evidence of design, evidence of a flood, evidence of all major familes appearing suddenly in the fossil record, dinos and man together etc.

Sometimes you got to debunk the BS that we have been indoctrinated with in order to show evidence for your case.

You are just uncomfortable being challenged, a normal human reaction, i feel that way too a lot of times.

We all look at the same data, we just do not accept the Darwinian interpretation.

[mindwis3]

"You are just uncomfortable being challenged"

No i am not, you're making that up, you can challenge me all day long.

You seem to overlook that my worldview is not dependent on evolution being true. Though i find the subject fascinating, my life and choices do not depend on it.

If tomorrow it would be debunked (by real science), i'm sure the evidence for that would be fascinating too.

Darwins views are 150 yo, Darwin had great idea's but science has gone way beyond.

[biggbaddjohn]

you're right, i cant read your mind. However the point was Mr Juby's "attack" on evolution is evidence based.

If the evidence refutes your little theory, so be it !!!

[mindwis3]

"

If the evidence refutes your little theory, so be it !!! "

That is correct, no harm done.

Small correction though, it's not 'my' theory, i wish, but it's not mine :)

[biggbaddjohn]

I stand corrected

[biggbaddjohn]

irreducibly complex

human reproduction system, heck, any reproduction system, including cellular. If it don't work the very first time, there are no 2nd chances, and nothing to naturally select or mutate

Miller-Urey, totally debunked 7 ways to sunday, garbage that has been in textbooks WAY to long.

Bible predicts 2nd LOTD - "the heavens wax old like a garment"

Sun, utterly destructive, would do us no good at all if it weren't for plant life.

flagellum - a masterpiece of brilliant design

[mindwis3]

"flagellum - a masterpiece of brilliant design "

At first sight, then scratch beneath the surface and find all types of precursors to the flagellum.

for instance the 'type3 secretory system' where 40 parts of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum are missing, it functions fine!

"Sun, utterly destructive"

The sun is the "forgotten" outside energy source by the less informed making the "2nd law of TD" argument.

what makes more sense, that plants 'came to be' before the sun, or after the sun?

[biggbaddjohn]

had the sun been before the plants, the plants would have gotten fried.

"The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation and reducing temperature extremes between day and night."

No oxygen, no atmosphere, plants get sizzled like sausage. simple

[mindwis3]

"No oxygen, no atmosphere,"

You must be kidding, what are you talking about?

First off, atmospheres do not need oxygen.

Second, why would there not be oxygen before plants?

Third, oxygen in the O3 molecule (ozone) is what deflects most of the harmful rays. ((Not O2, the stuff we breathe), hence the concern wrt the ozone layer.

Fact: Plants depend on the sun, not vice versa.

"Simple" eh, well there is actually a vast body of knowledge based on evidence on this topic (too).

[biggbaddjohn]

Hey Yo, it was only 24 hours till plants got sun. Besides, light was created before the plants, just not sunlight.

Technically, you are right, you don't need oxygen to create atmosphere, but you do need it for an atmosphere that supports life.

[mindwis3]

"it was only 24 hours till plants got sun. Besides, light was created before the plants, just not sunlight."

Sure, plants can survive a 24 hour period without the sun, i can agree to that ;)

"light was created before the plants"

The 'light in transit'? or what light is that?

Well, i support your right to believe what i think takes more 'faith' then what believe ;)

[willflair4tips]

He didnt say no oxygen no atmosphere. He said no oxygen no OZONE.

[mindwis3]

Hi willflair4tips,

Thanks for chipping in, however bigbadjohn DID write "no oxygen, no atmosphere", and that is what i was reacting to, so i take it you were correcting bigbadjohn here??

i quote: "No oxygen, no atmosphere, plants get sizzled like sausage. simple"

Rgds,

[willflair4tips]

I thought we were talking about what Ian said. I stand corrected. Sorry!

[paulhumber]

Excellent video!

[worm102]

Wazooloo your the greatest, I see Gods humor in theses great videos.

[sweatytoothmadman]

Design does not mean designer, creationist tried that logic on the rainbow a few hundred years back due to the fact that all the colors followed a certain pattern and made a half circle, and so they deduced that every time you see a rainbow god had made it. Of course now we understand the physical properties of the rainbow and how they are formed.

[wazooloo]

the complexity of a rainbow has no bearing on the complexity of even the "simplest" of cells (even though there is no such thing as a "simple cell").

[sweatytoothmadman]

The point is that they use the physical properties of something that they didn't completely understand and concluded it was a designed. If they only bases of I.D. is that we do not understand how the it evolved then it is not science because science cannot be based on a negative. Not to mention how does one conclude what level of complexity denotes a designer or a super all intelligent designer?

[sweatytoothmadman]

You took the Law of Biogenesis out of context all that Pasteur concluded was the multi-cellular life cannot come from organic compounds, which I would agree with.

[wazooloo]

Can you cite an observed example of life arising from non-life?

[sweatytoothmadman]

Well CDK007 did a great video on this where he demonstrated abiogenesis and he also has videos on I.C.

See watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg on youtube.

[Teno22]

He DEMONSTRATED abiogenesis? He would be world famous if he did that. Better check your claims over. Even your evolulu buddies won't swallow that one.

[mindwis3]

That is correct,

However, it did show in one week happening what the presenter here said would take millions of years.

=

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, some building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed

[biggbaddjohn]

still didn't even begin to show evidence that life could arise from chance.

I could see bricks "evolving" but i can't swallow them forming themselves into the university of Florida (lots & lots of bricks there). It's a ridiculous leap of faith.

Besides, the amino acids formed were not suitable for life. Miller didn't even make it out of the starting gate.

[sweatytoothmadman]

" show evidence that life could arise from chance."

Life doesn't form by chance rather it forms in accordance to chemical laws.

[biggbaddjohn]

nope. there are no chemical laws that provide a mechanism for a cell to assemble itself.

[mindwis3]

To continue on STMM,

"I could see bricks "evolving"" well, then you can see more then i, since i never saw any bricks have differentiated offspring and a struggle for resources.

I do see crystals forming spontaneously.

'a ridiculous leap of faith' subjective, believe what you want (as you seem so keen to).

Miller did not 'prove' abiogenesis, you are missing the point (which is that amino acids CAN form spontaniously, in weeks, not millions of years like the video claims.

[biggbaddjohn]

brick are an analogy for something like adenine. Sure, it occurs naturally, and it will even chain up naturally. However, it will never build itself into U of F (analogy for the cell).

Every Cell is at least as complicated as U of F, probably more so. Plus there a 5000 volume database of error-correcting code . It has powerplants, robotic machines, automated security systems . Plus it can completely replicate itself.

Cells arising from natural means ??? Evolutionists have HUGE faith !!!

[mindwis3]

Hi John, (1)

"Cells arising from natural means"

Have you heard of micelles?

I don't quite follow how you can compare modern cells to pre-cambrian organic material.

Everything points to complex structures forming from less complex structures. (see 2)

I appreciate it seems unlikely at first glance, but please look deeper.

You propose a super complex entity right at the start of it all. (one that defies the very 'needs a maker' argument so often given.)

[mindwis3]

Hi John (2 :)

Say we have 100 dice, and i want all dice as 6 with many throws (chance).

the chance of throwing all 100 dice at 6 is very small, the odds are ((1/6)^100).

However evolution works differently, it builds (selection).

You throw the 100, pick out the 6's (about 16) and then trow the remaining 84 dice, pick out the (about 14) sixes, throw the remaining 70 etc.

That does not explain how life started, i agree.

I don't know how it started but that's irrelevant for evolution.

[FUNCLEJ0E]

How can evolution be irrelevant for evolution? Also, if there appeared a life form, what did it consume? The food of life, has been shown as life itself, unless there is something that does not require organic material in order to exist, and replicate?

[mindwis3]

"The food of life, has been shown as life itself, unless there is something that does not require organic material in order to exist, and replicate?"

Organic material is a broad definition FuncleJoe.

proteins for example are organic materials, but have been shown possible to synthesize without life.

many examples like that.

Even today there are lifeforms that do not consume "life", many extremophiles for example.

And what about some flora?

abiogenesis(hypothesis) =/= evolution.(fact and theory)

[FUNCLEJ0E]

Proteins for example can be synthesized, after something that exists creates it.

What do extremophiles consume? I find no reference, but ok. I could say that unless you find it alive on another planet where there is no life, that it may be consuming something alive, or that was alive. I learned "old school' that organic mean "living" or "decaying" materials that were from life, or were alive. I don't know the "NEW" definitions. I also learned what Theory meant, but evolutionists changed that to.

[mindwis3]

Proteins are made of nucleic acids which have been shown to synthesize just fine.

In mad cow disease for example, proteins are self replicating.

"What do extremophiles consume?" most on a form of chemosynthesis, like near volcanic vents.

And yeah, without "reference" you can say what you want...but there is plenty of info on them so i think you didn't really try.

cont in 2.

[mindwis3]

2)

"I learned "old school' that organic mean "living" or "decaying" materials that were from life"

- you can see it that way, sure. but do you consider nucleic acids to be organic material, ever heard of "organic chemistry" <- try a wiki on that.

in our case, the point is not the source but the existence.

"I also learned what Theory meant, but evolutionists changed that to"

-Like the "gravitationalists" changed the term Theory in their Theory of Gravity i suppose?

[FUNCLEJ0E]

Well, if I were a lawyer for God, I guess my reply would be reduced to stating that, words and the use of words are evidence of a creator. Since no other animal or life form is able to read this sentence as you are able. Your ability to filter words and push them in your favor is again evidence of choice which is granted by a creator. Even the ability to imagine and seek to disprove of God, is in itself evidence of God. God is the word, and the word is God. Without words, we could not argue.

[FUNCLEJ0E]

Aside from the use of words and it's misuse and changing format which is dictated by social text books, whom are only concerned with division and monetary gain / power and control, and removing all of that from God who is the author of all life. I say you mix man made materials and examples against that which is, and deny it, as you are taught to do. Therefore you do not learn, as you are confident you already know something. If it was actually KNOWN, you would not be here at all, in argument.

[mindwis3]

Funcle,

You're just decreeing lots of things to be so without any evidence, and accusing me of thinking i know, that's funny.

You're fighting agains the possiblity of abiogenesis now, but as soon as that is known, i'm pretty confident you'll use that as "evidence" for your creator too.

"and deny it, as you are taught to do."

Yeah right, you try to remove the splinter from my eyes while you have a beam in it.

Good luck with it.

[FUNCLEJ0E]

mindwis3,,

If you are so certain of Evolution, and can imagine or have evidence of one creature becoming another, then what do you suppose you would evolve into? What is greater than Man and his knowledge of time passing forward? What would be the next evolutionary step? If you do not believe in God, then what would we evolve into eventually? Good luck to your ideas, I already have instruction and a means to know what you claim you do not.

[mindwis3]

"then what do you suppose you would evolve into?"

individuals don't evolve Funcle, duh.

"I already have instruction and a means to know"

Well well, what matters it, believe that too.

"Good luck to your ideas", "my idea's" eh, i wish!

Well, keep following your instruction, it seems to work miracles for you.

[sweatytoothmadman]

"It takes 30,000 proteins to make just the tail of the flagellum" who said the flagellum was formed from organic compounds during earths begins, again life wasn't anywhere near as complex in the beginning as it is today.

[wazooloo]

I did not mean to imply that the bacteria (and its flagellum) was the first life; I was merely pointing out how complex organisms were - even the "simple" ones. I will clarify in the final video (it will have an "corrections" section); but even the "simplest" of organisms still requires tremendous numbers of proteins, thus the point is still valid. Thanks for commenting.

[sweatytoothmadman]

Because the first forms of life didn't have the complex protein sequences that we have today.

"even the "simplest" of organisms still requires tremendous numbers of proteins"

The simplest proteins that we have to day still are way more complex than the very first, again CDK007 does a great job of pointing this out.

And comparing life today to what it once was is like comparing the space shuttle to a wheel.

[biggbaddjohn]

The "simplest" forms of life we have ever observed are mind numbingly complex.

[sweatytoothmadman]

And that is the point, the organisms that exist today are the result of millions of years of natural selection, they are going to be much more complex than the first cells.

[biggbaddjohn]

show me the life forms you refer to !!!

[sweatytoothmadman]

Again see CDK007 video on the subject entitled Origin of Life.

[biggbaddjohn]

"This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. "

Direct Quote from the video sidebar. This is pure conjecture. Has no more basis in reality than the man in the moon.

The video is actually completely laughable, and producer admits it's nothing but a flight of fancy

[biggbaddjohn]

referring to CDK007 movie -btw