More Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid 1-10

[MzDark]

evolution and the big bang theory are not necessarily related....

[davidmas0]

@MzDark

the big bang is called cosmic evolution, so yes they are related

[MzDark]

@davidmas0 even if that were true, astronomy is a completely different field to biology, which is where the theory of evolution applies.

[KevinLounsberry]

@davidmas0 And Revolution has "Evolution" in it too, so it's also related, MzDark, But you didn't even talk about that, did you MzDark. What a hypocrite.

[lovemrdarcy]

I have to give it to creationists though that they are more honest in their stand than the 'evolutionary creationists'. Honestly, worse than believing that the Earth is a couple of thousand years old and everything on it was puff created as it is, it's the idea that a god kicked out the process billions of years ago. If you are to be a theist, be at least a real one with a more active idea of a god.

[lovemrdarcy]

Stu-pid == creationism. Or let me be kinder to you than you are to the others.... Creationism is not stupid, it's just desperate. Scream, lie, pray, cry as much as you want, natural laws couldn't care less. It just is. Your god on the other hand, wouldn't exist without faith, without a man to invent him.

[gary031183]

sigh....

[Capuano231]

God bless Kent!

[Aheadstix85]

Hovind is SPOT ON!, evolution does not make sense.

[darksidelead]

if you had even a high school education on biology, physics and chemistry, it makes perfect sense.

just shows how dangerous this type of informational garbage hovind has been spewing

[petestrat07]

ROFLMFAO

[MrMegatruth]

@Aheadstix85

yeah, all that evidence is wrong

god put it there to mislead us

tricky god

[Wollff85]

You are serious, aren't you?

The errors start at 4:30

And don't stop.

If you are interested I'll pick them out for you piece by piece.

[Carlosdaguitarfreak]

For all you athiests, evolutionists, etc., you can ask Kent Hovind, or tell him how "stupid" he is at drdino . com

Acts 2:38. Read it.

[travproductions]

why in the world is anybody believing in evolution. how in the world could anyone be so dumb? why are we teaching this in schools.

creation is the only proven belief

[Ilikenuman]

yeah? prove it

[comedytracker]

"I think the bible is literally true and scientifically accurate"

stopped watching.

[ofreshartist]

good video.Thanks for uploading...

[erikpaschon]

Rednecks... Prove that god exists!

[TedJBrown]

Evolution. Is. Stupid. What's really stupid is that it's taught as fact in our schools even though many leading evolutionists have admitted that the facts don't support it.

[bhxinfected]

Uh, are you retarded? The evidence is outstanding and there is nearly a complete concensus regarding the theory.

[nakedapedude]

Why don't you tell us all about these many supporters of evolutionary theory who have admitted that the facts don't support evolutionary theory, I'm dying to know who they are!

Or maybe you just completely made that up, lying for jesus is quite popular you know.

[TedJBrown]

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. . . .The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.

The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

~Prof N. Heribert Nilsson, Botanist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden

[nakedapedude]

lol, you might want to research Nilsson's theory of emication before you start quoting that crackpot to back up your claims. He is not a supporter of evolutionary theory, he is a supporter of his own crazy theory and he certainly doesn't believe in creation, you fail

[TedJBrown]

Nilsson WAS an evolutionist - he came up with another wacko theory because he realized, after 40 years of trying to demonstrate evolution, that it wasn't possible.

[nakedapedude]

So far your "many evolutionists" claim has turned up one crackpot that doesn't believe in creation.

You are aware that there is no real debate about the veracity of evolutionary theory aren't you?

It's only loony creationists and fringe crackpots like Fred Hoyle and your guy Nilsson that doubt the theory, mainly due to their lack of understanding of the theory and the facts that support it or their literal interpretation of the bible/quran/torah.

[TedJBrown]

"there is no real debate about the veracity of evolutionary theory"

This is blatantly false. Hundreds of recognized scientists reject the theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. Here's another quote:

"And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."

~Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. physicist and mathematician

[nakedapedude]

What is it with you and you ridiculous cutting and pasting of quotes?

Who gives a crap what Wolfgang Smith has to say about our origins? He doesn't even work in a remotely related field and he has religious motivations.

Can you find a scientist who works in a relevant field, someone who isn't either religious (Smith) or a nutter (Nilsson), that also rejects evolutionary theory? Come on you said there were many, so far your only two examples are totally bogus.

[TedJBrown]

In the quotes above, the people are rejecting evolution on SCIENTIFIC, not religious grounds.

"These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

~Sir Ernest Chain, Co-holder of the 1945 Noble Prize for developing penicillin.

[nakedapedude]

It doesn't matter how many decades old quotes you copy and paste from quote mining (lying) creationist websites to try to support your claim. What you are doing is ignorant in the extreme.

[nakedapedude]

Your "hundreds of scientists" claim is laughable, there are MILLIONS of scientists and researchers throughout the world that accept evolutionary theory but it's not the numbers that make it true.

What makes it true is the facts that support the theory. What makes it true is the mountains of overwhelming evidence from diverse scientific disciplines that only those with their heads stuck in their bibles/qurans/torahs can ignore

Give it up, we have the fossils, you lose

[TedJBrown]

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

~David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (Zoology),

Head Curator, Dep. of Geology, Stoval Museum. Evolution, vol. 28, p. 467

[nakedapedude]

You know what quote mining is don't you? It's a nice way of saying that what you are presenting is a lie.

That's what happens when you cut and paste from dishonest creationist websites without doing your research. It's basically lying for jesus.

David Kitts fully supports evolutionary theory, his quote here simply addresses gaps in the fossil record. He wrote this 35 years ago. many gap filling fossils have been found since then but there will always be gaps, that's the nature of the record.

[TedJBrown]

I am not quote mining. I am referencing established scientists to show that my claims are not just those of "loony creationists and fringe crackpots". I am the one providing the facts, all you have provided so far is outright falsity, denial, and unsubstantiated assertions (which seem to be evolutionists' favorite form of "proof").

[nakedapedude]

So you went to the library and sourced those quotes, read them in context, took into account other works by the same authors and then decided to use them all by yourself.

Your'e a gullible idiot if you think creationist propaganda is anything other than valium for the feeble minded.

Address my comment re your obvious copy and paste of a David Kitts quote mine. He supports evolutionary theory so why did you use a quote which makes it appear that he believes evolutionary theory is flawed?

[TedJBrown]

Evolutionists support evolution because they don't want to accept the alternative (God).

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."

~Sir Arthur Keith, Physical Anthropologist and Anatomist

[nakedapedude]

You couldn't be more wrong.

There are more christians in the world who accept evolutionary theory than there are atheists who accept it. Even the catholic church, one of the most conservative religious institutions in the world, officially accept evolutionary theory.

The truth is, it's your literal interpretation of your bible that stops you believing.

Evolution happens, and if god is real he created it.

[nakedapedude]

I'm not sure why you keep quoting people, it does absolutely nothing for your argument.

Appeals to authority and quote mining seem very popular amongst creationists. I suppose I'm not surprised they obviously have great difficulty thinking for themselves.

[TedJBrown]

Just lot's more unsubstantiated assertions... I go by the facts, which do not support evolution - just as the experts I quoted from above have affirmed.

I hope one day you will come to believe the truth.

[nakedapedude]

lol, you're an idiot

Some of the expert's you quoted are proponents of evolutionary theory.

It doesn't matter how many decades old quotes you come up with from creationist scientists, it doesn't make evolutionary theory less valid.

I understand you need to comfort yourself that you have the right answer but I am constantly amazed at how you people manage to ignore the evidence, how do you do it? Do you just not understand the facts underlying the theory? Please explain.

[TedJBrown]

Don't YOU understand? Yes, (some of) the experts I quoted are proponents of evolution - that's the whole point! I already explained this to you, but you're in a state of denial - I think you're just trying to comfort yourself that you have the right answer by throwing more assertions at me that you can't back up with hard evidence. I'm constantly amazed at how YOU ignore the facts - such as polystrate fossils, the Cambrian Explosion, the hundreds of organs that could not have evolved slowly, etc

[nakedapedude]

Did you read anything i said to you?

You have quote mined scientists that are proponents of evolutionary theory to make it look like they are not. The reason you have done this is that you are copying and pasting from creationist propaganda websites without doing your own research. It's the same as lying and I know what your god has to say about that so stop doing it.

Why don't you try looking at sites that debunk all the garbage you just gave me, there are plenty of them.

[nakedapedude]

Try starting with the talkorigins site which has some very good information explaining all your supposed "evidence" against evolutionary theory. Just search for polystrate fossils, cambrian explosion etc.

All you have tried to do so far is show evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong (and you have certainly failed), but even if you proved it wrong that doesn't provide any evidence FOR creation.

So what is your evidence that there is/was a creator? Why is your theroy better?

[TedJBrown]

I followed your instructions and looked up my points on TalkOrigins. The article on the Cambrian Explosion was based wholly on unproved assumptions, the one on polystrate fossils expected you to believe that all the trees grew through the clay without sunlight, and the article on irreducible complexity left out important facts.

All the facts that evolution can't explain can be explained by Creation, which is evidence for it. Also see:

understandthetimes*org/101scie­ntific*shtml

[nakedapedude]

You're obviously beyond help, have fun in your silly little fantasy world with your magical creator.

[TedJBrown]

I'll enjoy the peace that only Jesus can give - you can keep trying to enjoy your meaningless life without Him. Have fun!

[nakedapedude]

What's it like always being on the stupid side?

[ChickenHawk110]

Never mind that Vol28 of Evolution was printed in 1974.

So, he either went to the library, found a 35 year old copy of "Evolution" and read the article himself, to present the reference to YouTube.

Or he "remembered" the article from 35 years ago, and still remembers the page number he read it from, so he can quote it on YouTube.

Or he simply quote mined the reference from a creationist website, which of course is inherintly dishonest, and innaccurate by todays knowledge.

Take your pick.

[nakedapedude]

lol, i'm picking #3

[ChickenHawk110]

Hey dude, you ARE quote mining.

Do you know when Vol.28 of "Evolution" was printed?

It was printed in 1974.

nadedapedude pointed this out aswell.

The article is 35 years ago.

I too, ask you, if you litterally pulled the article and read the whole thing, in context, or if you just pulled that single quote? Be honest now. We know the truth to this question.

Cont.

[ChickenHawk110]

Cont,

So you do understand that some of the most preserved and best examples of Tiktaalik were found in Canada in 2004.

I like the Tiktaalik, because its a fish with simple limbs, and evidence of a transitional fossil. Very much like the Axolotl that you keep as a pet.

There, is one less "gap" in the fossil record.

You need to stop quote mining, it just shows that you have made up your mind and that your looking for evidence to support your conviction, instead of the other way around.

[TedJBrown]

Tiktaalik is just a variety of fish. It is not an "transisional fossil". Evolutionists think it is more tetrapod-like because "the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout." (oh, and it has bigger ribs). This is an example of LOSS, or sorting of information, not gain. There is no natural mechanism to add NEW information, as would be required for "fish to philosophers" evolution to occur.

[ChickenHawk110]

Yeah, absolutely, no worries at all.

Because those bones from the primitive FORE AND AFT limbs are SO fish like.

Fish fins have no bones, you understand this right?

Moreover, apart from your denial of the features of the Tiktaalik, is how you assert that there is no natural mechanism to add new information. Care to clarify this assertion? Is your source on this information also 35 years old?

[TedJBrown]

"Because those bones from the primitive FORE AND AFT limbs are SO fish like.

Fish fins have no bones, you understand this right? "

Actually, there are many lobe-finned fish. Their bones, however, are not set up to support weight.

"you assert that there is no natural mechanism to add new information."

Yes, because there isn't. Evolutionists claim that mutations add new information, but they can provide no indisputable examples. Random chance does not produce information, only intelligence does.

[ChickenHawk110]

Look Ted. There are only four lobe-finned fish species alive today, they are living fossils of the same nature one of the earliest lobe-finned fish, the Tiktaalik.

"Bones...not set up to support weight"? I have watched these fish use their limbs to drag themselves along the tank, your assertion is an outright unsubstantiated assumption, or a lie, that is negated by my own observations. So, of course you will reject my observations because its contrary to your "intelligent design" convictions.

[ChickenHawk110]

Sorry, I stand corrected. If you consider the surviving lung fish also amonst the living lobe-finned fish, than the number of lobe-limbed fish species alive today comes to 6. Not four.

Still, they are all living fossils, and all lobe-finned fish alive today use their limbs for a functional purpose.

[TedJBrown]

""Bones...not set up to support weight"? I have watched these fish use their limbs to drag themselves along the tank"

This is ridiculous - water has about 1000 times the buoyant density of air. I bet you could support yourself at the bottom of a pool with a single finger - does this prove that our hands are turning into feet?

I don't reject observations or facts. I reject poor conclusions.

[ChickenHawk110]

Ted. Oh dear.

All you have to do is watch a National Geographic doco on mudskippers, lungfish, or coelacanths. These are the closest living relatives of the fish-terrapod transitionals.

You will watch these animals draging themselves along the ground in water, AND ON LAND.

This proves the limbs are "functional", if they are evolving is a matter of view.

You "dont reject poor conclusions", you reject all evidence that is contrary to your homeschooled Christian convictions. Ignorance!

[TedJBrown]

There are many interesting and specialized kinds of fish. There are some that breathe surface air. There are also some (like you mentioned) that can drag themselves (or skip) across land with the aid of their pectoral fins. If you believe these "walking" fish are ancestral to tetrapods, do you also believe that the "flying" fish are ancestral to birds?

It is genetically impossible for fish to get the new information in their DNA to make the new bones and muscles necessary to walk on land or fly.

[ChickenHawk110]

"It is genetically impossible for fish to get the new information in their DNA to make the new bones and muscles necessary to walk on land or fly."

This single sentence proves your ignorance.

I would LOVE to know how you know this.

Enlighten me, however be warned your reasons have to be your learned studies, not some creationist soundbite.

Your turn.

[Aheadstix85]

@ChickenHawk110 That fist sentence about the fish, is what evolution says happened, and makes no sense, a fish cant just grow legs one day for no apparent reason, thats impossible, no matter how much time you wait for.

[Ilikenuman]

cant grow legs?

nobody is saying a fish GREW legs!

my god you really think the animations on nature shows is literally what scientists are arguing for. hahahahahaha

[ChickenHawk110]

Secondly, Ted, recent experiments has proven some nucleotides can self ligate. This would easily "add" information, and cause a mutation.

The "indisputable" examples are not indisputable because of your "see no evidence, hear no evidence" type.

I personally didnt conduct these experiments, though I accept the results.

Your are recieving your Christian education from home schooling. You have been told that there are no indisputable examples, and regurgitated that statement to me. Way to go!

[TedJBrown]

Combining random letters is NOT the same as creating new information. "ACDBBDCCDCABABDACCADBB" does not contain information. Real information (like that in this sentence) has ONLY EVER been demonstrated to originate from intelligence.

Oh, and I'm tired of you blasting my homeschool education. During my education, I studied operational science, not about origins. Nearly everything I know about Creation/Evolution I learned through my own independent study.

[nakedapedude]

It's such a shame you still haven't actually learned anything yet. Still only reading creation websites eh?

[ChickenHawk110]

Oh, I too am tired of your denial.

I give up. Another closed book.

When you say you have learned this through your own independent study, how long could this possibly be at Yr11? A few years part time?

Compared to the 10 year tertiary education of a PhD, or the 40 year education of a Professor, do you REALLY compare? You feel your qualified to disagree with their observations and conclusions that are based on testable scientific method?

You, Ted, are full of it. Sorry.

Have a nice day. :)

[Wollff85]

Has it occured to you that there are a whole lot of gain of function mutation well documented in a wide variety of bacteria?

That is creation of new information through natural selection, as opposed to intelligence.

[soccom8341576]

@TedJBrown

we aren't even sure what intelligence actually is.

[soccom8341576]

@TedJBrown

According to information theory, information can neither be created or destroyed.

All that ever was, is and will be have always been, god or no god, intelligence or no intelligence.

The arising of patterns and sequences can occur on its own.

[fartedbananas]

@TedJBrown

Facts, do you mean fossil record, ring species, DNA, mutagene chemicals, observed evolution (newscientist. com/article/dn18912-fat-lips-e­volve-at-record-speed. html), transitional hominids (.theistic-evolution. com/hominids2_big. jpg), resistancy, pandemics (evolving virusses like the pig flu (new form of influenza), bacterial resistancy), Hybridisation,...

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown 'Many leading evolutionists have admitted that the facts don't support it'. I wonder from where creationists get their facts. Wrong. Which leading evolutionists? Making up something does not make it true. Well, I guess this can be said of a god too.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

It's the evolutionists who are making things up. Their theory begins with the sudden appearance of the "first self-replicating molecule", but they can't tell us how this occurred, because it's scientifically impossible! The simplest possible living organism is a cell, which is so complex it's impossible that it "just happened". Except of course in the evolutionist's faith/fantasy world. See my earlier comments about leading evolutionists and facts.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, you believe in a creator that make man out of dust. You believe in talking snakes. You believe in a magical being that watches over billion of people. Probably you believe in miracles, in virgin birth, ressurrection, an ark with thousand of animals floating in a mass of water for over a year. And you have the nerve to use words like 'scientifically impossible' and faith/fantasy world?? You got be kidding. lol.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

There's nothing "magical" about the Creator. He's supernatural, because he made everything. He made our bodies, it's not hard for Him to cause a virgin to conceive. Many people witnessed Lazarus' resurrection, do you deny John's eyewitness account? What would he have to gain by making it up? God doesn't have a problem making these things happen, evolutionists have a problem explaining them without God. "Scientifically impossible" doesn't apply to God, he controls everything.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Thank you. You just pointed out the dishonesty of creationists. How easy for you. So basically you are telling me that althought you want to have a scientific discussion, you do not have to back up anything you say, no matter how fantastic it is, with any scientific evidence. Well, get out of the science discussion then! If 'scientifically impossible' does not apply to your side, why are you even demanding it from your opponent? Your terms are more appropriate to discuss fairies.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

"If 'scientifically impossible' does not apply to your side, why are you even demanding it from your opponent?"

When I said "Scientifically impossible doesn't apply to God", I was trying to point out that not everything can be explained through purely naturalistic causes. True science, in fact, points to the Creator through the amazing design seen in nature.

Please explain to me how life began without God.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown There is only one science and we already established that your 'true science' is nothing more than faith. Your argument that life began with your God has no more weight than to say that it started with Allah or a divine Unicorn. Since science is out of your reach (Bible, Koran or divine books do not count as science), you too can not explain how life began without Allah or a divine unicorn. Can you, without using your chosen side of faith? Just use the 'can not be explained' card.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

"your 'true science' is nothing more than faith"

All science rests on faith. Either faith in an Intelligent Designer, or an omnipotent Nature. Richard Dawkins claimed that neither he, nor anyone else knows how life started. Yet he continues to believe that "nature somehow did it." That's quite a strong faith!

Take your head out of the sand and realize that evolution is just another religion explaining how everything got here, the god is Nature.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, if anyone has the head buried in sand is you. It's a common creationist trick try to paint evolution as a question of faith and thus bringing it down to the same level of insanity as religion. You can take a bus and go visit a museum and see for yourself fossils of our ancestors. Dinosaurs that would never fit into an ark and maybe even get fascinated by how much science has achieved. The evidence for evolution comes from geology, geography, genetics. Where is your evidence?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

"You can take a bus and go visit a museum and see for yourself fossils of our ancestors"

Which fossils are you talking about and how do they disprove Creation?

"Dinosaurs that would never fit into an ark"

Do you know how big the ark was? How many animals were on board? No? Then don't make these silly claims.

"The evidence for evolution comes from geology, geography, genetics"

Why don't you give me some specifics instead of elephant hurdling.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, you can do your own homework and study evolution. Throwing empty questions that have been answered thousand of times is not a way to keep a discussion. Type google or better yet, borrow a book from a library and you will learn how not only fossils but genes, geography and geology proves creation is not possible. Don't ask me for specifics because it's not my job to educate you, it's your job to do it for yourself. You are the one trying to elephant hurdling.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Do you know how big the ark was? How do you know it? How big do you think it could be? Which claim is sillier? You ever really thought about this? How 8 people would take care of hundreds of animals? Where do they keep the food? How did they survived the poop? And which animals were taken? Do you really believe dinosaurs lived in the same time as humans, Ted? Do you really think there was an Ark with dinosaurs? Tell, how big could be this ark?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown All you have are the gaps that science allows you to have. Your God is getting smaller and smaller because every time we reach deeper into a level of knowlegde we did not have before. Imagine life centuries ago, could a man imagine the world today? Imagine life centuries ahead, do you really think you know what science can find? Not that you care. Because having your head in the sand you are going to miss it as you are missing it now.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Gaps? There's no chain at all! The more knowledge we gather from creation, the clearer its amazing design becomes.

Centuries ago, infidels thought God would be disproved long before now, but those men are now gone, and God is alive and working today.

I'm excited to see what new scientific discoveries we will see in the future revealing more details about our amazing universe!

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown 'All science rests on faith'. Hum... noooo. What a weird thing to say. Do you have faith that gravity exists? Maybe you have faith on Mathematics? I don't think so. The only science that bothers you is the evolution science because apparently disproves your holy book and the things you were made to believe since young age. You could be a Muslim with the same strong faith on Allah if only you were born on the other side of the world.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

"evolution science"

How can you call a believe that everything started out with a big bang and we evolved over millions of years science? This is an unproved and unprovable hypothesis. Were any scientists there millions and billions of years ago to observe those events? No? Then don't insult real science with that fairy tale.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Listen Ted, change the tune on the big bang. Once, because big bang and evolution are not the same thing. You want prove of evolution? you do not need to go back billion of years. Go back more recent and find out about homo sapiens, neanderthals. How creation explain the Neanderthals? And again, what is YOUR EVIDENCE of your side?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Evolution and the Big Bang are separate theories. However, evolutionists who do not believe in God must provide some answer to how the universe and life started, and the Big Bang and ridiculous abiogenesis theories are their response. All these theories (hypotheses, really) are taught together as a whole to kids in school and passed off as "science".

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Theory of evolution = Theory of gravity by science standards. Go educate yourself.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown You are a man living in 2010 with the same idea of life that a man in the middle age. Why? Because both of you get your facts from a book written 2000 y ago. A book written by men. Said to be 'divinely inspired' but no evidence of it. The difference between this complete locked state of mind and whoever looks for evidence in science to explain life couldn't be bigger. It's not religion that gets tested in labs, exposed in museums, questioned and revised. Evolution got all that.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

The idea that life can spring from non-life, that one kind of creature can reproduce another kind, has never been tested and observed in a lab. Even if scientists did manage to make life in a laboratory, all it would prove is that it requires intelligence to create life!

For a book written between 2 - 4.5 thousand years ago, it's amazing how current the Bible has been all along. It's prophecies are still being fulfilled, and it continues to change lives to this day.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Please, please, please, learn about evolution before you can discuss it. The more you talk about it, the clearer become that you are one of those creationists that do not even know the basics. Next thing you will be saying that you want to see a crocoduck or that the banana was designed by God. And which prophecies have been fullfilled? Do you even know how the Bible was put together? You said something silly past and I let it pass but, which witnesses to Lazarus ressurection?



[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Actually, I have learned about evolution. I've spend a great deal of time studying it, in fact. Not just from the Creationist point of view. I happen to want to know the truth, so I've carefully studied both sides. After doing so, I've come to the logical conclusion that we were created by God.

The Bible predicted the rise and fall of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. It foretold the exact time the Messiah would appear. And many other amazing prophecies I don't have space for.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown No. You haven't learnt a bit. Studying here? From religious sites? You want to know the truth? For the last time, just a guess: what is the percentage of scientists that side with evolution and laugh at creationism?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Do you even know that the gospels were written at least ONE century after Jesus death? How this can be testimonial?? Do you even know that the gospels that take the name of the disciples were in fact anonymous? You can check this out if you do not believe me. And the Bible is current? which part? The stoning? The rules of not eat shrimp? The slavery? Maybe the genocide and rape commit by Moses against anybody that it was not 'their people'?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

The Gospel of John was an eyewitness account (which documented Lazarus' resurrection). Most scholars agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were also written during the first century.

You realize how unhealthy shrimp is? Those who follow the Bible's health laws enjoy longer, happier lives.

Rape committed by Moses? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

The Bible does not condone slavery.

The harsh measures taken against sin (like stoning) teach us how terrible its results are.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Go read your Bible. Moses commited genocide and in several verses it was that the women of the defeated were to be taken. Do you really need that I teach you the verses? Infanticide was another favorite of your God in the OT. Women were nothing less than properties. Even fathers would give up their daughter for rape. And you know what I'm talking about. It's shamefull that Christian think that they can skip the ugly parts of the Bible.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ah.. but if scientists manage to make life in laboratory, it will really prove that requires intelligence to create life. But not of a supernatural type. I hope you see you shot yourself in the foot in here, Ted. This would really prove that it does not need to have a supernatural creator for the universe to function. And I think with this phrase you showed the real dishonesty of creationists. That means that no matter the evidence you will never change your mind.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

When scientists try to produce life in the lab, they are hoping to show how life could have started without a Creator. They won't ever succeed, however, because there is no scientifically possible condition under which life can spontaneously generate. So it won't ever happen. I haven't shot myself in the foot by stating the fact that a scientist producing life would only prove intelligent design.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown It's even funny to say but if you call it evolution a religion, then it must be the only one that has evidence of what it says. It must suck to have only words to show. At least your God has Allah as company.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

I've grown tired of this one-way discussion. If all you can do is insult me, my God, and my religion then I'm done. Goodbye.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Now Ted, when did I insult you? Just because I disagree? Or you understand that arguments against your point are insults? If I remember right, the only words of insult here started from your side. You were the first to use the word 'stupid' for example when mentioning the other side. I even went softer on you, I preferred to say you were desperate. Also it was you so said I had my head in the sand when it's you that could be transferred to the middle ages.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Comments such as "It must suck to have only words to show. At least your God has Allah as company" are insulting. The reason I'm tired of this discussion is that you have contributed no real arguments. It's just one long put-down of me as a person, with other comments such as "no matter the evidence you will never change your mind", and "you are one of those creationists that do not even know the basics" Put off you demeaning attitude, and I won't mind responding to your questions.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, if getting questioned about evidence on your religion insults you, get used to it because if you make a claim, you better back it up with evidence. There was a time when people would die in the fire or jailed because they dared to question the church and the Bible. You probably would be one of those arguing against Galileo. But religion now does not get a pass anymore.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Don't be ridiculous. Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Boyle were all devoted Christians. It's unfortunate that the Catholic Church put a bad name on all Christians when they resisted progress.

You still haven't given me a shred of proven evidence for your beliefs, and you still haven't explained the evidence I gave at the beginning about the complexity of the cell, the impossibility of it happening by chance, and how this is evidence for a Creator.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown "You still haven't given me a shred of proven evidence for your beliefs". Are you deaf? I said it's not my job to educate you when you can very well take a bus to a museum and see fossils or take a ride to the library and pick a book. Or google. But if you stay in AIG, you are not getting any real science. And again, have some shame. You are the one that needs to show evidence because I can not find it if I go to the museum or read anything scientific.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, is there any thing at all that would ever make you change your mind? Any evidence? I know your answer. And like any other religious you say that there is nothing that could ever change your mind. No evidence at all. So really, why bother to discuss? I admit I may be wrong and I just wait for evidence. I can change my mind. You can't. You have the complete certainty that you are right. If this is not the most insulting quality of a human being, I do not know what it is.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

You couldn't be more wrong. My faith is based on evidence. Evidence from the Bible, and from science. The many miracles, fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and recent scientific discoveries all uphold my position. I keep an open mind, and look at arguments from both sides. Have you ever studied any Creationist or Intelligent Design evidence with an open mind?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Oh boy. Yes, thank you. Evidence from the Bible. That's what you got. And that has NOTHING to do with science. In the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming. That is a fact and you can check. Period. So, science sides with evolution. And there is only one science, so you must be talking about any pseudoscience.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown The nerve. Who has open mind here, Ted. You are the one sure of yourself that science will never prove you wrong. I have an open mind enough to say that I may be wrong and someday science may find an evidence that tops evolution and I'll change my mind in a whimp. While this is not the case, I stand by the best probability and scientists have showed me the only evidences. Now, can you admit that you may be wrong and maybe there is not a creator? No, you can't. Who has an open mind?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

While we're on the topic of evidence. Have you ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Or how about irreducible complexity. I'm going to take a page out of your book here: don't ask me for specifics, it's your job to educate yourself. Why don't you try looking at material from both sides, while your at it.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, let's summarize. How many scientists side with evolution and how many side with creation? Which evidences of creation can be seen in labs, genetics, history and exposed in a museum? Just because you keep denying that evolution is proved it will not make it so. I already educated myself. You didn't. You stuck with your book. Which science you talk about? The one in AIG? If the VAST MAJORITY of scientits side with evolution, which science do you talk about?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Anyone who has studied Mendelian genetics will know that it is impossible for one kind of creature to turn into another. Birds always produce birds, horses always produce horses, yet evolution requires that one kind of animal produce another. This has never been observed, period! You keep saying that evolution has been tested in labs, and examples of it preserved in museums, but this is not the case. There are NO confirmed transitional fossils proving descent from a common ancestor.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Your words show that you know nothing of evolution. And pull your hair out as much as you can, THERE ARE transitional fossils. Saying that they are not will not make them any less transitional. Period. As I said, 99% or the scientific community sides with evolution. And by the way, so does many religious leaders. This also will not change just because you deny it. I don't know what crazy explanation you give to the fossils. Do you think people go making weird bones to show ?

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

I have looked up these lists of asserted transitional fossils. Nothing could be less scientific. If you think these fossils are part of evidence used to construct a theory, you are wrong. Scientists already had the assumption of evolution, and the evidence was interpreted based on this prior belief.

Evolutionary trees and transitional fossil lists are based on the evolutionary worldview. Instead of the theory being based on the evidence, the evidence is interpreted by the theory.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown These fossils do not construct a theory, they just fit into it. They exist and they are as expected so far. Creation can not explain them. Evolution can. Christian archeologists looking for the Noah's Ark are the ones that for sure have a prior belief and thus believe that any piece of wook is the Ark. However many things can explain the wood. The wood =many explanations. The fossils = only evolution. Can you see which one is considered an evidence, and which one is prior belief?

[TedJBrown]

-continued-

Since when does a majority belief decide fact? There was a time when the scientific community believed that a flat earth was the center of the solar system, and that smoking was good for your health.

You won't see scientific evidence for creation published in mainstream journals because they won't accept it. Scientists who dared to publish their favorable views on intelligent design have lost their tenure and jobs. See "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, first, it's not a majority 'belief' but a majority agreement based on the evidence encountered so far. If the evidence pointed to creation, the majority agreement would be on your side but again, there is none for creation and many for evolution, no matter how hard you try to deny it. If 99% of the scientists side with evolution, I don't think they are doing it to upset you. It's just that the evidence points to the other way. It's that simple.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown I think this is my favorite piece so far. Let's see. Back then the 'scientific community' had no access to the technology of today. They knew nothing of genes, they had no scientific way to date rocks, fossils. All they had was observation. Also, you know what else was reigning at that time? Religious beliefs. In the lack of anything else, it was God that provided the answers for everything from the colors of the rainbow to the stars. Go read history and find it.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown So, in a time where the 'scientific community' was controlled by Church ( see Galileo) and the scientists themselves controlled by their religious superticions, you had a majority believing in a flat Earth center of Universe. And do you even know why the Earth had to be the center of the universe? Yes, you guessed right. Because this could only the right since man was the special creation of God and therefore Earth, where man lived, had to be the center of the universe.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown The more scientists are biased by their supersticions, the less scientific they are. If people like Mr Stein and you had their way, still today the Earth would be the center of the universe because this is more compatible with a creator worried with human affairs. You can keep whining that they will not let you teach your religion at schools because they are picking on you. It's nonsense.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown You may have studied genetics but you sure did not study evolution. Unless of course, your course is from AIG like sites, then yes, it makes sense your repeating this nonsense that evolution requires that a bird will produce horses. Do yourself a favor and study evolution. You will just be laughed at if you keep thinking that evolution is the same as saying that there should be a crocoduck somewhere. If anything, if ever a thing like this was ever found, it would disprove evolution.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, do yourself a favor and first study evolution. It seems you do not understand what it is at all. Your crocoduck delusion ( saying that evolution requires one kind of animal produce another) makes you think that evolution predicts intermediate forms between species whether or not one is descended from the other. Do you even know the basics of evolution? Do you know what is natural selection? Ever heard of mutation? Do you think transational fossil is something like crocoduck?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Where do you live? Do you have access to internet? A library? Other book than the Bible? Other sites than the ones banked by Discovery Institute? Observed increases in complexity via evolution not only is a fact but also this knowledge saves our lives, your life. E coli, nylon bug, hedylepta evolution are only 3 examples of the very same fact you deny to be ever been observed in a lab. And there are plenty of transitional fossils, although it is not even needed. DNA kills it.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Jesus man. At least update yourself with the new talking points for creationists. Cambrian explosion? Irreducible complexity? Oh , for your Christ Sake, this has been answered, debunked THOUSAND of times. Do your research. Here, google so I do not have to copy and paste.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown I am humble enough to admit I do not know everything that there is to know. In any of my posts I ever said that creation or gods will never be proved. I say that, at the present time, there is no scientific evidence of gods but yes, no matter how much you cry and deny, there are evidences for evolution. I admit that may be conditions that can change my mind. I may be wrong. Can you say the same? Can you say that you may be wrong about God? Hum. Locked mind. I'm done with you.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Of course I don't know everything. And yes, I could be wrong about God. I already told you, I study both sides and I try to keep an open mind. The evidence I have seen points me to the conclusion that we were created by God. What about you? Have you actually looked at the Creationist side with an open mind?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown 'Yes, I could be wront about God'. Exactly. But it seems we live in a difference dimensions. You use the word 'evidence' for things that are not really the scientific word for evidence. I think we made this clear. Where is the evidence for creation? Saying 'look at the world' is not evidence. Or the Bible. Where is your SCIENTIFIC evidence? SCIENTIFIC. You have none. Not one paper published in a serious science channel. No one record. Nothing. What makes sense because that's faith.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

I have studied the evolutionists' answers to irreducible complexity and the Cambrian explosion, but have found them unsatisfactory. Many scientists have written rebuttals to these so-called 'answers', as well.

Your adamant assertions and refusal to answer my questions make it appear that you are the one with a locked mind.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Of course you find them unsatisfactory, they go against what you want them to be! Nothing that disproves creation will be ever satisfactory to you. Point is that no matter if it satisfy you or not, it is what it is and there is a reason why evolution is taught in science classes and creationism is not. What you call open mind is faith, because again, there is nothing, zilt scientific about creationism. When there is, I'll check it. So far, only desperate people like you trying hard.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

This comment is a good example of why I don't want to continue this "conversation". You seem to just consider it a good opportunity to denigrate someone who believes in Creation. I had hoped this to be a mutually beneficial, mature discussion that we could both learn something from. I told you, I am open to ideas and evidence. But most of your comments have been about how desperate I am, how I will never be satisfied, and how I am denying all the evidence for evolution.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Well Ted, by the end of the day you are the one claiming fantastic things happened without any proof. I do not believe in ressurrection, virgin birth, gigantic arks with dinosaurs. You are. And you are here trying to prove that you are reasonable and base your opinion on scientific evidence. When evidently you take all that based on faith. Because they are physically impossible. So, how come can I take seriously your idea of evidence when all you have to say to me is that God did it?

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Well, I think you are not being fair with our 'conversation'. And even more fair with my attitude. Remember, the only call-naming in here came from you. So I could very well say that it's you so denigrated your opponent. And It's mutually beneficial. I have to give you credit because you uttered the words " I could be wrong about God". Wow. That's an accomplishment for most believers. So you admit the possibility that there could be no gods. Just like I admit there could be some.

[TedJBrown]

-continued-

At the same time, you will not explicitly state what evidence I am denying. You have stated adimantly that I have no scientific evidence or supporting record, while ignoring the facts I presented about the Cambrian Explosion and irreducible complexity. Belief or disbelief do not decide truth, and I'm interested in nothing less.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown You can not have it both ways. Your standard for scientific evidence to decide if something is true is much much lower than mine. It's enough for you that it's written in a holy book. No matter how physically impossible, you take it. You only explanation: God can do anything. Then you come here trying to convince me that for everything else you are capable of reasoning based on scientific evidence? Either you have a reasonable method to analyze something is true or you do not.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown The sad thing about your position is that indeed you have nothing to prove creation and therefore you must spend all your time trying to disprove evolution. If this was even a fair measure between two possibilities, you would have at least to put in the table the same amount of evidence forward. And by trying to disprove evolution you are left clinging into old tales that apparently nobody told have been debunked and are laughed at now. ... irreducible complexity..

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Irreducible complexity: this is sooo old. Are you sure you can not educate yourself on this one? : "No one is denying that in natural processes there may well be parts which, if removed, would lead at once to the non-functioning of the systems in which they occur. The point however is not whether the parts now in place could not be removed without collapse, but whether they could have been put in place by natural selection. " So skip this argument if you don not want to look outdated

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Natural selection does not create anything. It only selects from what is already there. Chance mutations are your only hope, but scientists have yet to demonstrate them creating new information either. They only screw up or duplicate existing information.

How is this argument old? I have read evolutionists' attempts to answer this argument, but their "answers" are only speculation. They can provide no examples of any natural mechanism producing a new system.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, you stand there waving your flag. Maybe one day you will be in the history books as a record of the people that in a civilized world with access to education and food still believed in Ark with dinosaurs. It's actually kind of sad but time is on the science side and maybe you guys can hold on for some more years. But time is on the science side Ted and it doesn't care whose God runs over. You keep hanging in there though.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown "Belief or disbelief do not decide truth, and I'm interested in nothing less." and "I could be wrong about God" . Both of us share these two points but I am not the one believing in things that are physically impossible ( virgin birth, ressurrection, water walking, talking snakes) and you take all this without questioning! Why? You said yourself, belief does not decide truth so being in the Bible does not make it true. Faith should not replace evidence. Anybody could be wrong.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

No, belief does not make the Bible true. I believe it's true because of the evidence. Evidence contained within it, like fulfilled prophecies and historical accuracy; and evidence outside it, like supernatural answers to prayer, miracles, changed lives, and the evidence of intelligent design seen in nature. You are correct that faith should not replace evidence, faith should be based on evidence.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown No Ted. There is no evidence. If there were, there would not be need for apologists and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your 'evidence' is faith and seeing things you want to see. That religious people keep using the same old list of things as evidence ( Bible, prophecies, imaginary miracles,'look at the nature!') only makes them seem more laughable. The world has changed Ted. That doesn't stick anymore. Calling a belief 'evidence' don't fool anybody. But keep your illusion.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Ted, what questions? If you want proof of evolution, I already told you. Take a bus to the natural history museum, read a book ( a scientific one), google ( try the list of transitional fossils). You can not even give me the same directions. All you have to show me is the pseudo science you get from AIG or your holy book. By the way, how the creationists explain the Neanderthals? Do you guys sit there and pretend they are fake or invention of scientists? LOL.

[TedJBrown]

@lovemrdarcy

Neanderthals lived alongside so-called "modern humans", made tools and musical instruments, buried their dead, had cranial capacities larger than our own, and their DNA differences overlap with the DNA differences between modern humans. Neanderthals were completely human, there is nothing transitional about them.

It is genetically impossible for one kind of creature to turn into another. If you disagree, please explain where the new information would come from to make this possible.

[lovemrdarcy]

@TedJBrown Jesus man, who said Neanderthals were transitional? What I meant is that they lived around 3.5 millions of years ago and their DNA show that they can not even be considered of the same species. No, they were not completely humans, they were either another species or a sub species. Hard to understand where there were in your world designed by a creator.

[RJL738]

Nice uplode Joseph.