A planet is formed by the remnants of its sun, slowly pulling towards each other by their gravitational pull, thus forming the planet. A Goldie Lock zone planet (such as the Earth), which is pretty close to the sun, needs much, much more than 6000 years to cool off the original heat and the dense atmosphere on its surface so that life could take place. With your estimations, I have to be sitting in a 450 degree C room wondering about Creation
All this is theoretical, it has never been observed, nor proven. I am sure you know Boyle's gas law. The size of the sun limits the age of the solar system. The sun is shrinking, and the further you go back, the larger it was. Same with the magnetic filed of the earth. The magnetism would be too strong for life to exist millions of years ago. Ganymede still has a molten core, it should have cooled solid long ago, if the universe was old(Denver post, Dec 13, 1996. Holt Earth Science 1994, p 579.)
The manner by which life originated and developed on Earth is a matter of some debate for us. Scientists believed it required a long, slow process of natural genetic change called Evolution. As evidence, they pointed to every bit of relevant data ever gathered. Many others rejected the notion that man descended from monkeys as distasteful, believing instead that life - and the cosmos itself - was created by one or more gods. As evidence, they pointed to themselves believing it.
You are correct, It is very much debated. Have you heard of Robert Gentry? His polonium halo results can be seen at halos(dot)com. The granites formed rapidly, thus proving that geologic events and formations did not take long to occur, and occurred recently. However, the "data" you speak of for evolution, has too many assumptions involved. ie. carbon dating, the geologic column, etc. Most of it has been invalidated. You should visit the halos page, friend. See you.
Translation: Zero evidence for evolution, and mountains of evidence against, instead for Creation. I can give you many pages (hundreds of sources) that discredit evolution. Care to try your beliefs against science?
@Jesusisthetruevine I dont think you got my point. I have given you a source for a beginners guide to evolution. If you watch it, you might learn why evolution is true. Its also quite entertaining.
But I doubt you will watch it. The last thing you would ever want is to be proved wrong.
Really? Do you really think that your evolutionary belief can withstand pages and pages of evidence and scrutiny? Blindness and ignorance at it's best. Peace be upon you.
It does not matter if I watch your video or not. I will not be proved wrong. The evidence is clear. See: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII
Halos(dot)com disproves evolution, by the instant creation of Granites, scientifically.
This is just a collection of half truths and lies.
Why are you so intent in ignoring the mountain of evidence for evolution, the big bang and quite frankly anything scientific? And worst of all, why are you so intent on trying to convince other people to ignore it?
You have the right to 'believe' whatever you want, but please stop polluting other peoples minds with this drivel, its just not fair.
Another lie in your video. A total complete false hood. You claim piltdown man as a link from apes to humans. This is a bold face lie. Nowhere today is that thought.
Nebraska man never was taken seriously by science and Lucy is not and adult chimp. The hip alone tells us this. By why let facts get in the way.
Question: What is Neanderthal in your world view? Just what was it? And remember its DNA is known and has been sequenced.
What are you saying? Neanderthal is simply a giant human. DNA is no way proves evolution. That is a scam, and a complete misrepresentation of the evidence. Barney Maddox, a geneticist, explains that 1.6% difference in human and ape DNA is a gap of 48 million nucleotides, a change of 3 is fatal - And that is only for 1.6% similarity!! Now, humans and apes are only about 93% similiar, so the chance is around 200 million to 1 gap! Impossible. DNA does not prove evolution.
ERVs and Pseudo genes are fabulous evidence of Evolution at the genetic level. A change of 3 is fatal??? Really. The best estimate is that the average human zygote has about 64 mutations.
And Barney Maddox is a 'urologist ' and holds B.S. in biology from Texas Christian University? (no bias here!)
"A Young-Earth Creationist, Dr. Barney Maddox, a Cleburne, Texas, urologist "
My *god* man.... look at your sources! Unbelievable!
I'm tired of your comments. Stop living under a rock. You don't have a clue what you are saying. Your sources are phony. Neanderthal had some form of arthritis which made him go DOWN, not up into an ape. Absurd. Childish. Phony. Dr Jack Cuozzo did studies on neanderthals, and found that there was acromegaly, or excesss secretion of growth hormone. Go to this link. It exposes neanderthal man as a fraud, and not a "missing link"
science is all about evidence, not opinion or popularity. all evidence from various branches of life and earth sciences point to evolution and common descent. evolution is accepted by the almost unanimous majority of earth and life scientists, BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE. not because evolution is the cool thing to believe in. scientists still debate over the fine details of evolution, but the fundamental pillars of evolution are as concrete as ever and widely agreed upon.
True, but the evidence challenges evolutionism, it is not in agreement. Scientists are misguided, all the evidence used to support evolutionism have been proven fraudulent. I challenge you to do *serious* study of the evidence, it may shock you. Say what you wish, but the pillars of evolutionism have long been smashed to bits of stubble, and hence, no supposed "evidence" will ever build up that pillar again. There are hundreds of scientific articles disproving evolutionism, I have the sources.
"all the evidence used to support evolutionism have been proven fraudulent."
what a ridiculous statement. what, are u talking about a couple of fake fossils from many years ago?..do u have any idea how much more evidence there is in various other fields of science? u cannot educate yourself about science from creationist websites..u are very misinformed.
I don't talk about just a "few" fossils. Nearly all the ape-men hominids have been proven wrong. Most of all the other "fields of science" is not science anymore. The supposed "evidence" has all been misinterpreted. I think you are the one who is misinformed, friend. NO transitional fossils. (Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-Mammal) Carbon dating wrong. Hominids wrong. Geologic column wrong. "Primitive man" wrong. NO beneficial mutations. Millions of years wrong. Big bang wrong.
are u seriously going to sit here and tell me that there are no beneficial mutations and that the big bang is false?..man oh man creationist websites have done a number on u.
beneficial mutations are rare, but they do happen. why don't u look it up, or do u consider the evidence of these beneficial mutations a lie from the devil?
and the big bang is false?..have u ever heard of microwave background radiation? have u ever heard of red shift??
Funny. “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88).
As for your comments on big bang: orionfdn(dot)org/papers/arxiv-10.htm
This is Robert Gentry's work in physics that disprove big bang postulates. These are censored papers, meaning that scientists are afraid to publish it, because they know it goes against and disproves their little theory.
"The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. (Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p 295.)
Images of space captured by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite have been labelled as the first hard evidence of the proof of the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. However,the patterns recorded were temperature gradients, which were only about 30 millionths of a degree warmer than the surrounding space - an infinitesimally minute gradient. (Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/92(2)
The 30 millionth of a degree fluctuations in the temperature of the universe has recently had its validity challenged. A member of the team who designed the instrument that took the readings has categorically stated that it was not sensitive enough to take readings that small. (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992 p 14-15.)
An article in Science says that the variations claimed in the COBE project are well below the level of instrument noise, a type of background interference that would cover up such readings. It went onto say that the readings were obtained by statistical methods which still need careful checking. (Science,May 1, 1992 p 612.)
George Smoot, the man in charge of the COBE project, admitted in Science that the readings may not be real, and that even if the measurements were real, they could have been caused by other effects such as the motion of our galaxy through the background radiation. (Science, May 1, 1992 p 612.)
why do 99% of the scientists on earth accept evolution?do u honestly think they are doing it out of popularity for the theory?or that evolution is some kind of giant conspiracy?don't u realize if there was any major flaw in the theory of evolution, that a bunch of scientists would be all over it? scientists are always trying to falsify and scrutinize theories. if any scientists could manage to bring down the theory, they'd win the nobel prize..yet, that hasn't happened..hmm
Your figure is wrong, about 50% or more believe in Darwinian evolutionism. There are many honest scientists against evolution. Russell Humphreys, Michael Behe, Walt Brown, Robert Gentry, etc. You cannot determine facts by popularity or majority opinion, you should know that. The majority is often wrong. Scientists used to follow Aristotle, etc and thought that bigger objects fell faster than lighter, and smaller objects. This was proved wrong.
you're incorrect. practically all of scientists involved in earth and life sciences accept evolution. watch the video by DonExodus2 called "list of scientists rejecting evolution"..Robert Gentry is a nuclear physicist. his opinion is worth shit. Michael Behe actually emphatically accepts common decent. Walt Brown has a Phd in mechanical engineering, and has taught math, physics, and computer science. his opinion is worth shit. Russell Humphreys is a physicist also.
I am sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. Robert Gentry's work has been published in the leading scientific journals, and peer reviewed. His work passed over 25 years of scrutiny, and could not be refuted because it disproves evolutionism. Your opinions of Walt Brown and Russell Humphreys are incorrect, as well.
i got my info about Walt Brown from creation science dot com.
i got my info about Russell Humphreys from christian answers dot net
and about Robert Gentry..i assume u are referring to his work about Polonium haloes, which he wrote about 30 years ago. most of the scientists now do not accept this anymore. it has actually been thoroughly debunked by talk origins dot org.
It does not matter if scientists reject Gentry's research... they are wrong. Biased scientists. All people have agendas. Beliefs. Scientists could have refuted the halo evidence, but they could not. This is because evolution fails as a unscientific theory. It is definitely not debunked. People at talk origins don't know the evidence, they invent *excuses* not to believe. The Halos still stand. I challenged people to debate Robert Gentry in public, and so I challenge you, if you are up to it.
@Jesusisthetruevine Scientists did refute the halo evidence: "He [Gentry] is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth."
Scientists could not, and will never refute the halo evidence. You are mistaken. I have seen that quote before. People on talk origins are persuaded by their own philosophies, and not the evidence. Gentry's work has passed years of scrutiny, and no scientist has ever disproven them. I suggest you read some reports at :
halos(dot)com/reports/index.htm
Besides, If what your saying is true, scientists would create granite with halos in the lab. This cannot be done, numerous attempts failed.
@Jesusisthetruevine Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be evolved by uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a halo. This is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos.
Ps. I cant believe that Gentry has the audacity to call him self a scientist.
Your "analysis" is wrong. Gentry collected granites from all over the world, and still stands unrefuted by the scientific community. It has been probably 50 years now, so no one has refuted it. I suggest you visit the page on halos... halos(dot)com/faq-replies/challenge-to-nas.htm
Gentry is up for public debate, evolutionists could have refuted it, if they could. Their failure exposes their theory debunked.
Also, there are many reports on the halos evidence... halos(dot)com/reports/index.htm
It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this.How about bacteria evolving into humans over billions of years? Fairy tale. Never observed. Even IF it was a straw-man, variation does not account to changes outside of genetic limitations. Mutations are always negative, in one form or another. Science textbooks also admit the fallacy of mutations, and the limits to biological change.
@Jesusisthetruevine "It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this."
Now you are lying. No where in TOE does it say one species gives birth to another. No where.
"Mutations are always negative"
Sorry wrong again. Many are neutral. Can you name the kinds of mutations? This should be interesting. Please, list the kinds of genetic mutations and show me you have a basic understanding on this topic. When you do, you will understand how wrong your are.
Then how can you believe evolution from simple to complex life over billions of yearsw? You admitted it was false. You are exactly right. Kinds don't give birth to other kinds. Sorry, you are still misguided. Care to study?
As for mutations, consider. "Mutations would not last in nature."(Allyn and Bacon Biolgy, 1977 p 364.)
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88).
@Jesusisthetruevine I notice you could not name the types of genetic mutations. So clearly all you can do is cut and paste. Nothing from your own mind? Please tell me. What are the kinds of mutations in genetics? Can you answer this simple question?
@Jesusisthetruevine What I did was hack down another straw man of yours "It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this."
No where in TOE does is state that a member of species A gives birth to a member of species B. Its untrue and you are now lying for Jesus. He wont like that at all. Its call false witness.
“Normal fruit flies have two wings. Some mutations have had four wings. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful (the fly could not fly).” (Biology, 1996, p. 324) - They don't give an example for a "good mutation." There are none.
"Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested. (Daniel Brooks "A downward slope to Greater diversity. Science vol 217, 24 September 1982, p 1240.)
@jesusisthetruevine ... you do realize they have found intermediate forms of evolution, that aren't frauds? and here's a question for you, if the universe had to have been created, where did your god come from? as the common rule used by creationists that something can't come from nothing, would have to apply to your god as well?
Yes, I have been to natural history museums a number of times. The "history" does not match the evidence, I'm sorry. How about things that were proven WRONG mant years ago, and are STILL in museums around the world? ie - The "feet" of the Lucy display in St Louis zoo, the "peppered moth" hoax, all the pseudo "ape-men"? etc.
the evidence matches reality. scientist study the natural world through observation and peer review. preachers take ancient books and try to tell you why they were already right. you can pick either side but do not blame others for thinking you are nuts.
Exactly. The evidence matches reality, but not in your favor. I recommend you visit halos.com website, for years of scientific research and evidence that still stands unrefuted for Creation. Preachers not only explain the past, but they also use the Bible to predict the future, because all scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16) and Jesus tells us before it comes to pass, so when it does, we may believe. (John 14:19) God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)
I have never seen a creationist myth that was not complete crap and I do not expect this to be any different. I would never beleive a person who bases their reeality off of a book that is used to control them. evolution is face. if you were not scared shitless of reality you might actually accept real evidence rater than taking it from lying preachers. thinking evolution is a lie is about as sane as thinking the earth is flat or that its the center of the universe.
You are deeply misguided. No, evoltion is not fact. It is myth. All the evidence used for evolution has been proven fraudulent. Hey, don't take my word for it. You are just not believing the evidence. Also, flat earth is a straw man argument. The Bible speaks of the earth's motion in Isaiah 40:22, uses the hebrew "chuwg" which is used likely in Psalm 19 when speaking of the movement of the sun. It does not mean a flat circle, but the movement of earth, nor does it teach geocentricity.
@Jesusisthetruevine its not a strawman, it was not even an argument in the first place. in 50 years people are going to be arguing that the bible talked about evolution before anyone else figured it out. evolution is a fact and I would like you to prove to me that it is not. and not from creationist books or websites. truth is very very important to me and if I am wrong correct me. because from what I can tell creationists are losing damn near every major debate and every argument they make.
@Jesusisthetruevine when people found that the world was round the church told them otherwise. when people found that we are not the center of the solar system the church told them otherwise. when people found that bacteria and viruses cause disease the church told them otherwise and all because it did not match what the bible said. when people found out that over millions of years life slowly alters itself to suit the environment the church said otherwise now the church accepts all these facts
I am actually glad that you said that. Congrats. The "church" you speak of is the Catholic church. True, the church denied many Bible facts about science. It is because the church itself is not on par with the Bible. You cannot compare the church with the Bible. I hope you understand my point. Yes, the Bible already confirms all those scientific discoveries. The life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and people used to think illness was caused by bad blood.
that and demons. I am going to sum up my points as simply as I can. you trust a 2000 year old book that has been altered numerous times more than the methods that have givenhumanity everything it has. I know you beleive in science because you put your trust in it whenever you get in your car on an airplane eat your food or see your doctor. your life is likely to be 3 times longer than it would have been 200 years ago thanks to the scientific community. science proves itself to work.and religion?
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
Ok, to the "man riding dinosaurs" thing. Ok, theres pictures of people riding dinosaurs. And? Why aren't there any bones in the same layer of the dinosaurs? Explain that to me.
There is evidence of human footprints, and dinosaurs footprints in the same rock layer. This was found in Glen Rose, Texas. Also, Dino blood cells were found still in the bone, they could not have stayed preserved for "millions of years." Dr. Cabrera found a human vertabrae under "Cretaceous" sediment, or the layer that dinosaurs "supposedly" existed in. This can be found in "The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica, page 24.) The evidence indicates they lived at the same time.
Looks like you have zero understanding of science, sadly. They are still variations of DOG. Variations do happen, but they are limited. Still, Macro-evolutionism predicts changes OUTSIDE kinds, ie fish and human. You can think variations all you want, but it is still NOT the same process that will turn an ape to human. It has never been observed. YOU have sabotages yourself for believing such lies. Now, LEARN the truth, before the post stupid comments. Thank you.
Really, you're not going to correct your assertion concerning huskeys and German shepherds? Really? You're being very dishonest.
Now, no ape ever "turned" human, we have modern day apes, and modern day humans, which are also apes. At no point did any organism ever need to transcend its "kind" via reproduction to produce a new species, such would actually violate evolutionary prediction. Also macro/micro...same process different time-scale.
No, I am not being dishonest. Humans are not apes. Get that crazy idea out of your head. Humans and apes have billions of differences. I am glad you admitted that evolution does not work- it is something that is believed by faith, which makes it a religion. That is all I need to know. Evolutionism still gives you no excuse to believe in atheism, (which is another religion, by the way) because there is zero evidence for it. You cannot have both God and evolution over "billions of years."
If you do not correct your mistake of labeling, huskies and German shepherds as "different species" then you -are- being dishonest.
Humans are apes, and also monkeys; for every non-trivial difference you could name, I would have 2 similarities.There is a patter of these similarities accost all lifeforms, which that you choose to ignore. A pattern that (more then) confirms the possibility of evolution over "billions of years" resulting in the biologic diversity of today.
I encourage you to investigate the evidence for evolution and to to better understand evolutionary mechanisms as you have miss-characteristic them at several points in the video/discussion, as I (and the rest of the scientific community) will continue to honestly evaluate any objections raised to the theory of evolution,
You may find the evidence for Yahweh "overwhelming", that need not be at odds with evolution.
Chopstewie, I already know the biological processes of natural selection. But, these natural changes only produce minor variations within the species. It is like quality control.
As for your comment on "theistic evolution", there is no biblical ground for believing it. Jesus quoted back to Genesis and the creation story, and if evolution were true, death would come before sin, which is a heresy. Once sin entered, death came, which was long after the creation of the universe and man.
"I already know the biological processes of natural selection"
...
"only produce minor variations within the species."
Then you don't know the biological process of natural selection as speciation is a modern observable event in which genetic variation of a single species results in 2 species/clades.
Evolution need not incorporate death, only variable reproductive success to function.
As for a genesis, I can't help you. You wish to exercise unreasonable doubt over a theory supported by every conceivable line of evidence, in a harmonious and independent concordance, and yet absolutely insist on a literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book in which snakes talk, and don't see the flaw in that thinking...then this dialog need not continue,
Genesis is proven as historically and scientifically accurate. You have absolutely no knowledge of Genesis. The entire Bible is comprised of numerical patterns of interlocking 7's, and could not be chance. One russian scientist even proved it. Evolution is useless as an outdated, mythical THEORY, not fact. "millons of years" is a myth. The evidence is actually quite overwhelming to prove that the earth is young. check Halos.com and see for yourself.
A theory with explains the diversity of life, can be used to predict related species, deepens our understanding of medicine, and relates the history of organisms, all totally useless.
"THEORY"
Yes, theory: the highest standard of working hypothesis in science which explains all available evidence.
In our conversation so far you have confused the term 'species', implied the organisms cannot speciate (despite observation), displayed a profound miss-understanding of what mechanisms govern evolution, equivocated the word "theory" as scientist use it, and attempted to waylay our discussion of biological evolution with non-sequiter arguments concerning Christianity.
Then you accuse me of ignorance? Despite these demonstrable flaws in your argument.?
Nevertheless, I will be investigating Halos (dot) com, as I have a moral and intellectual obligation to investigate positions counter to my beliefs. And if I'm wrong I will say so up front. I expect the same from you.
Thank you for investigating Halos.com. But unfortunately, the halos will not be disproved, because they have been peer reviewed in open-scientific literature for over 25 years, and still stands refuted. He also displays censored papers on his sister site orionfdn.org, which the scientific community rejects scientific evidence for Creation, because they are biased, and don't want it published, even if they know it to be true. This is not science, but discrimination.
You are completely confused. There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil" because no one has ever seen them. Stop talking foolishness. Evolution is a myth, and you are only wasting your time on fickle imaginations and superstitions. Evolutionists admit their are no transitional fossils, and that is exactly what the evidence says. Don't waste my time. Thanks.
this and other videos scientificly proving evolution wrong are good to have been posted, and of course the evolutionists will say its not true, there are a number of scientists just as smart if not smarter then the scientists that say evolution is real, these scientists prove evolution is false, and people STILL try to say its real, its pathetic and kind of scary they want to try and disprove god and the bible so much. its just plain wierd.
@Jesusisthetruevine You just claiming it isn't true doesn't make it so. Back up your claims, like what science does all the time. Your god has zero evidence, evolution is proven fact.
You are mistaken. I know science, you do not. These examples are not flawed. In case you are wondering, I have over 25 pages of text that disprove evolution. Did you know that transitional fossils are myth? They have never been seen, as evolutionists admit. Do you see a fish with legs? Do you see lizards growing wings? Absurd. Both of us know it is mythology, and you know it.
@Jesusisthetruevine Also, if you take a look at fossils, ALL of them, you see a very clear and present pattern of change over time, one that you can only deny if your trying really, really hard to be an imbecile. Some examples: Tiktaalik, Microraptor, Darwinius, to name a very small percent.
Actually, there are still none. Evolutionists admit this, and they are honest people. No one has ever seen a lizard growing wings, or fish turning into frogs or that mythical mumbo jumbo. Evolution is myth! Evolution is Myth! Please be honest with yourself. The fossil record proves the flood, because many animals were buried under those conditions.
'Evolution is myth!Evolution is myth!' (from one who actually believes in the biblical myths?) is priceless, and shows the level of debate expected from believers. Read 'The Greatest show on eEarth' by Richard Dawkins (the antichist!), think about it, do some actual research, then come back and debate point by point. Can you do that? Anybody who asks 'Do you see a fish with legs' has a problem. If they don't know they have a problem, that's even worse! Educate yourself..
Evolution is proven to be a myth. The Bible has overwhelming evidence in science, history, archaeology, and fulfilled prophecy. Even Dawkins himself cannot think of a "good" mutation that increases genetic complexity- because they do not exist. If evolution was really true, there should be MANY transitional forms between kinds, there are none whatsoever, and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of science, period. The only thing that is observed is slight variations, not dramatic changes.
people promote the theorytale of evolution cause they despise the alternative-"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Scottish anatomist and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith
@CommonSensation what those appear to be to me are completely formed creatures that are completely functional. I see no transitional forms. transitional forms are exactly the same as constellations. People tell you they're there and you see them, but they're really just someones imagination connecting the dots.
You obviously have no idea what the meaning of a "transitional form" is. You side with the whole Ray Comfort "Have you ever seen a 'Croco-Duck'???" argument. Ridiculous.
The ignorance of these bible literalists amaze me. How did people not evolve? Are we to assume we where just instantly created? There is no reason why you have to take the Book of Genesis literaly.
Yes, we did not just "evolve." There are major problems with the gap theory (millions of years in between creation week.) First, the plants were created the second day, so these have to be literal days of creation and not seperated by millions of years or else these plants would have died without the sun. (Genesis 1:12, 16.) Also, death is the result of sin, which occured after 6 days of creation. If living things were already dying, then this would be a heresy.
@Leonidus82 " There is no reason why you have to take the Book of Genesis literaly. " that is unless the Book that Genesis is in has 100% accurate prophecy. then you better rethink your position as to whether or not Genesis is true
First off, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Fossil record has NO transitional forms whatsoever. Evolutionists Steve Gould and Dr. Collin Patterson admit this. Second, Fruit fly mutations has nothing to do with evolution. Science textbooks admit that mutations would not last in nature. They are still fruit flies, it does not matter if they are a different species or variation
Currently estimated to be 1 million trillion gallons of water beneath the earth surface, could be even greater deposits beneath the ocean beds
The geology is also said to have changed as the water pressure formed mountains from geo shifts, assuming the himalayas was that height before the flood is also an assumption
The water may have returned through cracks in the earth surface or vents vapourising the water into gasses rather than water vapour
The evidence for the flood is overwhelming. Evolution has been disproved so many times. Wake up. All the water came from the foundations of the great deep (Genesis 7:11) and burst upward by large cracks in the earth. There was PLENTY of water to go around. Mount Saint Helens that erupted also proved the Flood, by rapid deposition and burial. Petrified fish caught eating one another, giving birth, and preserved sprecimens all testify of rapid burial.
The same as what I said above; the interior of the Earth does not contain water.
I am not sure how the Mt St Helens eruption relates to the Food. Do you mean that the ejection of material that happened in the eruption to petrify the fish is similar to what may have happened in the Flood or?
consider also how many billions of gallons of water is frozen at the moment at the earth poles - this is another good example as to what may have happened to the water from the global flood. Also with large scale geological shifts causing the increase in mountain peaks the amount required at the time may not be as much as now.
@GoldFiligree First thing I would like to say is that I misunderstood you before: I thought you meant water beneath the crust but you actually meant groundwater, which there is of course a lot of. Even with the figure you gave me though it comes down to over a million times too little. I have calculations in response to the mountain growth point also. Youtube comment boxes dont have the space for proper expansion on the math. Would you like to continue the discussion through PM's?
The Flood of Genesis could not have happened. Simple mathematical calculations of volume show that the amount of water required for such a flood is nearly four times the volume of all the water in Earth's oceans, lakes and rivers, and that is on TOP of said bodies of water. Where could this water have come from if Earth has only a fifth of the amount needed to "prove" the genesis account? Where did it go after the Flood?
Even assuming that the 1.3 x 10^21 liters of water required for this Flood somehow reached our planet from some extra-terrestrial source without vaporizing in our atmosphere upon entry, the only concievable way for it to leave when the Floods were over, leaving us with dry land once more, is for the water to spontaneously reach escape velocity, which I think any person with a brain would conclude isn't physically possible.
The ignorance young Earth creationists show with regards to even just simple mathematics, which is fundamental to the sciences, is indicative of a gross ignorance and misunderstanding of even the most basic of scientific and physical concepts. Why anyone with such a poor knowledge of science should be attempting to make scientific claims of "proving" Creation is beyond me. And believe me, the Flood is far from the only thing one can disprove with a basic knowledge of mathematics and science.
The Bible states that not only was their severe rain but vaults burst open from beneath the earth, large quantities came from underground vents - if people like you or thunderfoot had read the Bible properly you wouldnt made egg on your face comments or videos showing your ignorance.
Afterward the water could have gradually evaporated due to climate or returned into the earth through vents or new gaps in the earth created by the displacement and force of the water, leading to evaporation
Although that could not have happened either due to the fact that the interior of the Earth contains no water. This also extends to the idea of water going back into the Earth. Google "interior composition of earth" to see what I mean.
Evaporation may have occurred, but where would the water go then? It doesn't just leave the Earth; it falls back down again as rain. Google "the water cycle".
If you are going to make scientific claims, make sure you understand science first.
Currently estimated to be 1 million trillion gallons of water beneath the earth surface, could be even greater deposits beneath the ocean beds
The geology is also said to have changed as the water pressure formed mountains from geo shifts, assuming the himalayas was that height before the flood is also an assumption
The water may have returned through cracks in the earth surface or vents vapourising the water into gasses rather than water vapour
@GoldFiligree you don't understand the watercycle do you? if water evaporates, it doesn't GO anywhere but clouds, which would only cause it to come back as more rain. there's a fixed amount of water on the planet...
The evidence of God is overwhelming. The evidence does prove he exists. You just don't want the truth. Stop posting ignorant comments here, or I will remove them!
You are committing false dichotomy. Just because evolution is true, this does not mean that Christianity IS true. You have to prove Christianity through means other than the Bible (this would be circular reason) in order for you to justify your beliefs.
I have an education. So called "facts" used to support evolution is NOT science nor education, but mass propaganda pushed with religious fervor to brainwash/indoctrine students. This is NOT education.
A skull was found to be 3 times larger than the average human. It was found in a big mound near the outlet of lake Noquebay, in NE Wisconsin, and other bones were correspondingly big -(The Index, Wausaukee, Wisconsin Friday October 14, 1904, vol 11 no 9.)
A 12" 8 1/4 mandible was found In Lovelock cave, Nevada. (1911 Readers Digest Mysteries of the Unexplained p 41.)
Micro evolution does NOT explain macroevolution over a long time period. This is just an assumption, which has NEVER been observed. Yes, there are many giants in history. Maybe you should actually study history.
A skeleton 12 feet tall was found by soldiers in Lonpoc rancho, California in 1883, the remains were reburied due to objections by local indians. (The unexplained by Dr. Karl Shuker p 151.)
antsbailey, you are decieved. All "evidence" used to support evolution has been proven wrong, and Creation IS proven, by Radioactive Polonium 218 Halos, the Flood Geology, History, Science, and plus evolution does not make sense. I am sorry, but please don't post stupid comments here.
But the fact remains that if everything was just suddenly created by a divine power, where did this so called divine power come from? most human minds just cannot comprehend the fact that their mind is not able to go so deep into these types of thoughts, but creation is clearly less believable than evolution..no facts to back it up, which concludes it is wrong.
This is why i hate crationists, they cannot open their simple little mind enough to even believe that evolution is FACT, im not saying god didnt exist but what i am saying is that we have found bones of dinosaurs...yea no bones of any humans anywhere near old enough to have been in existance with these reptiles. It would have been impossible, creation? i just think that its a pathetic "theory" to life..i admit that we do not infact know for sure how everything began. (read next comment ^^)
You are all misguided. Evolution is bad science, and you know it. The only reason evolutionists believe in that stupid, unscientific theory is because they reject the moral implications. Sir Arthur Keith admiited this. Also, there are many evolutionists who admit they are wrong.
Everything is a transitory specie are you identical to your father? Are you identical to your son? Given how much domestic dogs have changed in just a hundred years can you really not see that after 50,000,000 years then they would be an entirely different genus.
Your idea of evolution is fundamentally wrong, animals don't just give birth to a new specie. The change happens over tens of thousands of generations.
Funny how there is no evidence of these human giants isn't it?
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
there is no god but there is runescape and zarfot = the god but i just said there is no god but the zarfot is the god of the runescape because runescape has like a giga bilion gods actually.
nice mixture of lies and bad science. Also, even were all the contents of this video to be accepted as true (which they aren't) AND that them being true disproved evolution (which they wouldn't) you haven't provided one iota of evidence in favour of creationism.
"You are brainwashed" we can all agree that everyone is brainwashed into believing what we were thought, and only by learning on our own can we know the truth. I'm neither a Evolutionist, nor a believer in the giant spaghetti monster.
You are funny! Evolutionists cannot counter Creation because Evolution does not exist. There are many more facts that I could use if Youtube allowed longer videos, I would make this video at least a few hours long. Next time you will see many more facts that refute evolution!
Wow.. this is pretty much hovind in animated form. it's funny how the creationist who made this video makes the evolutionist look like a complete ignorant fool who doesn't know jack about evolution or doesnt know how to counter simple creationist claims. typical lol. this video is a joke. i have a hunch it may be satire but i highly doubt it considering how this follows the EXACT pattern of every other creationist argument. lol
Sorry, but I don't want my time being wasted. People bring up the same exact questions that already have been refuted, so I deleted them. It does not matter anyway. All the comments on this video will be deleted when I redo it, So there will be no need to see these comments before.
Don't deny the truth. There are NO transitional fossils. Evolutionists admit this, so stop being ignorant. The mammoth story is not wrong. Stop making excuses, this is just an attempt to run away from the evidence.
Robert Gentry's work has NEVER been refuted. I already told you that it was published over 25 years in all the major journals, and could NOT be refuted, no if and or buts. Stop making excuses. They could not refute it, because there is no evidence for evolution, that settles it.
Then I suggest you get the Book "Creation's Tiny Mystery" By Rob Gentry. His findings were never refuted, and have been in the leading scientific journals for over 26 years, ( Namely, Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Physical Review Letters, and Annual Review of Nuclear Science.) These papers are subject to peer review, but they still stand strong after all this time. They could not be refuted at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981.
Please stop with your nosense. Dog and cats cannot bring forth offspring, nor is it EVER observed. It is scientifically impossible. Come out of your paranoid fantasy. Carbon Dating is wrong, and The Fossil record is proved by the flood, that's why all those animals were buried, it was a huge catastrophe. Now, stop lying to yourself and others, and actually STUDY the real evidence for yourself, and you will not be an evolutionist. Get a clue.
The basis of Gentry's work on polonium halos requires the reader to accept that polonium decays at a predictable rate. It has a half life. Why should carbon dating be any different? The basis for radiometric dating is measuring half lifes. I asked you for evidence. You sent me some of Robert Gentry's work. That work does not stand up to scrutiny it isn't even supported by the creationist community at large. Post the names of AS MANY authors as possible on this wall so we can study the evidence.
Evolution is not a myth. If it were a myth and the world started 4000 years ago, there would not be fossilized animals, plants, and other organisms carbon dated to be millions of years old. Also, evolution is proven by the fact you can breed different kinds of dogs and cats. Evolution is just a naturally occurring version of this. You breed the desirable traits (i.e. those that are best for survival), and given enough time traits build up until you have what appears to be a new creature.
Look at yourself. There is absolutely NO evidence for it. This is just propaganda they HOPE happened over a long time period. They don't have any evidence, but they HOPE that it is true. Don't ask absurd questions. You are decieved. You can still be forgiven.
"They hope happened over a long time period, they dont have any evidence". That seems to me like a creationist mantra, and a false one at that. What about radioactive dating? eg. potassium argon dating
NO EVIDENCE?? WHAT ARE FOSSILS? WHAT IS HOURS OF RESEARCH NOT A FACT, WHEN ALL YOU LISTEN TO IS A BOOK WRITEN ABOUT A GUY WHO'S BEEN PROVEN NOT TO EXIST!
You are being very absurd. There is no such thing as a "missing link" and macroevolution is myth. Wake up. Even IF they claimed to find something, it is just another Piltdown fraud and hoax. Get over it.
Don't tell me that I don't have any scientific backing. You are the one who is not willing to consider the evidence for Creation, and against evolution. If you want to have dialogue, then please be honest before you make wild claims. Thank you.
I'd actually be quite interested in seeing some scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. If you could provide me with the names of the scientists and the names of the peer reviewed papers writ
A planet is formed by the remnants of its sun, slowly pulling towards each other by their gravitational pull, thus forming the planet. A Goldie Lock zone planet (such as the Earth), which is pretty close to the sun, needs much, much more than 6000 years to cool off the original heat and the dense atmosphere on its surface so that life could take place. With your estimations, I have to be sitting in a 450 degree C room wondering about Creation
raffoul87 11 months ago
All this is theoretical, it has never been observed, nor proven. I am sure you know Boyle's gas law. The size of the sun limits the age of the solar system. The sun is shrinking, and the further you go back, the larger it was. Same with the magnetic filed of the earth. The magnetism would be too strong for life to exist millions of years ago. Ganymede still has a molten core, it should have cooled solid long ago, if the universe was old(Denver post, Dec 13, 1996. Holt Earth Science 1994, p 579.)
Jesusisthetruevine 11 months ago
The manner by which life originated and developed on Earth is a matter of some debate for us. Scientists believed it required a long, slow process of natural genetic change called Evolution. As evidence, they pointed to every bit of relevant data ever gathered. Many others rejected the notion that man descended from monkeys as distasteful, believing instead that life - and the cosmos itself - was created by one or more gods. As evidence, they pointed to themselves believing it.
raffoul87 11 months ago
You are correct, It is very much debated. Have you heard of Robert Gentry? His polonium halo results can be seen at halos(dot)com. The granites formed rapidly, thus proving that geologic events and formations did not take long to occur, and occurred recently. However, the "data" you speak of for evolution, has too many assumptions involved. ie. carbon dating, the geologic column, etc. Most of it has been invalidated. You should visit the halos page, friend. See you.
Jesusisthetruevine 11 months ago
A beginners guide to evolution and a very small amount of the mountain of evidence.
See - David_Attenboroughs_First_Life_Arrival/ on the BBC iplayer
Enjoy.
richevans10000 1 year ago
Translation: Zero evidence for evolution, and mountains of evidence against, instead for Creation. I can give you many pages (hundreds of sources) that discredit evolution. Care to try your beliefs against science?
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine I dont think you got my point. I have given you a source for a beginners guide to evolution. If you watch it, you might learn why evolution is true. Its also quite entertaining.
But I doubt you will watch it. The last thing you would ever want is to be proved wrong.
richevans10000 1 year ago
Really? Do you really think that your evolutionary belief can withstand pages and pages of evidence and scrutiny? Blindness and ignorance at it's best. Peace be upon you.
It does not matter if I watch your video or not. I will not be proved wrong. The evidence is clear. See: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII
Halos(dot)com disproves evolution, by the instant creation of Granites, scientifically.
orionfdn(dot)org refutes the big bang.
darwinismrefuted(dot)com - self explanatory.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Someone really did a number on you. Good luck.
richevans10000 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
darwinismrefuted(dot)com
"Science is for those who have faith in Allah."
You do know this is the *well known* Turkish creationist!! (is he out of jail yet?).
And they propose a much different *creator* than you do!!
This is also the guy that published a book on science that had a fishing lure in one of the illustrations! Way to funny!!!
csadler 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Your a bloody embarrassment to mankind. you make me ashamed to call my self a homo sapien.
mattkin123 11 months ago
lol!! You are funny.
Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
People today are not as clever as they think...
May God lead you into the truth, Good day.
Jesusisthetruevine 11 months ago
This is just a collection of half truths and lies.
Why are you so intent in ignoring the mountain of evidence for evolution, the big bang and quite frankly anything scientific? And worst of all, why are you so intent on trying to convince other people to ignore it?
You have the right to 'believe' whatever you want, but please stop polluting other peoples minds with this drivel, its just not fair.
richevans10000 1 year ago 5
Another lie in your video. A total complete false hood. You claim piltdown man as a link from apes to humans. This is a bold face lie. Nowhere today is that thought.
Nebraska man never was taken seriously by science and Lucy is not and adult chimp. The hip alone tells us this. By why let facts get in the way.
Question: What is Neanderthal in your world view? Just what was it? And remember its DNA is known and has been sequenced.
csadler 1 year ago
What are you saying? Neanderthal is simply a giant human. DNA is no way proves evolution. That is a scam, and a complete misrepresentation of the evidence. Barney Maddox, a geneticist, explains that 1.6% difference in human and ape DNA is a gap of 48 million nucleotides, a change of 3 is fatal - And that is only for 1.6% similarity!! Now, humans and apes are only about 93% similiar, so the chance is around 200 million to 1 gap! Impossible. DNA does not prove evolution.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Hahahahah giant humans!!!
ERVs and Pseudo genes are fabulous evidence of Evolution at the genetic level. A change of 3 is fatal??? Really. The best estimate is that the average human zygote has about 64 mutations.
And Barney Maddox is a 'urologist ' and holds B.S. in biology from Texas Christian University? (no bias here!)
"A Young-Earth Creationist, Dr. Barney Maddox, a Cleburne, Texas, urologist "
My *god* man.... look at your sources! Unbelievable!
csadler 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine "Neanderthal is simply a giant human. "
Giant? Have you compared their anatomy? They were not giants.
"On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens."
So you clearly have not a clue as to what you are saying.
csadler 1 year ago
I'm tired of your comments. Stop living under a rock. You don't have a clue what you are saying. Your sources are phony. Neanderthal had some form of arthritis which made him go DOWN, not up into an ape. Absurd. Childish. Phony. Dr Jack Cuozzo did studies on neanderthals, and found that there was acromegaly, or excesss secretion of growth hormone. Go to this link. It exposes neanderthal man as a fraud, and not a "missing link"
drdino(dot)com/neanderthals-ape-men-or-humans
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
science is all about evidence, not opinion or popularity. all evidence from various branches of life and earth sciences point to evolution and common descent. evolution is accepted by the almost unanimous majority of earth and life scientists, BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE. not because evolution is the cool thing to believe in. scientists still debate over the fine details of evolution, but the fundamental pillars of evolution are as concrete as ever and widely agreed upon.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
True, but the evidence challenges evolutionism, it is not in agreement. Scientists are misguided, all the evidence used to support evolutionism have been proven fraudulent. I challenge you to do *serious* study of the evidence, it may shock you. Say what you wish, but the pillars of evolutionism have long been smashed to bits of stubble, and hence, no supposed "evidence" will ever build up that pillar again. There are hundreds of scientific articles disproving evolutionism, I have the sources.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
"all the evidence used to support evolutionism have been proven fraudulent."
what a ridiculous statement. what, are u talking about a couple of fake fossils from many years ago?..do u have any idea how much more evidence there is in various other fields of science? u cannot educate yourself about science from creationist websites..u are very misinformed.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
I don't talk about just a "few" fossils. Nearly all the ape-men hominids have been proven wrong. Most of all the other "fields of science" is not science anymore. The supposed "evidence" has all been misinterpreted. I think you are the one who is misinformed, friend. NO transitional fossils. (Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-Mammal) Carbon dating wrong. Hominids wrong. Geologic column wrong. "Primitive man" wrong. NO beneficial mutations. Millions of years wrong. Big bang wrong.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
are u seriously going to sit here and tell me that there are no beneficial mutations and that the big bang is false?..man oh man creationist websites have done a number on u.
beneficial mutations are rare, but they do happen. why don't u look it up, or do u consider the evidence of these beneficial mutations a lie from the devil?
and the big bang is false?..have u ever heard of microwave background radiation? have u ever heard of red shift??
itzahazylife 1 year ago
Funny. “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88).
As for your comments on big bang: orionfdn(dot)org/papers/arxiv-10.htm
This is Robert Gentry's work in physics that disprove big bang postulates. These are censored papers, meaning that scientists are afraid to publish it, because they know it goes against and disproves their little theory.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
"The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. (Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p 295.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Images of space captured by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite have been labelled as the first hard evidence of the proof of the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. However,the patterns recorded were temperature gradients, which were only about 30 millionths of a degree warmer than the surrounding space - an infinitesimally minute gradient. (Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/92(2)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
The 30 millionth of a degree fluctuations in the temperature of the universe has recently had its validity challenged. A member of the team who designed the instrument that took the readings has categorically stated that it was not sensitive enough to take readings that small. (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992 p 14-15.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
An article in Science says that the variations claimed in the COBE project are well below the level of instrument noise, a type of background interference that would cover up such readings. It went onto say that the readings were obtained by statistical methods which still need careful checking. (Science,May 1, 1992 p 612.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
George Smoot, the man in charge of the COBE project, admitted in Science that the readings may not be real, and that even if the measurements were real, they could have been caused by other effects such as the motion of our galaxy through the background radiation. (Science, May 1, 1992 p 612.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
why do 99% of the scientists on earth accept evolution?do u honestly think they are doing it out of popularity for the theory?or that evolution is some kind of giant conspiracy?don't u realize if there was any major flaw in the theory of evolution, that a bunch of scientists would be all over it? scientists are always trying to falsify and scrutinize theories. if any scientists could manage to bring down the theory, they'd win the nobel prize..yet, that hasn't happened..hmm
itzahazylife 1 year ago
Your figure is wrong, about 50% or more believe in Darwinian evolutionism. There are many honest scientists against evolution. Russell Humphreys, Michael Behe, Walt Brown, Robert Gentry, etc. You cannot determine facts by popularity or majority opinion, you should know that. The majority is often wrong. Scientists used to follow Aristotle, etc and thought that bigger objects fell faster than lighter, and smaller objects. This was proved wrong.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
you're incorrect. practically all of scientists involved in earth and life sciences accept evolution. watch the video by DonExodus2 called "list of scientists rejecting evolution"..Robert Gentry is a nuclear physicist. his opinion is worth shit. Michael Behe actually emphatically accepts common decent. Walt Brown has a Phd in mechanical engineering, and has taught math, physics, and computer science. his opinion is worth shit. Russell Humphreys is a physicist also.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
I am sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. Robert Gentry's work has been published in the leading scientific journals, and peer reviewed. His work passed over 25 years of scrutiny, and could not be refuted because it disproves evolutionism. Your opinions of Walt Brown and Russell Humphreys are incorrect, as well.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
i got my info about Walt Brown from creation science dot com.
i got my info about Russell Humphreys from christian answers dot net
and about Robert Gentry..i assume u are referring to his work about Polonium haloes, which he wrote about 30 years ago. most of the scientists now do not accept this anymore. it has actually been thoroughly debunked by talk origins dot org.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
It does not matter if scientists reject Gentry's research... they are wrong. Biased scientists. All people have agendas. Beliefs. Scientists could have refuted the halo evidence, but they could not. This is because evolution fails as a unscientific theory. It is definitely not debunked. People at talk origins don't know the evidence, they invent *excuses* not to believe. The Halos still stand. I challenged people to debate Robert Gentry in public, and so I challenge you, if you are up to it.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Scientists did refute the halo evidence: "He [Gentry] is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth."
Wavicle 1 year ago 2
Scientists could not, and will never refute the halo evidence. You are mistaken. I have seen that quote before. People on talk origins are persuaded by their own philosophies, and not the evidence. Gentry's work has passed years of scrutiny, and no scientist has ever disproven them. I suggest you read some reports at :
halos(dot)com/reports/index.htm
Besides, If what your saying is true, scientists would create granite with halos in the lab. This cannot be done, numerous attempts failed.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be evolved by uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a halo. This is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos.
Ps. I cant believe that Gentry has the audacity to call him self a scientist.
mattkin123 11 months ago
Your "analysis" is wrong. Gentry collected granites from all over the world, and still stands unrefuted by the scientific community. It has been probably 50 years now, so no one has refuted it. I suggest you visit the page on halos... halos(dot)com/faq-replies/challenge-to-nas.htm
Gentry is up for public debate, evolutionists could have refuted it, if they could. Their failure exposes their theory debunked.
Also, there are many reports on the halos evidence... halos(dot)com/reports/index.htm
Jesusisthetruevine 11 months ago
Comment removed
csadler 1 year ago
"A cat as the offspring"
You don't even understand at all. Evolution does not say this. Nice straw man.
csadler 1 year ago
It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this.How about bacteria evolving into humans over billions of years? Fairy tale. Never observed. Even IF it was a straw-man, variation does not account to changes outside of genetic limitations. Mutations are always negative, in one form or another. Science textbooks also admit the fallacy of mutations, and the limits to biological change.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine "It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this."
Now you are lying. No where in TOE does it say one species gives birth to another. No where.
"Mutations are always negative"
Sorry wrong again. Many are neutral. Can you name the kinds of mutations? This should be interesting. Please, list the kinds of genetic mutations and show me you have a basic understanding on this topic. When you do, you will understand how wrong your are.
csadler 1 year ago
Then how can you believe evolution from simple to complex life over billions of yearsw? You admitted it was false. You are exactly right. Kinds don't give birth to other kinds. Sorry, you are still misguided. Care to study?
As for mutations, consider. "Mutations would not last in nature."(Allyn and Bacon Biolgy, 1977 p 364.)
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88).
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine I notice you could not name the types of genetic mutations. So clearly all you can do is cut and paste. Nothing from your own mind? Please tell me. What are the kinds of mutations in genetics? Can you answer this simple question?
csadler 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine What I did was hack down another straw man of yours "It is not a straw man. Macro evolution does indeed teach lies like this."
No where in TOE does is state that a member of species A gives birth to a member of species B. Its untrue and you are now lying for Jesus. He wont like that at all. Its call false witness.
csadler 1 year ago
“Normal fruit flies have two wings. Some mutations have had four wings. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful (the fly could not fly).” (Biology, 1996, p. 324) - They don't give an example for a "good mutation." There are none.
"Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested. (Daniel Brooks "A downward slope to Greater diversity. Science vol 217, 24 September 1982, p 1240.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Pure delusion.
frokenstein 1 year ago
Google Muudskippers
leatherjacketboy 1 year ago
@jesusisthetruevine ... you do realize they have found intermediate forms of evolution, that aren't frauds? and here's a question for you, if the universe had to have been created, where did your god come from? as the common rule used by creationists that something can't come from nothing, would have to apply to your god as well?
64caloriesofawesome 1 year ago
I am guessing the author has never been to a natural history museum. probably too busy going to church.
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
Yes, I have been to natural history museums a number of times. The "history" does not match the evidence, I'm sorry. How about things that were proven WRONG mant years ago, and are STILL in museums around the world? ie - The "feet" of the Lucy display in St Louis zoo, the "peppered moth" hoax, all the pseudo "ape-men"? etc.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
the evidence matches reality. scientist study the natural world through observation and peer review. preachers take ancient books and try to tell you why they were already right. you can pick either side but do not blame others for thinking you are nuts.
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
Exactly. The evidence matches reality, but not in your favor. I recommend you visit halos.com website, for years of scientific research and evidence that still stands unrefuted for Creation. Preachers not only explain the past, but they also use the Bible to predict the future, because all scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16) and Jesus tells us before it comes to pass, so when it does, we may believe. (John 14:19) God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
I have never seen a creationist myth that was not complete crap and I do not expect this to be any different. I would never beleive a person who bases their reeality off of a book that is used to control them. evolution is face. if you were not scared shitless of reality you might actually accept real evidence rater than taking it from lying preachers. thinking evolution is a lie is about as sane as thinking the earth is flat or that its the center of the universe.
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
You are deeply misguided. No, evoltion is not fact. It is myth. All the evidence used for evolution has been proven fraudulent. Hey, don't take my word for it. You are just not believing the evidence. Also, flat earth is a straw man argument. The Bible speaks of the earth's motion in Isaiah 40:22, uses the hebrew "chuwg" which is used likely in Psalm 19 when speaking of the movement of the sun. It does not mean a flat circle, but the movement of earth, nor does it teach geocentricity.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine its not a strawman, it was not even an argument in the first place. in 50 years people are going to be arguing that the bible talked about evolution before anyone else figured it out. evolution is a fact and I would like you to prove to me that it is not. and not from creationist books or websites. truth is very very important to me and if I am wrong correct me. because from what I can tell creationists are losing damn near every major debate and every argument they make.
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine when people found that the world was round the church told them otherwise. when people found that we are not the center of the solar system the church told them otherwise. when people found that bacteria and viruses cause disease the church told them otherwise and all because it did not match what the bible said. when people found out that over millions of years life slowly alters itself to suit the environment the church said otherwise now the church accepts all these facts
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
I am actually glad that you said that. Congrats. The "church" you speak of is the Catholic church. True, the church denied many Bible facts about science. It is because the church itself is not on par with the Bible. You cannot compare the church with the Bible. I hope you understand my point. Yes, the Bible already confirms all those scientific discoveries. The life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and people used to think illness was caused by bad blood.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
that and demons. I am going to sum up my points as simply as I can. you trust a 2000 year old book that has been altered numerous times more than the methods that have givenhumanity everything it has. I know you beleive in science because you put your trust in it whenever you get in your car on an airplane eat your food or see your doctor. your life is likely to be 3 times longer than it would have been 200 years ago thanks to the scientific community. science proves itself to work.and religion?
mamushi72sai5575 1 year ago
Comment removed
Omnisoldier 1 year ago
Best satire ever.
GHollandESQ 1 year ago
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
brian0says 1 year ago
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
brian0says 1 year ago
As a biology major, I see absolutely no conceptual argumentation in this. There are merely weak attempts at debunking a few unimportant evidences. I will admit that one or two are good. However, you're lacking evidence for creationism. I simply find it ironic that you use science to back your claims yet you believe in an architecturally flawed ark, people coming from dirt/ribs, talking snakes, flying flaming chariots, parting seas, burning water, 900 year old people, etc. Ironic indeed.
brian0says 1 year ago
Ok, to the "man riding dinosaurs" thing. Ok, theres pictures of people riding dinosaurs. And? Why aren't there any bones in the same layer of the dinosaurs? Explain that to me.
repticman123 1 year ago
There is evidence of human footprints, and dinosaurs footprints in the same rock layer. This was found in Glen Rose, Texas. Also, Dino blood cells were found still in the bone, they could not have stayed preserved for "millions of years." Dr. Cabrera found a human vertabrae under "Cretaceous" sediment, or the layer that dinosaurs "supposedly" existed in. This can be found in "The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica, page 24.) The evidence indicates they lived at the same time.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@repticman123 Ok cool, can you provide me with a link? I would like to take a look.
repticman123 1 year ago
"German Shepards and Huskeys are different species."
No, they are not. stop being such a tool.
'animal produce after their own kind'
Yes, true, evolution predicts that, congratulations on sabotaging yourself.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Looks like you have zero understanding of science, sadly. They are still variations of DOG. Variations do happen, but they are limited. Still, Macro-evolutionism predicts changes OUTSIDE kinds, ie fish and human. You can think variations all you want, but it is still NOT the same process that will turn an ape to human. It has never been observed. YOU have sabotages yourself for believing such lies. Now, LEARN the truth, before the post stupid comments. Thank you.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
Really, you're not going to correct your assertion concerning huskeys and German shepherds? Really? You're being very dishonest.
Now, no ape ever "turned" human, we have modern day apes, and modern day humans, which are also apes. At no point did any organism ever need to transcend its "kind" via reproduction to produce a new species, such would actually violate evolutionary prediction. Also macro/micro...same process different time-scale.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
No, I am not being dishonest. Humans are not apes. Get that crazy idea out of your head. Humans and apes have billions of differences. I am glad you admitted that evolution does not work- it is something that is believed by faith, which makes it a religion. That is all I need to know. Evolutionism still gives you no excuse to believe in atheism, (which is another religion, by the way) because there is zero evidence for it. You cannot have both God and evolution over "billions of years."
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
If you do not correct your mistake of labeling, huskies and German shepherds as "different species" then you -are- being dishonest.
Humans are apes, and also monkeys; for every non-trivial difference you could name, I would have 2 similarities.There is a patter of these similarities accost all lifeforms, which that you choose to ignore. A pattern that (more then) confirms the possibility of evolution over "billions of years" resulting in the biologic diversity of today.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
"I am glad you admitted that evolution does not work"
You will stop putting words in my mouth.
"Evolutionism[sic] still gives you no excuse to believe in atheism"
I don't need an excuse, you don't even know if I'm an atheist
"You cannot have both God and evolution"
Yes I can, be it Yahweh or any other.
"zero evidence"
Lack of belief does not need evidence, only justification which atheists have in abundance. It is your responsibility to support your god.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
It does not matter. The evidence for God is overwhelming, and I am not afraid of the people who disagree.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
Good to know you are not afraid. Also irrelevant.
I encourage you to investigate the evidence for evolution and to to better understand evolutionary mechanisms as you have miss-characteristic them at several points in the video/discussion, as I (and the rest of the scientific community) will continue to honestly evaluate any objections raised to the theory of evolution,
You may find the evidence for Yahweh "overwhelming", that need not be at odds with evolution.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Chopstewie, I already know the biological processes of natural selection. But, these natural changes only produce minor variations within the species. It is like quality control.
As for your comment on "theistic evolution", there is no biblical ground for believing it. Jesus quoted back to Genesis and the creation story, and if evolution were true, death would come before sin, which is a heresy. Once sin entered, death came, which was long after the creation of the universe and man.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
"I already know the biological processes of natural selection"
...
"only produce minor variations within the species."
Then you don't know the biological process of natural selection as speciation is a modern observable event in which genetic variation of a single species results in 2 species/clades.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Evolution need not incorporate death, only variable reproductive success to function.
As for a genesis, I can't help you. You wish to exercise unreasonable doubt over a theory supported by every conceivable line of evidence, in a harmonious and independent concordance, and yet absolutely insist on a literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book in which snakes talk, and don't see the flaw in that thinking...then this dialog need not continue,
It was good to talk to you, I wish you well.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Genesis is proven as historically and scientifically accurate. You have absolutely no knowledge of Genesis. The entire Bible is comprised of numerical patterns of interlocking 7's, and could not be chance. One russian scientist even proved it. Evolution is useless as an outdated, mythical THEORY, not fact. "millons of years" is a myth. The evidence is actually quite overwhelming to prove that the earth is young. check Halos.com and see for yourself.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
"historically and scientifically accurate"
Talking snake.
"Evolution is useless"
A theory with explains the diversity of life, can be used to predict related species, deepens our understanding of medicine, and relates the history of organisms, all totally useless.
"THEORY"
Yes, theory: the highest standard of working hypothesis in science which explains all available evidence.
"Halos (dot) com"
...
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Then you are being ignorant to the evidence. Evolution still unproven, and still a theory at best. I have heard that hogwash before.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
In our conversation so far you have confused the term 'species', implied the organisms cannot speciate (despite observation), displayed a profound miss-understanding of what mechanisms govern evolution, equivocated the word "theory" as scientist use it, and attempted to waylay our discussion of biological evolution with non-sequiter arguments concerning Christianity.
Then you accuse me of ignorance? Despite these demonstrable flaws in your argument.?
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Nevertheless, I will be investigating Halos (dot) com, as I have a moral and intellectual obligation to investigate positions counter to my beliefs. And if I'm wrong I will say so up front. I expect the same from you.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Thank you for investigating Halos.com. But unfortunately, the halos will not be disproved, because they have been peer reviewed in open-scientific literature for over 25 years, and still stands refuted. He also displays censored papers on his sister site orionfdn.org, which the scientific community rejects scientific evidence for Creation, because they are biased, and don't want it published, even if they know it to be true. This is not science, but discrimination.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
...?... what's with the laugh track?
MikeOblay 1 year ago
THE STUPID
IT BURNS
thisfreakingname 1 year ago
1:14 Where they are? maybe take a look at them chall we? Google it! " not ben found yet" XD!!!! LIES bloody lies xD
victorolsen1 1 year ago
You are completely confused. There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil" because no one has ever seen them. Stop talking foolishness. Evolution is a myth, and you are only wasting your time on fickle imaginations and superstitions. Evolutionists admit their are no transitional fossils, and that is exactly what the evidence says. Don't waste my time. Thanks.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine watch?v=Ri20shBEsls there End of story
victorolsen1 1 year ago
xD is this some kind of joke?
victorolsen1 1 year ago
No, It is not a joke. I will tell you what is a joke: Evolutionism.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine it's not a joke xD explain to me why your religion is more right then all others?
victorolsen1 1 year ago
this and other videos scientificly proving evolution wrong are good to have been posted, and of course the evolutionists will say its not true, there are a number of scientists just as smart if not smarter then the scientists that say evolution is real, these scientists prove evolution is false, and people STILL try to say its real, its pathetic and kind of scary they want to try and disprove god and the bible so much. its just plain wierd.
rickybarningham 1 year ago
I KNOW WHAT EXPLODED GOD FARTED
1nechance419 1 year ago
Wrong. all the radiometric dating is fiction. Stop wasting your time. Evolution has ZERO evidence, plain and simple. Good day,
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine You just claiming it isn't true doesn't make it so. Back up your claims, like what science does all the time. Your god has zero evidence, evolution is proven fact.
CommonSensation 1 year ago
You are mistaken. I know science, you do not. These examples are not flawed. In case you are wondering, I have over 25 pages of text that disprove evolution. Did you know that transitional fossils are myth? They have never been seen, as evolutionists admit. Do you see a fish with legs? Do you see lizards growing wings? Absurd. Both of us know it is mythology, and you know it.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Also, if you take a look at fossils, ALL of them, you see a very clear and present pattern of change over time, one that you can only deny if your trying really, really hard to be an imbecile. Some examples: Tiktaalik, Microraptor, Darwinius, to name a very small percent.
CommonSensation 1 year ago 9
Actually, there are still none. Evolutionists admit this, and they are honest people. No one has ever seen a lizard growing wings, or fish turning into frogs or that mythical mumbo jumbo. Evolution is myth! Evolution is Myth! Please be honest with yourself. The fossil record proves the flood, because many animals were buried under those conditions.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
'Evolution is myth!Evolution is myth!' (from one who actually believes in the biblical myths?) is priceless, and shows the level of debate expected from believers. Read 'The Greatest show on eEarth' by Richard Dawkins (the antichist!), think about it, do some actual research, then come back and debate point by point. Can you do that? Anybody who asks 'Do you see a fish with legs' has a problem. If they don't know they have a problem, that's even worse! Educate yourself..
derek24hudson 1 year ago
Evolution is proven to be a myth. The Bible has overwhelming evidence in science, history, archaeology, and fulfilled prophecy. Even Dawkins himself cannot think of a "good" mutation that increases genetic complexity- because they do not exist. If evolution was really true, there should be MANY transitional forms between kinds, there are none whatsoever, and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of science, period. The only thing that is observed is slight variations, not dramatic changes.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
people promote the theorytale of evolution cause they despise the alternative-"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Scottish anatomist and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith
filoIII 1 year ago
@CommonSensation what those appear to be to me are completely formed creatures that are completely functional. I see no transitional forms. transitional forms are exactly the same as constellations. People tell you they're there and you see them, but they're really just someones imagination connecting the dots.
MikeOblay 1 year ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
You obviously have no idea what the meaning of a "transitional form" is. You side with the whole Ray Comfort "Have you ever seen a 'Croco-Duck'???" argument. Ridiculous.
jrockzmyv382 1 year ago
The ignorance of these bible literalists amaze me. How did people not evolve? Are we to assume we where just instantly created? There is no reason why you have to take the Book of Genesis literaly.
Leonidus82 1 year ago
Yes, we did not just "evolve." There are major problems with the gap theory (millions of years in between creation week.) First, the plants were created the second day, so these have to be literal days of creation and not seperated by millions of years or else these plants would have died without the sun. (Genesis 1:12, 16.) Also, death is the result of sin, which occured after 6 days of creation. If living things were already dying, then this would be a heresy.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
@Leonidus82 " There is no reason why you have to take the Book of Genesis literaly. " that is unless the Book that Genesis is in has 100% accurate prophecy. then you better rethink your position as to whether or not Genesis is true
filoIII 1 year ago
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." (Pierre-Paul Grasse Evolution of living Organisms 1977 p 88.)
"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. (The Natural Limits to Biological Change. 1989 p 89)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
First off, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Fossil record has NO transitional forms whatsoever. Evolutionists Steve Gould and Dr. Collin Patterson admit this. Second, Fruit fly mutations has nothing to do with evolution. Science textbooks admit that mutations would not last in nature. They are still fruit flies, it does not matter if they are a different species or variation
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Currently estimated to be 1 million trillion gallons of water beneath the earth surface, could be even greater deposits beneath the ocean beds
The geology is also said to have changed as the water pressure formed mountains from geo shifts, assuming the himalayas was that height before the flood is also an assumption
The water may have returned through cracks in the earth surface or vents vapourising the water into gasses rather than water vapour
GoldFiligree 1 year ago
This is pathetic; the laugh track after the christian says something suggests he "owns" the scientist. this is so overly biased.
Jmlmud 1 year ago
you mean like how this video doesn't prove creationism, and omits the actual scientific answers to his questions?
i10azns 1 year ago
The evidence for the flood is overwhelming. Evolution has been disproved so many times. Wake up. All the water came from the foundations of the great deep (Genesis 7:11) and burst upward by large cracks in the earth. There was PLENTY of water to go around. Mount Saint Helens that erupted also proved the Flood, by rapid deposition and burial. Petrified fish caught eating one another, giving birth, and preserved sprecimens all testify of rapid burial.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
The same as what I said above; the interior of the Earth does not contain water.
I am not sure how the Mt St Helens eruption relates to the Food. Do you mean that the ejection of material that happened in the eruption to petrify the fish is similar to what may have happened in the Flood or?
Metarotica 1 year ago
consider also how many billions of gallons of water is frozen at the moment at the earth poles - this is another good example as to what may have happened to the water from the global flood. Also with large scale geological shifts causing the increase in mountain peaks the amount required at the time may not be as much as now.
GoldFiligree 1 year ago
@GoldFiligree First thing I would like to say is that I misunderstood you before: I thought you meant water beneath the crust but you actually meant groundwater, which there is of course a lot of. Even with the figure you gave me though it comes down to over a million times too little. I have calculations in response to the mountain growth point also. Youtube comment boxes dont have the space for proper expansion on the math. Would you like to continue the discussion through PM's?
Metarotica 1 year ago
The Flood of Genesis could not have happened. Simple mathematical calculations of volume show that the amount of water required for such a flood is nearly four times the volume of all the water in Earth's oceans, lakes and rivers, and that is on TOP of said bodies of water. Where could this water have come from if Earth has only a fifth of the amount needed to "prove" the genesis account? Where did it go after the Flood?
Metarotica 1 year ago
Even assuming that the 1.3 x 10^21 liters of water required for this Flood somehow reached our planet from some extra-terrestrial source without vaporizing in our atmosphere upon entry, the only concievable way for it to leave when the Floods were over, leaving us with dry land once more, is for the water to spontaneously reach escape velocity, which I think any person with a brain would conclude isn't physically possible.
Metarotica 1 year ago
The ignorance young Earth creationists show with regards to even just simple mathematics, which is fundamental to the sciences, is indicative of a gross ignorance and misunderstanding of even the most basic of scientific and physical concepts. Why anyone with such a poor knowledge of science should be attempting to make scientific claims of "proving" Creation is beyond me. And believe me, the Flood is far from the only thing one can disprove with a basic knowledge of mathematics and science.
Metarotica 1 year ago
The Bible states that not only was their severe rain but vaults burst open from beneath the earth, large quantities came from underground vents - if people like you or thunderfoot had read the Bible properly you wouldnt made egg on your face comments or videos showing your ignorance.
Afterward the water could have gradually evaporated due to climate or returned into the earth through vents or new gaps in the earth created by the displacement and force of the water, leading to evaporation
GoldFiligree 1 year ago
Although that could not have happened either due to the fact that the interior of the Earth contains no water. This also extends to the idea of water going back into the Earth. Google "interior composition of earth" to see what I mean.
Evaporation may have occurred, but where would the water go then? It doesn't just leave the Earth; it falls back down again as rain. Google "the water cycle".
If you are going to make scientific claims, make sure you understand science first.
Metarotica 1 year ago
Currently estimated to be 1 million trillion gallons of water beneath the earth surface, could be even greater deposits beneath the ocean beds
The geology is also said to have changed as the water pressure formed mountains from geo shifts, assuming the himalayas was that height before the flood is also an assumption
The water may have returned through cracks in the earth surface or vents vapourising the water into gasses rather than water vapour
GoldFiligree 1 year ago
@GoldFiligree you don't understand the watercycle do you? if water evaporates, it doesn't GO anywhere but clouds, which would only cause it to come back as more rain. there's a fixed amount of water on the planet...
64caloriesofawesome 1 year ago
There is a reason evolution is taught in public school and creationism is not. Dover PA demonstrated this.
DIEDCRX89 1 year ago
The evidence of God is overwhelming. The evidence does prove he exists. You just don't want the truth. Stop posting ignorant comments here, or I will remove them!
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Where's the evidence?
thisfreakingname 1 year ago
Why would you delete the ignorant comments? Wouldn't you want to keep them on here so everyone can see how ignorant these darned evolutionists are?
thisfreakingname 1 year ago
Please present this evidence you speak of.
InternetArgument 1 year ago
No, you are mistaken. The evidence does not support evolution.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
You are committing false dichotomy. Just because evolution is true, this does not mean that Christianity IS true. You have to prove Christianity through means other than the Bible (this would be circular reason) in order for you to justify your beliefs.
theycallmebobFOO 1 year ago
I have an education. So called "facts" used to support evolution is NOT science nor education, but mass propaganda pushed with religious fervor to brainwash/indoctrine students. This is NOT education.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
...someone needs an education
thisfreakingname 1 year ago
A skull was found to be 3 times larger than the average human. It was found in a big mound near the outlet of lake Noquebay, in NE Wisconsin, and other bones were correspondingly big -(The Index, Wausaukee, Wisconsin Friday October 14, 1904, vol 11 no 9.)
A 12" 8 1/4 mandible was found In Lovelock cave, Nevada. (1911 Readers Digest Mysteries of the Unexplained p 41.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Micro evolution does NOT explain macroevolution over a long time period. This is just an assumption, which has NEVER been observed. Yes, there are many giants in history. Maybe you should actually study history.
A skeleton 12 feet tall was found by soldiers in Lonpoc rancho, California in 1883, the remains were reburied due to objections by local indians. (The unexplained by Dr. Karl Shuker p 151.)
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
antsbailey, you are decieved. All "evidence" used to support evolution has been proven wrong, and Creation IS proven, by Radioactive Polonium 218 Halos, the Flood Geology, History, Science, and plus evolution does not make sense. I am sorry, but please don't post stupid comments here.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
But the fact remains that if everything was just suddenly created by a divine power, where did this so called divine power come from? most human minds just cannot comprehend the fact that their mind is not able to go so deep into these types of thoughts, but creation is clearly less believable than evolution..no facts to back it up, which concludes it is wrong.
antsbailey 1 year ago
This is why i hate crationists, they cannot open their simple little mind enough to even believe that evolution is FACT, im not saying god didnt exist but what i am saying is that we have found bones of dinosaurs...yea no bones of any humans anywhere near old enough to have been in existance with these reptiles. It would have been impossible, creation? i just think that its a pathetic "theory" to life..i admit that we do not infact know for sure how everything began. (read next comment ^^)
antsbailey 1 year ago
LMFAO!
LostRituals 1 year ago
nice troll video 10/10
SatanPanda 1 year ago
"Where are the intermediates between fish and humans"
Lol, how can anyone take this seriously
SatanPanda 1 year ago
You are all misguided. Evolution is bad science, and you know it. The only reason evolutionists believe in that stupid, unscientific theory is because they reject the moral implications. Sir Arthur Keith admiited this. Also, there are many evolutionists who admit they are wrong.
Jesusisthetruevine 1 year ago
Everything is a transitory specie are you identical to your father? Are you identical to your son? Given how much domestic dogs have changed in just a hundred years can you really not see that after 50,000,000 years then they would be an entirely different genus.
Your idea of evolution is fundamentally wrong, animals don't just give birth to a new specie. The change happens over tens of thousands of generations.
Funny how there is no evidence of these human giants isn't it?
norsef 1 year ago
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
-Bobby Henderson
R'amen.
MrPadre1 1 year ago
there is no god but there is runescape and zarfot = the god but i just said there is no god but the zarfot is the god of the runescape because runescape has like a giga bilion gods actually.
SkubbyRangeRS 1 year ago
nice mixture of lies and bad science. Also, even were all the contents of this video to be accepted as true (which they aren't) AND that them being true disproved evolution (which they wouldn't) you haven't provided one iota of evidence in favour of creationism.
plqx2 1 year ago
Sigh...
TheTranced 1 year ago
we can observe evolution of bacteria now, i'm pretty sure that proves evolution idiort. lool.
t3hwh1p 1 year ago
"You are brainwashed" we can all agree that everyone is brainwashed into believing what we were thought, and only by learning on our own can we know the truth. I'm neither a Evolutionist, nor a believer in the giant spaghetti monster.
abandonedgod 1 year ago
You are funny! Evolutionists cannot counter Creation because Evolution does not exist. There are many more facts that I could use if Youtube allowed longer videos, I would make this video at least a few hours long. Next time you will see many more facts that refute evolution!
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
@Jesusisthetruevine Then why does mass exist?
OSoSkilled93 1 year ago
Wow.. this is pretty much hovind in animated form. it's funny how the creationist who made this video makes the evolutionist look like a complete ignorant fool who doesn't know jack about evolution or doesnt know how to counter simple creationist claims. typical lol. this video is a joke. i have a hunch it may be satire but i highly doubt it considering how this follows the EXACT pattern of every other creationist argument. lol
chattiestspike2 2 years ago
I already said that YOU ARE WRONG, so please do not waste my time.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
"I already said that YOU ARE WRONG, so please do not waste my time"
ooohh what a typical creation line. good job
chattiestspike2 2 years ago 5
Sorry, but I don't want my time being wasted. People bring up the same exact questions that already have been refuted, so I deleted them. It does not matter anyway. All the comments on this video will be deleted when I redo it, So there will be no need to see these comments before.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Hang on have you deleted a number of my comments?
Pallisade 2 years ago
Don't deny the truth. There are NO transitional fossils. Evolutionists admit this, so stop being ignorant. The mammoth story is not wrong. Stop making excuses, this is just an attempt to run away from the evidence.
Robert Gentry's work has NEVER been refuted. I already told you that it was published over 25 years in all the major journals, and could NOT be refuted, no if and or buts. Stop making excuses. They could not refute it, because there is no evidence for evolution, that settles it.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Then I suggest you get the Book "Creation's Tiny Mystery" By Rob Gentry. His findings were never refuted, and have been in the leading scientific journals for over 26 years, ( Namely, Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Physical Review Letters, and Annual Review of Nuclear Science.) These papers are subject to peer review, but they still stand strong after all this time. They could not be refuted at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Lobotaru,
Please stop with your nosense. Dog and cats cannot bring forth offspring, nor is it EVER observed. It is scientifically impossible. Come out of your paranoid fantasy. Carbon Dating is wrong, and The Fossil record is proved by the flood, that's why all those animals were buried, it was a huge catastrophe. Now, stop lying to yourself and others, and actually STUDY the real evidence for yourself, and you will not be an evolutionist. Get a clue.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
The basis of Gentry's work on polonium halos requires the reader to accept that polonium decays at a predictable rate. It has a half life. Why should carbon dating be any different? The basis for radiometric dating is measuring half lifes. I asked you for evidence. You sent me some of Robert Gentry's work. That work does not stand up to scrutiny it isn't even supported by the creationist community at large. Post the names of AS MANY authors as possible on this wall so we can study the evidence.
Pallisade 2 years ago
Evolution is not a myth. If it were a myth and the world started 4000 years ago, there would not be fossilized animals, plants, and other organisms carbon dated to be millions of years old. Also, evolution is proven by the fact you can breed different kinds of dogs and cats. Evolution is just a naturally occurring version of this. You breed the desirable traits (i.e. those that are best for survival), and given enough time traits build up until you have what appears to be a new creature.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
alla beagle vs. Siberian husky.
Evolution just doesn't have anyone doing the breeding, that's all.
Lobotaru 2 years ago
Look at yourself. There is absolutely NO evidence for it. This is just propaganda they HOPE happened over a long time period. They don't have any evidence, but they HOPE that it is true. Don't ask absurd questions. You are decieved. You can still be forgiven.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
"They hope happened over a long time period, they dont have any evidence". That seems to me like a creationist mantra, and a false one at that. What about radioactive dating? eg. potassium argon dating
automaticSOM 2 years ago
@Jesusisthetruevine
NO EVIDENCE?? WHAT ARE FOSSILS? WHAT IS HOURS OF RESEARCH NOT A FACT, WHEN ALL YOU LISTEN TO IS A BOOK WRITEN ABOUT A GUY WHO'S BEEN PROVEN NOT TO EXIST!
elementrocks118 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kholdstare0101 2 years ago
You are being very absurd. There is no such thing as a "missing link" and macroevolution is myth. Wake up. Even IF they claimed to find something, it is just another Piltdown fraud and hoax. Get over it.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Salierethefish,
Don't tell me that I don't have any scientific backing. You are the one who is not willing to consider the evidence for Creation, and against evolution. If you want to have dialogue, then please be honest before you make wild claims. Thank you.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
I'd actually be quite interested in seeing some scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. If you could provide me with the names of the scientists and the names of the peer reviewed papers writ