Now let's assume intelligent design is the truth. How else could our creator have made life? Would there really be any possible way to make shrimp out of different genetic material than humans? Could God break his own physical laws? No? OK, then why is the fact that all life shares DNA proof of evolution? It's such bullshit.....
@tpstrat14 Then why does a phylogenetic tree using one gene is indentical to one using another, if there were a designer, there wouldn't be this concordance with different phylogenetic trees using different genes. It's not the similarity, it's the pattern that matters. There is no way to reconcile this with creationism, however with evolution it makes sense, and is something that is predicted by evolution.
@TheKitch2 Everything about biology actually does make sense with creationism, but you have already chosen to subscribe to the faith of evolution, so you CANNOT see the other side. You have your faith. Nonetheless, I'll humor you. First, I must understand your position. Do you think that phylogenetic trees, which are a fabrication of the theory of evolution, prove evolution? The theory of evolution proves evolution? Ouch, doesn't your brain hurt when you use it like this?
@tpstrat14 Are you kidding me? There's alot in biology that seems to go against creationism, like ERVs and human chromosome #2.
WTF phylogenetic trees are a fabrication? Have you even looked at how the phylogenetic trees are constructed in the literature? It's easier to call bioinformatics false than actually study it, and it is quite a tough subject.
@TheKitch2 ERVs. LOL. You really think that just because we haven't found a purpose for something, it doesn't exist? You know how the appendix used to be touted as proof against creationism? Well that had to be shoved under the rug because the appendix is ABSOLUTELY necessary in third world countries where sanitation isn't very good. IN OTHER WORDS, the appendix was ABSOLUTELY necessary UNTIL THE LAST FEW HUNDRED YEARS. lol that is STILL touted as great proof of common ancestry...
@TheKitch2 The appendix was touted for decades as proof for evolution and now that we have the truth, you just want to shove that one under the rug, huh? As for ERVs, viral origins has nothing to do with common ancestry. It could still be "put there" by a creator. You have refuted nothing with the three letters "E", "R", and "V". lol...
@tpstrat14 Then name one single scientist, it should be easy. Then the creator is a deceptive one, then why do we share them in the same positions in our genome? What about understanding how microbes develop resesitence, it would make sense without evolution, directed evolution helps use create or enhance products like enzymes.
@tpstrat14 Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease. So whats for creationism?
@TheKitch2 So without you being blood related to both spiders and whales, microbes being what microbes are wouldn't make sense? lol it's like listening to a Christian talk about how Jesus NEEDED to do what he did WHEN he did it or else no life on earth would even exist.... it's that same religious bullshit, the only difference is that the theory of evolution poses as "science", so it's much more dangerous..
@TheKitch2 None of that has anything to do with humans being cousins to spiders, whales and gila monsters. You're drawing lines that aren't actually there. And no, I'm not going to fall for your bait and claim there are discoveries that have been made using "creation science". There aren't any. Just like there aren't any made by evolution. Assuming things about the past has never got any scientist anywhere.
@tpstrat14 The mechanism natural selection does. Also we've been able to make predictions using evolution to find transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx. As well as gaining an insight into our history.
Thank you for proving my point.
But tell me, why did you say you
"I'll name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science when you tell me what evolution has done for science."
@BigLundi The same evidence that convinces me that water boils at 100 C. I see a thermometer read 100 C and I watch the water start to boil and BOOM, I know that water boils at 100 C. In other words, give me a 15 billion year long video of the universe, from the big bang to now. I'll watch it, then I'll make my decision. In other words, nothing will convince me of anything being 100% true about origins. We simply can't know. What we can know is, well, things like the boiling point of water!
@BigLundi In other words, the question "if not evolution then what?" is not QUITE a solid enough challenge to my intellect to accept it as fact. That's really all I've been presented with. Either evolution or God's magic. I don't accept either actually. They both seem equally ridiculous...
@tpstrat14 I never asked "If not evolution, then what?" Though I'm quite convinced just about all of existence is too much of a challenge for your intellect since you think the only way to verify if something is more than likely true is if you see it happenning, personally, in real time.
It's a good thing the world doesn't work like that, and your, "If I can't see it, it ain't true." philosophy is abandoned by most.
@tpstrat14 And really, I find it preposterous that you even bother debating with people about human origins if the only way you'll accept an explanation is if you see a video of it happenning. Clearly nothing that could possibly ever be shown to you wouldconvince you...so why bother looking at videos like this, and debating with biologists like Kitch? You won't accept any evidence...so just go away, and leave the conversation to the rational people.
@tpstrat14 Do you not believe that your parents are your parents unless you have home movies of every single second of your life from your birth till now? Because you know, that kid in the videos when it says your 3 could just be another kid. That young, most children look alike, could be a fake. They could have adopted you at age 5 and you'd never know!
@BigLundi Since I remember my parents all through my life, that is not a good example. I DID see it. lol... Here's a better example that you should have presented me with. Why should I believe that George Washington existed? Couldn't it be a conspiracy? Yes, I guess it could, but I'm just going to have to trust the millions of personal testimonies. How many personal testimonies do we have of evolution? None. "If not evolution, then what?" is the basis of the scientific argument for evolution...
@tpstrat14 How do you know you weren't hypnotized into remembering things that never happened?
Yet again I ask you, how do you convict someone of a murder you didn't personally see them commit? It's very simple. you use evidence. You don't need to see things happen personally to be justified in believing whole heartedly that they're more than likely true. Evolution has a giant mountain of peer reviewed papers supporting it. Why do you deny them? Why do you decide not to believe this evidence?
@BigLundi There are countless holes in the theory of evolution. It's OK though because if not evolution, then what else? I don't know and therefore those who claim they do know win? Science doesn't work like that...
@tpstrat14 You know what? Screw it, I'm just going to sit here and post peer reviewed papers until you stop declaring that evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be believed.
Ready? I'm gonna fill the comments section with more science than you'll know what to do with.
@tpstrat14 Molecular and phenotypic characterization of Acinetobacter strains able to degrade diesel fuel.
Mara K, Decorosi F, Viti C, Giovannetti L, Papaleo MC, Maida I, Perrin E, Fondi M, Vaneechoutte M, Nemec A, van den Barselaar M, Dijkshoorn L, Fani R.
Res Microbiol. 2011 Dec 16
Mismatch or cumulative stress: Toward an integrated hypothesis of programming effects.
Nederhof E, Schmidt MV.
Physiol Behav. 2011 Dec 22
Want more? Because I haven't even posted one month's research worth.
@BigLundi Some day you'll see that the EVOLUTION (that's right, evolution) of a species to be able to metabolize a new chemical compound doesn't necessarily mean that the species may evolve to be able to read and write. I still don't think you quite understand the claims that evolutionary theory is making. You should research your own theory a little more before you believe in it.
@tpstrat14 In no amount of time will you realize that your inability to understand how we come to the logical conclusion that since speciation happens, and all DNA can be traced back multiple generations, and the common ancestry of all beings is the best explanation of the diversity of life, because there is no amount of evidence you'll ever, EVER accept, in order to accept evolution. Rendering you, and ignorant twit. :D So here's more peer reviewed publications on evolution.
@BigLundi The odds of him even reading one of these papers is about equal to finding the winning lottery ticket in the street, and finding it again and again for 1 billion years XD
@TheKitch2 ALTHOUGH I will say this. EVERY scientific discovery made has been made asking Aristotle's question "what is the final cause?" Call that creation science, I don't know, but no one goes into research thinking that there WON'T be any sense to be made out of anything. Intelligibility in the universe means intelligence which means intelligent designer. But that's just a theory, just like evolution...
@tpstrat14 Nope its no where near a theory, a theory is well supported explaination using evidence. ID "oh look at this, this DEFINITELY has no natural cause" even when a natural cause has been presented.
@TheKitch2 I'm not claiming that the universe is unintelligible. I'm merely saying that the universe, as well as life itself, has beginnings that might just be a little more subtle than "DURR.. EVOLUTION" Really, it doesn't take anyone with an IQ higher than 40 to come up with this baloney..
I mean, is it that unreasonable to doubt our VERY recently born notions about the ENTIRETY of our history? Let's give it some time. Maybe we're not related to spiders, whales and dolphins. Just maybe lol
@tpstrat14 WTF, lifes beginings is abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. You really don't understand evolution and have no place criticising those who accept it. It takes someone whos IQ is above 40 to realise this.
It's reasonable to doubt, but when the evidence is so much in its favour its sheer delusion to doubt. Maybe we aren't but with the evidence from paleotology, genetics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, developmental biology maybe we are.
@tpstrat14 "the appendix is ABSOLUTELY necessary in third world countries where sanitation isn't very good."
I have read one paper on the subject, it was, at this stage at least quite speculative and made no claim of 'absolute necessity' going no further than a possible positive mechanism.
"Well that had to be shoved under the rug"
What? If it is proven not to be vestigial the claim will be jettisoned. Thats how real science works. Why scoff at an honest response to changing evidence?
@KennyTew2 "Why scoff at an honest response to changing evidence?" Because this used to be touted as absolute proof of evolution. You may say the religious believe in a "God of the gaps". Likewise, evolutionists believe in "evolution of the gaps". If you don't currently know what purpose a certain organ has, then evolution must have done it and not an intelligent creator. Question: If you think your brain is merely an evolved organ then why have even the smallest shred of confidence in it?
@tpstrat14 "Because this used to be touted as absolute proof of evolution"
Please refer to a single scientific paper which concludes that the appendix is 'PROOF' of evolution.
"If you think your brain is merely an evolved organ then why have......confidence in it?"
Because it has evolved over millions of years to respond to its environment? More interesting questions are why would an evolved brain be any less reliable than one made by god? and, why would a God give people retarded brains?
2) The proof of evolution, if such a term has any real meaning in science is the overall preponderance of evidence. With every aspect of it's mechanism tested and shown to be accurate and tens of thousands of scientific papers supporting it's conclusions and not a single one with evidence that disproves the theory, we provisionally accept it.
This was the position once held by creationism until it was categorically proven wrong time and time again.
@KennyTew2 Forget the many holes in the theory, right? It doesn't matter when soft tissue is found in a dinosaur bone. It doesn't matter when the appendix is found to have a use IN HUMANS. It doesn't matter when fossils are far too scarce for the theory to be viable. None of the massive holes in the theory matter because of the notion "if not evolution, then what else?" Since I don't know what else could have created life, that makes me wrong and evolution right? Hmm...
"It doesn't matter when soft tissue is found in a dinosaur bone"
Sloppy, very sloppy. No such discovery exists. Scientists speculated that material might be soft tissue, but when they tested it they found they had made a mistake.
"It doesn't matter when fossils are far too scarce for the theory to be viable."
Well my area is human evolution and we have tens of thousands of hominin fossils showing gradual transitions from small brained bipedal apes to man.
2) This series has no major gaps let alone one big point of differentiation between ape and man, this is why creationist 'experts' never agree on which are fully human and which are fully ape.
"None of the massive holes in the theory matter"
While I am aware of no massive holes, it is the holes that are of interest to science, science is interested in what it doesn't know not what is well established.
There are many types of creationist, the most common being young earth creationist.
@KennyTew2 "It is the holes that are of interest to science" OK, then why don't we go with the theory of Mormonism or Scientology. There's holes in those theories as well! Let's fill 'em up! It's the "scientific" way!
"OK, then why don't we go with the theory of Mormonism or Scientology. There's holes in those theories as well! Let's fill 'em up! It's the "scientific" way!"
You cant fill the gaps in our knowledge of a hypothesis with no evidence base. You have no real starting point. What an incredibly stupid comment.
@tpstrat14 "The theory of evolution proves evolution? Ouch, doesn't your brain hurt when you use it like this"
Phylogenetic trees are a prediction of evolution. If the evidence is then shown, as it has categorically been, to fit with the prediction perfectly, then there is an increased probability that the theory from which the prediction is derived is true.
Let me demonstrate this with an example from christianity. If there is one true god, and christians have a personal relationship...
2) with this god then this god should, if it is consistent, tell all believers the same thing regarding, say homosexuality. One would expect each and every christian, to clearly know gods will on this issue and be as one. This is not the case, so the prediction fails to support a personal god who is capable of making his will known to believers.
Worse still, this failure IS a prediction of the hypothesis that each christian makes god in their own image with their own beliefs and prejudices.
@KennyTew2 The phylogenetic trees are a construct based on the prediction of evolution. Yes, we're on the same page. I find it funny when I hear someone say "the geologic column proves evolution" or "phylogenetic trees prove evolution" When both of these constructs were FABRICATED on the basis the evolution did in fact happen. Evolution cannot prove evolution, can it?
@tpstrat14 Evolution by natural selection explains what we see in the geological record and the relationship of morphological characterics among different species. Those aren't FABRICATED constructs, they are things you can see for yourself if you go out in the field. If you'd take a paleontology class, you'd see the evidence for yourself. Why are you creationists so afraid of studying the evidence for yourselves instead of just parroting what you read on apologist websites?
No I do not think we are, you seem to have completely misunderstood. Phylogeny is a prediction, the exact structure of phylogeny is an observation. Likewise with the geological column. The order of the fossils is in no way fabricated, nor is the order of the genes and both fit evolutionary predictions perfectly and the fossil record flatly contradicts creationism. So while they only offer support for evolution, they completely disprove creationism.
@KennyTew2 What is creationism in your mind? Are you ascribing a position to me which I do not hold? That the Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so? I do not think this. I do not know how life was created, but it sure as hell wasn't a lightning bolt in a puddle then BOOM we have reproducing life that, for WHATEVER reason, wants to perpetuate itself....
2) "I do not know how life was created, but it sure as hell wasn't a lightning bolt in a puddle then BOOM we have reproducing life that"
Well I guess you are in a privileged position then, since you must have access to scientific papers that no one else has ever seen. I have little knowledge of abiogenesis, but I know for a fact that the warm pool hypothesis has not been ruled out, so your statement is nothing more than a baseless assertion seemingly based upon personal incredulity.
@KennyTew2 Of course this is the part of the argument where you scream "NO NO NO! Abiogenesis is NOT evolution!" And I respond OK then, be dishonest. We'll stick with every thing AFTER a single cell mysteriously appeared out of a puddle.
3) Evolution is an explanation of how life diversifies and changes with time, a bit like how Newtons laws explain the motion of matter through time. Evolution requires life, as Newtonian mechanics require matter, but neither explains the origins of their subject matter, only it's behaviour once it exists.
Claiming that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life is directly akin to throwing out newtons laws because the don't explain the origin of matter. Seriously stupid.
Dishonest? Am I dishonest for accepting Newtons Laws? Which Newton dishonestly only applied after the origin of matter? Come on Newton you cretin, you cant get away with such incredible dishonesty. How dare you offer an explanation for one thing without explaining another, you make me sick Newton, I cant trust a word you say! Everyone knows that unless you explain everything you explain nothing!!!
@KennyTew2 Newton's discoveries were based on evidence. Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor? HUH?!?!?! Newton wasn't so foolish. He never made a claim saying "since gravity exerts predictable forces, therefore....". No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more...
@tpstrat14 "Newton's discoveries were based on evidence"
There are tens of thousands of papers with evidence for evolution, but that wasn't the point I was making. You made the completely erroneous and incredibly stupid claim that evolution cannot explain how life changes through time without also explaining the origin of life. My Newton example showed how stupid this line of thought is. It is customary, for the honest at least, to accept when they are wrong.
@tpstrat14 "No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more..."
He measured and observed reality and drew conclusions thereon, just like all scientists. If you think that theorising is foolish, please stop typing and throw your computer in the bin. The communication technology I am kicking your ass on would not work without the theory of relativity, and your computer requires quantum theory. Lets all stop theorising and get back to the stone age!
@tpstrat14 "Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor?"
It always amazes me how people can conclude that evolution didn't happen BEFORE learning about it. And even when you do make an effort you always read books and sites like, 'why evolution is an evil lie'.
It's like trying to get a balanced view of Margret Thatcher from Arthur Scargil!
@TheKitch2 You can't go anywhere in science without first making a hypothesis which you then endeavor to prove wrong. But yes, I understand that insulting the hypothesis is all you evotards can do.
@tpstrat14 When your hypothesis is as flawed as yours,it's only worthy of ridicule, however, let me ask you. Name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science?
@TheKitch2 I'll name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science when you tell me what evolution has done for science. Could we not have sequenced the human genome, cured polio, learned about human anatomy and gone to the moon without believing that we are related to flies, pigs and eagles and e. coli?
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
A christian doesn't know who yahweh is? Shows how much christians even know about the religion they base their lives on.The reason atheists usually know more about christianity than christians do is because we actually take the time to educate ourselves before making decisions about what we believe.
@CohibaSkeeza It doesn't matter that his drawings aren't being used today. What matters is that evolution gained support through what essentially amounts to false information. Faking fossils, faking drawings, etc. And is now going even further by taking a fossil or two and telling people that evolution is proven by the fossil record. How can you prove Thrinaxadon is a transition? You don't have any transitional forms, you have a few fossils upon which you impress your imagination.
@CohibaSkeeza Is the duck-bill platypus a transitional form to a duck that is still alive today? I'd bet if you found that in the fossil record, it would be claimed as such or similar.
"Is the duck-bill platypus a transitional form to a duck that is still alive today?"
No. Monotremes are a rather early divergence.
"What matters is that evolution gained support through what essentially amounts to false information."
Are you capable of honesty? Haeckel's drawings were used by HIM to support his OWN pet version of embryology. They were not used to promote evolution over creationism.
how stupid, you ask why it goes through the stages that look like a tail or anything that it doesnt have, you say its because there not smart enough to grow in the body efficiently with only things that look like an adult humn, when you cant even create a stupid minewt protocell wich is said can be done by accident but you cant even do it on purpose. ridiculous you think you can generate life faster than life?!?! thats insanity mixed with guilible wishfull thinkins and assumptions....pathetic.
8:44- 9:09 And what would a human embryo be when it develops those laryngeal folds? In the fish stage of evolution? Just because an embryo develops seemingly evolutionary echoes of our 'pre-human' ancestors doesn't mean that it's going through a fish stage of evolution. Right from the moment of conception through the embryo stage to birth, it is a human being. It's just part of the developmental process that produces our larynx and other neck structures, NOT gills
@AndromedaChao2 There aren't so much 'stages' of Evolution during Embryology as there is remnants of Ancestral traits expressed via Hox Genes. The Pharyngeal pouches expressed during early Embryonic Development are present in all Vertebrates (and even believed to be present in some Ancestral Chordates). These Pharyngeal pouches develop into different structures (i.e. Larynx, Gills) in various Vertebrate Embryos. This was not discovered by Haeckel but the German Biologist Martin Heinrich Rathke.
@Scienceandorigins HOX genes have only been proven to create monstrosities and has no examples of beneficial mutation from this. its only copying and rearanging the blueprints for appendages heads and censory organ making a hideous mutation every time.
@hilariousbollywood Other reptiles did evolve, simply in different ways. Different groups of a species adapted to a different environment and had different mutations. Todays reptiles are not the same as the ancestors they share with mammals. We didn't evolve from geckos, both humans and geckos evolved from a very distant common ancestor. Just like how we didn't evolve from monkeys, we simply share a common ancestor.
Explain that statement a little more. Your saying why were there different evolutionary paths? "Thats like saying if americans came from england why is there still people in england?" Your not getting the grasp of speciation.
Heres an Idea of speciation. We have a litter of dogs just 2 though a sister and brother They are of medium size and have a black fur color. The sister and brother pick different mates (of coarse) in an attempt to make god cry they have puppies. The brothers children keep many to all of the traits with black fur an medium size. While the sister children are slightly bigger than herself and have a white fur color.
Both families live in a hot environment. The white fur color is preffered because it will deflect all of the color wave lengths and make the dogs cooler than if they were any other color, While the black fur color is the worst choice because it absorbs all waves of color. The brother family still continues on With the black fur color medium size. The sister family though over many generations become larger and develop a higher bone dencity.
Both the sisters and brother family continue for over 100 Generations. By the end they might have a canine form but they have so many genetic differences they incompatable and can't breed with each other anymore. Thats what we call speciation, or "evolution". Thats why over the years we still have wolves despite the fact dogs descent from them. Thats why they were able to relate the giant panda with the african wild dog. Long term speciation.
And because a trait is preferred in an environment rather than another trait it doesn't mean the trait will continue it just means that the species that has this trait is more likely to succeeed. The white fur is better than black fur in the heat but both species continue on.
@revangelst And I would further suggest that to interpret the Bible literally, you have to ignore a lot of (most?) modern historical, geological, biological, and cosmological scholarship.
@Answerquestions1 I'm not sure if humans ever have scales, but some rodents have scale-like tissues on their tails. Chickens can also develop teeth. See the last video in the series.
but, why would embryos pass to different evolutionary states in the first place? only some birds develope teeth (not all of them) why?? after all, all birds where suppose to evolved from reptiles with teeth. to be honest I don´t even understand the argument.
@Answerquestions1 Only some birds develop teeth because the genes for teeth aren't usually expressed anymore. Birds are a relatively recent form of dinosaur, which originally had teeth, so it's not surprising that the genes for teeth are still hanging around -- they just don't normally get used. Mutations can make the teeth reappear.
It's not so much that they repeat their evolutionary history. It's more like this: the species already has a developmental pathway. As the species evolves, the already-extant developmental pathway gets added onto. So, for example, mammals go through a developmental pathway that's like a reptile's -- because the genes for that pathway are still there -- before they start developing more like a mammal. Evolution adds onto or changes what already exists.
@Answerquestions1 Not exactly. Bats and birds share similar morphological features, but bat embryos don't pass through a "bird-like" stage of development, because bats aren't evolved from birds.
Incidentally, in Darwin's time, we didn't know that mammals and reptiles shared "common stuff", because we had no understanding of genetics.
@Answerquestions1 As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos. It provides evidence for the fact that species change gradually over time.
@Answerquestions1 As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos. It provides evidence for the fact that species change gradually over time.
As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos.
Evolution doesn't create creatures out of thin air -- it works with what it has. If an organism already has a developmental pathway, why reinvent the wheel?
I'm flabbergasted anyone can even suggest evolution is true and there is no God, much less pour all the "verbiage" into trying to substantiate it. The Bible speaks the truth when it says in Psalms 53:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." I fully expect vulgarity and tantrums for having posted this. How sad humanity has gotten so debased,
@coltharpnicholas I can think of one reason: it's an insult to God. The Bible, which is His Words, says He did it in 6 days and rested the 7th. The proof for evolution (other than changes within a kind) is no where to be found.
@revangelist I've never understood this line of reasoning. The Genesis account hasn't generally been taken literally since at least Hellenic times. When you read the Bible, you have to interpret it, or else you wouldn't even be able to translate the words into concepts. So what makes metaphor or poetry impossible?
@coltharpnicholas The Bible is a literal book. The creation account is literal. There is nothing in the wording that would indicate otherwise. Context has always been the deciding factor of any writing whether it should be taken literal or metaphorically. Genesis contains an account from creation through Joseph (which includes the flood of Noah, also factual). The prophetic passages do use metaphoric terms and the context is clear when it does.
Respond to this video...Pt2: * Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in Eden * The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The 2nd creation of trees was still on day 6 - was only those trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”
I guess maybe if you don't know any better it could be. But we know better than that. Heck, most Christians don't even take the bible to be a literal book.
@biscuithammer00 Who's "we"? No one part of the "we" crowd, if they agree with you, knows "better". You just don't believe. That's just the way it is.
Uh, no. Most educated people, theist or atheist, know that the bible isn't a literal book. Most theists accept that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, they just think that god uses evolution. I personally don't buy that, I think that evolution is sufficient to disprove god.
You continue to give misinformation, & false information. I did not say that the Lord Jesus Christ wrote Proverbs but that He inspired Solomon & others to write the book of Proverbs & all Holy Scripture (2Tim3:16; 2Pet 1:20-21), & therefore because He is God (Jn 1:1), it is His Word (Matt4:4). You have given false information concerning the history of Christianity beginning with Constantine, & other areas. Please refute these lies, & repent & trust the Lord Jesus to be saved from hell(Jn3:16).
It is hard to believe that anyone would teach that people are descended from fish. Only goes to show...you really can't fix stupid. Similarity proves similarity, not relationship. Geez....
Can somebody please explain all the changes on a DNA level, whats happening to the DNA as all these changes are taking place?
You have a string of DNA, and then you have to insert the correct genes in the correct place, for the change to take place. How does this happen without screwing up the entire string?
The Earth is flat, just look out your window and tell me if the ground looks flat or round. And ofcourse a banana fits perfectly in my hand. Evolution disproved. lol. You are causing creationists to damage their inner ears and Otolaryngologists everywhere are thanking you. Listen, you can hear them....Lalalalalalala. Nice vids btw.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...(Rom1:20-22) Evolution is a lie,not science.Escape hell repent & trust Jesus(Jn3:16).
@idm2008 We all have access to bibles, if you're gonna argue with evolutionists at least write your own arguments. We're all familiar with the manipulative texts contained in that ridiculous ancient book.
Your argument is unreasonable, & hypocritical.The Bible is not manipulative texts, but the Word of God that is 100% true without any error or contradiction written by "... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"(2Pet1:21). Evolutionist do not use their own arguments but quote from other sources that prove not to be science, but man's false theories , & lies that leads them away from the truth of Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, & tragically directs them to hell(Prov14:12).
@idm2008 You obviously can't comprehend the material in the videos. I really don't blame you for not believing the proof when, to be able to understand it, your intelligence would need to be much higher than it is currently. Just don't vote please, and don't have children.
Friend it is common for evolutionists to attack the person rather than having a resonable argurment and dealing with the issue. The reason you attack me personally is because you have no sound, reasonable arguement for evolution because it not science, but a complete lie that attempts to attack the truth of Bible which science agrees with because God made it (Gen1:31; Jn1:3). Science is testable, observable, repeatable. Evolution (referring to so called macro evolution not adaptation)...
...has never been observed, and therefore cannot be tested or repeated because it never exitsted.Therefore it is clearly not a science but a complete & utter lie produced by Satan in order to damn precious souls to hell by rejecting the truth of the Bible which is 100% true, and thus rejecting the only way of salvation and escape from hell found only in the Saviour of the world, God in flesh(Jn1:1,14, 1Tim3:16)Lord Jesus Christ(Jn14:6:Acts4:12). However science agrees with the Bible(Gen1:1-31).
Funny how SO MANY passages in the Bible read like a mantra endlessly repeating, "yes, yes, yes, THIS IS the one and only word of the one and only God, and if you turn away from us, Bad Things will happen to you!"
Exactly what one would expect from priests trying to consolidate their hold on their ignorant flock of sheep.
Friend the Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction (Jn17:17;2Tim3:16-17). It is clear that Satan tempted David to number Israel (1Cor21:1), & it is also clear that God Almighty allowed Satan to do so (2Sam24:1). God did not tempt Him to sin because the Bible says, " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"(Jam1:13). Therefore, there is no contradiction at all, & the Bible is 100% true (Jn17:17).
@idm2008 Neither John nor Timothy define your bible as "god's word" or "all scripture," since the entire bible did not exist at the times those books were written. 2Sam 24:1, says, clearly, that "the LORD incited David." Also, 1 Corinthians has only 16 chapters, so 21:1 does not exist. Looks like you flubbed it.
Friend it is clear that I intended to quote 1Chr21:1 in reference to the context of our discussion, & not 1Cor21:1 which of course does not exist. By you being ungracious in your pointing out of this clear honest mistake only demonstrates your complete utter hatred of Biblical Christianity, & the truth of the gospel. You pervert the scriptures to your own destruction (2Pet3:16). This is tragic & I pray that you will repent & trust the Lord Jesus to escape hell before it is too late(Heb9:27)...
@idm2008 It would've been clear if you'd typed 1Chr21:1 instead, don't you think? Besides, there's the contradiction: one verse says the Lord provoked David, one says Satan did. Therefore, imperfect bible. Q.E.D.
I don't hate Christianity, bubie - I hate dogmatic pulpit-pounders who claim to know the will of some unproven deity. Then they have the nerve tell ME how I'm supposed to live my life because they "know" what "Gawd" wants me to do. He can tell me himself, can't he?
@idm2008 Your logic: "The Bible says it's true - therefore, it's true."
Same logic, different book: "The Quran says it's true - therefore, it's true."
Since the Quran says, "Those who believe that God has a son must be admonished, since this is a monstrous BLASPHEMY and FALSEHOOD (18:4-6)," and since your logic (used above) proves the Quran is true, then believing god has a son, is a lie. Liars go to hell. Therefore, you are going to Hell. Q.E.D.
...Apostle John said under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in 1John2:14 clearly mentions the "word of God" abiding in the true born again believer. Your argument is ridiculous & unreasonable. The Bible is true not because I said it is true but because of the clear evidence of history (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, etc.), Archaeology(walls of Jericho, etc.), eyewitness accounts(1Cor15:1-7), most importantly the fulfillment of Bible Prophecy (Micah 5:2; Matt2:1;etc)...
@idm2008 Yes, I've heard that too. Accuracy of geography in the bible does not validate the theology. As for fulfillment of prophecy, that's more circular logic. None of the writers saw Jesus alive after death. Not Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny. And none of the alleged "witnesses" left a word about seeing him either. And no historian records risen dead people at the time. Your bible was not written by those whose names are on the books, except some of Paul's.
...friend your comments are not only ridculous & unreasonable but they are clearly ignorant of the facts, & again demonstrates your clear hatred of the truth of Biblical Christianity (John 17:17). The Apostle John, Paul, & Matthew along with others clearly witnessed the Lord Jesus Christ alive from the dead (John20:1-31;Acts1:1-3;Acts9:1-20;1Cor15:1-11). You clearly have responded without doing your proper research, but continue to make false statements & lies...
@idm2008 My comments show that I read more than just apologists' writings. Your comments show that your mind is closed to the possibility that you are deluded. I don't blame you. It's tough to live a lie all your life, and then finally have to face it.
Again: None of those historians saw Jesus; none of the writers of the New Testament did either. Read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009).
You statment is clearly false and uneducated and even skeptics would clearly disagree with you. The writers of the NT clearly claim to have seen the Lord Jesus Christ alive from the dead from the scriptures (John 20:1-21;1Cor15:1-11). The NT was completed in the first century AD, and the Biblical record clearly teaches that they saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ (1Cor15:1-11). A court of law would not ignore eye witness accounts yet you do. This is tragic...
@idm2008 John did not write the gospel of John, nor the epistles of John. Paul could not have seen Jesus since he add already ascended to heaven. Read Ehrman.
Friend the Bible says,"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev21:8), "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie"(Rev22:15). Evolution is a lie, & all liars & those that love lies will go to hell unless they repent(Lk3:13).
@idm2008 You stated earlier that 1Cor21:1 maded it "clear that Satan tempted David to number Israel." 1 Corinthians has only 16 chapters. You lied. Therefore, you have your "part in the lake which burns" also. Q.E.D. (I'll save you some sun block.)
...We must "... rightly..." divide " ...the word of truth"(2Tim2:15), & therefore 2 Samuel 24:1 must be understood in light of all scripture specifically 1Chr21:1, which clearly teaches that Satan "provoked David," while 2 Samuel 24:1 teaches that the LORD "moved David." The word "moved" & the word "provoked" are translated from the same Hebrew word "cuwth" which means to seduce or entice. We know that God cannot & does not entice man to sin(Jam1:13-14), & that Satan is...
@idm2008 So because you claim it's a holy, infallible book, it is. Right? Are you more sincere than a Muslim who believes his Quran is right? If so, how can you prove it?
...the "tempter"(Matt4:3), therefore it is clear that the LORD allowed Satan to seduce David in 2 Samuel 24:1 & in 1Chr21:1). Therefore there is absolutely no error or contradiction in the Bible at all. The Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction(Jn17:17). Say that John or the Book of Timothy does not define the Bible as God's Word or all scripture this is absolutely false. 1 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." & the...
@idm2008 Again, circular logic: "The bible is true, because verses in it say it's true." Pathetic. The Quran and the Book of Mormon do the same. That is NOT proof, it's not even evidence. Where's your proof, amigo?
... all living things to produce ..."after his kind"(Gn 1:24). Everday we test, observe,and repeatedly witness dogs make dogs, cats make cats, people make people, birds make birds,bees make bees, just like the Bible teaches.Therefore science agrees with the Bible but rejects the theory of evolution as a deceptive lie.Friends believe the Bible, repent of your sin (Lk 13:3), & receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Saviour by faith alone to escape hell before it is too late(Jn3:16)
Friends this video is teaching nothing but complete lies that is not science at all, but only demonstrates a complete hatred for the truth of Biblical Christianity, and its purpose is to damn multitudes of precious soul to an eternity in hell (1Tim6:20;1Pet5:8). The Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction (Jn 17:17) by the evidence of history(Tacitus, Josephus, etc), archeology , & Bible Prophecy(Micah 5:2; Lk2:11-14,etc.). Evolution is not a science...
Now let's assume intelligent design is the truth. How else could our creator have made life? Would there really be any possible way to make shrimp out of different genetic material than humans? Could God break his own physical laws? No? OK, then why is the fact that all life shares DNA proof of evolution? It's such bullshit.....
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Then why does a phylogenetic tree using one gene is indentical to one using another, if there were a designer, there wouldn't be this concordance with different phylogenetic trees using different genes. It's not the similarity, it's the pattern that matters. There is no way to reconcile this with creationism, however with evolution it makes sense, and is something that is predicted by evolution.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 Everything about biology actually does make sense with creationism, but you have already chosen to subscribe to the faith of evolution, so you CANNOT see the other side. You have your faith. Nonetheless, I'll humor you. First, I must understand your position. Do you think that phylogenetic trees, which are a fabrication of the theory of evolution, prove evolution? The theory of evolution proves evolution? Ouch, doesn't your brain hurt when you use it like this?
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Are you kidding me? There's alot in biology that seems to go against creationism, like ERVs and human chromosome #2.
WTF phylogenetic trees are a fabrication? Have you even looked at how the phylogenetic trees are constructed in the literature? It's easier to call bioinformatics false than actually study it, and it is quite a tough subject.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 ERVs. LOL. You really think that just because we haven't found a purpose for something, it doesn't exist? You know how the appendix used to be touted as proof against creationism? Well that had to be shoved under the rug because the appendix is ABSOLUTELY necessary in third world countries where sanitation isn't very good. IN OTHER WORDS, the appendix was ABSOLUTELY necessary UNTIL THE LAST FEW HUNDRED YEARS. lol that is STILL touted as great proof of common ancestry...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 ...ERVs have been demonstrated to have viral origins, its not because they have no know function.....
Why are you bringing up the appendix, who apart from comedians have used the appendix as an example against creationism?
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 The appendix was touted for decades as proof for evolution and now that we have the truth, you just want to shove that one under the rug, huh? As for ERVs, viral origins has nothing to do with common ancestry. It could still be "put there" by a creator. You have refuted nothing with the three letters "E", "R", and "V". lol...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Then name one single scientist, it should be easy. Then the creator is a deceptive one, then why do we share them in the same positions in our genome? What about understanding how microbes develop resesitence, it would make sense without evolution, directed evolution helps use create or enhance products like enzymes.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease. So whats for creationism?
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Opps made a typo, without evolution, microbes developing resistence wouldn't make sense. One of those mornings ....:D
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 So without you being blood related to both spiders and whales, microbes being what microbes are wouldn't make sense? lol it's like listening to a Christian talk about how Jesus NEEDED to do what he did WHEN he did it or else no life on earth would even exist.... it's that same religious bullshit, the only difference is that the theory of evolution poses as "science", so it's much more dangerous..
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 ......You really don't understand evolution at all, or antibiotic resistence, you also forgot about ribotyping....
Yeah I remember was nearly killed by radical evolutionists.....*cough*
So what cdiscoveries have been made by using creation "science"
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 None of that has anything to do with humans being cousins to spiders, whales and gila monsters. You're drawing lines that aren't actually there. And no, I'm not going to fall for your bait and claim there are discoveries that have been made using "creation science". There aren't any. Just like there aren't any made by evolution. Assuming things about the past has never got any scientist anywhere.
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tpstrat14 The mechanism natural selection does. Also we've been able to make predictions using evolution to find transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx. As well as gaining an insight into our history.
Thank you for proving my point.
But tell me, why did you say you
"I'll name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science when you tell me what evolution has done for science."
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Lemme ask you a simple question.
Can you think of anything that would convince you that evolution is true? And if so, what?
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi The same evidence that convinces me that water boils at 100 C. I see a thermometer read 100 C and I watch the water start to boil and BOOM, I know that water boils at 100 C. In other words, give me a 15 billion year long video of the universe, from the big bang to now. I'll watch it, then I'll make my decision. In other words, nothing will convince me of anything being 100% true about origins. We simply can't know. What we can know is, well, things like the boiling point of water!
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 So, unless you see evolution having actually taken place in real time, you won't believe it.
Lemme ask you something else then, since I'm curious. How do you determine if someone's guilty of a crime if you didn't see them do it?
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi In other words, the question "if not evolution then what?" is not QUITE a solid enough challenge to my intellect to accept it as fact. That's really all I've been presented with. Either evolution or God's magic. I don't accept either actually. They both seem equally ridiculous...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 I never asked "If not evolution, then what?" Though I'm quite convinced just about all of existence is too much of a challenge for your intellect since you think the only way to verify if something is more than likely true is if you see it happenning, personally, in real time.
It's a good thing the world doesn't work like that, and your, "If I can't see it, it ain't true." philosophy is abandoned by most.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 And really, I find it preposterous that you even bother debating with people about human origins if the only way you'll accept an explanation is if you see a video of it happenning. Clearly nothing that could possibly ever be shown to you wouldconvince you...so why bother looking at videos like this, and debating with biologists like Kitch? You won't accept any evidence...so just go away, and leave the conversation to the rational people.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Do you not believe that your parents are your parents unless you have home movies of every single second of your life from your birth till now? Because you know, that kid in the videos when it says your 3 could just be another kid. That young, most children look alike, could be a fake. They could have adopted you at age 5 and you'd never know!
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi Since I remember my parents all through my life, that is not a good example. I DID see it. lol... Here's a better example that you should have presented me with. Why should I believe that George Washington existed? Couldn't it be a conspiracy? Yes, I guess it could, but I'm just going to have to trust the millions of personal testimonies. How many personal testimonies do we have of evolution? None. "If not evolution, then what?" is the basis of the scientific argument for evolution...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 How do you know you weren't hypnotized into remembering things that never happened?
Yet again I ask you, how do you convict someone of a murder you didn't personally see them commit? It's very simple. you use evidence. You don't need to see things happen personally to be justified in believing whole heartedly that they're more than likely true. Evolution has a giant mountain of peer reviewed papers supporting it. Why do you deny them? Why do you decide not to believe this evidence?
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Also, do you seriously remember being born? I can't imagine what that's like.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi There are countless holes in the theory of evolution. It's OK though because if not evolution, then what else? I don't know and therefore those who claim they do know win? Science doesn't work like that...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 You know what? Screw it, I'm just going to sit here and post peer reviewed papers until you stop declaring that evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be believed.
Ready? I'm gonna fill the comments section with more science than you'll know what to do with.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies.
Hansen TF, Bartoszek K.
Syst Biol. 2012 Jan 2
Tracing the origin and evolutionary history of plant nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) genes.
Yue JX, Meyers BC, Chen JQ, Tian D, Yang S.
New Phytol. 2011 Dec 23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.04006.x.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Patterns and processes of dispersal behaviour in arvicoline rodents.
LE Galliard JF, Rémy A, Ims RA, Lambin X.
Cryptic lineages and Pleistocene population expansion in a Brazilian Cerrado frog.
Prado CP, Haddad CF, Zamudio KR
Phylogeography of the catfish Hatcheria macraei reveals a negligible role of drainage divides in structuring populations.
Unmack PJ, Barriga JP, Battini MA, Habit EM, Johnson JB.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Efficient large-scale protein sequence comparison and gene matching to identify orthologs and co-orthologs.
Mahmood K, Webb GI, Song J, Whisstock JC, Konagurthu AS.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Dec 30.
The cuticle on the gametophyte calyptra matures before the sporophyte cuticle in the moss Funaria hygrometrica (Funariaceae).
Budke JM, Goffinet B, Jones CS.
Recombination Detection Under Evolutionary Scenarios Relevant to Functional Divergence.
Bay RA, Bielawski JP.
J Mol Evol. 2012 Jan 1
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Molecular and phenotypic characterization of Acinetobacter strains able to degrade diesel fuel.
Mara K, Decorosi F, Viti C, Giovannetti L, Papaleo MC, Maida I, Perrin E, Fondi M, Vaneechoutte M, Nemec A, van den Barselaar M, Dijkshoorn L, Fani R.
Res Microbiol. 2011 Dec 16
Mismatch or cumulative stress: Toward an integrated hypothesis of programming effects.
Nederhof E, Schmidt MV.
Physiol Behav. 2011 Dec 22
Want more? Because I haven't even posted one month's research worth.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi Some day you'll see that the EVOLUTION (that's right, evolution) of a species to be able to metabolize a new chemical compound doesn't necessarily mean that the species may evolve to be able to read and write. I still don't think you quite understand the claims that evolutionary theory is making. You should research your own theory a little more before you believe in it.
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 In no amount of time will you realize that your inability to understand how we come to the logical conclusion that since speciation happens, and all DNA can be traced back multiple generations, and the common ancestry of all beings is the best explanation of the diversity of life, because there is no amount of evidence you'll ever, EVER accept, in order to accept evolution. Rendering you, and ignorant twit. :D So here's more peer reviewed publications on evolution.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Expression divergence measured by transcriptome sequencing of four yeast species.
Busby MA, Gray JM, Costa AM, Stewart C, Stromberg MP, Barnett D, Chuang JH, Springer M, Marth GT.
BMC Genomics. 2011 Dec 29;12(1):635
Static and Dynamic Error of a Biplanar Videoradiography System Using Marker-Based and Markerless Tracking Techniques.
Miranda DL, Schwartz JB, Loomis AC, Brainerd EL, Fleming BC, Crisco JJ.
J Biomech Eng. 2011 Dec;133(12):121002.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 A fly in the ointment: evaluation of traditional use of plants to repel and kill blowfly larvae in fermented fish.
de Boer HJ, Vongsombath C, Käfer J.
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e29521. Epub 2011 Dec 19
Cenozoic climate change influences mammalian evolutionary dynamics.
Figueirido B, Janis CM, Pérez-Claros JA, De Renzi M, Palmqvist P.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 27.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Mitochondrial phylogeny reveals intraspecific variation in Peronospora effusa, the spinach downy mildew pathogen.
Choi YJ, Thines M, Han JG, Shin HD.
J Microbiol. 2011 Dec;49(6):1039-43. Epub 2011 Dec 28.
Localization and distribution of wolframin in human tissues.
De Falco M, Manente L, Lucariello A, Baldi G, Fiore P, Laforgia V, Baldi A, Iannaccone A, De Luca A.
Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2012 Jan 1;4:1986-98.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Expressing genes do not forget their LINEs: transposable elements and gene expression.
Kines KJ, Belancio VP.
Front Biosci. 2012 Jan 1;17:1329-44.
Recombination rate variation and speciation: theoretical predictions and empirical results from rabbits and mice.
Nachman MW, Payseur BA.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 5;367(1587):409-21.
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Genomic divergence during speciation: causes and consequences.
Nosil P, Feder JL.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 5;367(1587):332-42.
Evolution of petaloid sepals independent of shifts in B-class MADS box gene expression.
Landis JB, Barnett LL, Hileman LC.
Dev Genes Evol. 2011
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 The structure of allelic diversity in the presence of purifying selection.
Desai MM, Nicolaisen LE, Walczak AM, Plotkin JB.
Theor Popul Biol. 2011 Dec 16
Are pollen fossils useful for calibrating relaxed molecular clock dating of phylogenies? A comparative study using Myrtaceae.
Thornhill AH, Popple LW, Carter RJ, Ho SY, Crisp MD.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011 Dec 14
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Effect of genetic convergence on phylogenetic inference.
Christin PA, Besnard G, Edwards EJ, Salamin N.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011 Dec 14
Kinetics of polychlorinated biphenyl partitioning to marine Chrysophyte Isochrysis galbana.
Ko FC, Baker JE, Tew KS.
Sci Total Environ. 2011 Dec 23
BigLundi 3 weeks ago
@BigLundi The odds of him even reading one of these papers is about equal to finding the winning lottery ticket in the street, and finding it again and again for 1 billion years XD
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 ALTHOUGH I will say this. EVERY scientific discovery made has been made asking Aristotle's question "what is the final cause?" Call that creation science, I don't know, but no one goes into research thinking that there WON'T be any sense to be made out of anything. Intelligibility in the universe means intelligence which means intelligent designer. But that's just a theory, just like evolution...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Nope its no where near a theory, a theory is well supported explaination using evidence. ID "oh look at this, this DEFINITELY has no natural cause" even when a natural cause has been presented.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 I'm not claiming that the universe is unintelligible. I'm merely saying that the universe, as well as life itself, has beginnings that might just be a little more subtle than "DURR.. EVOLUTION" Really, it doesn't take anyone with an IQ higher than 40 to come up with this baloney..
I mean, is it that unreasonable to doubt our VERY recently born notions about the ENTIRETY of our history? Let's give it some time. Maybe we're not related to spiders, whales and dolphins. Just maybe lol
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 WTF, lifes beginings is abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. You really don't understand evolution and have no place criticising those who accept it. It takes someone whos IQ is above 40 to realise this.
It's reasonable to doubt, but when the evidence is so much in its favour its sheer delusion to doubt. Maybe we aren't but with the evidence from paleotology, genetics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, developmental biology maybe we are.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "the appendix is ABSOLUTELY necessary in third world countries where sanitation isn't very good."
I have read one paper on the subject, it was, at this stage at least quite speculative and made no claim of 'absolute necessity' going no further than a possible positive mechanism.
"Well that had to be shoved under the rug"
What? If it is proven not to be vestigial the claim will be jettisoned. Thats how real science works. Why scoff at an honest response to changing evidence?
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 "Why scoff at an honest response to changing evidence?" Because this used to be touted as absolute proof of evolution. You may say the religious believe in a "God of the gaps". Likewise, evolutionists believe in "evolution of the gaps". If you don't currently know what purpose a certain organ has, then evolution must have done it and not an intelligent creator. Question: If you think your brain is merely an evolved organ then why have even the smallest shred of confidence in it?
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Given the intellectual level of creationist comments on youtube, I agree, we should not rely too much on the human brain.
acr08807 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "Because this used to be touted as absolute proof of evolution"
Please refer to a single scientific paper which concludes that the appendix is 'PROOF' of evolution.
"If you think your brain is merely an evolved organ then why have......confidence in it?"
Because it has evolved over millions of years to respond to its environment? More interesting questions are why would an evolved brain be any less reliable than one made by god? and, why would a God give people retarded brains?
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
2) The proof of evolution, if such a term has any real meaning in science is the overall preponderance of evidence. With every aspect of it's mechanism tested and shown to be accurate and tens of thousands of scientific papers supporting it's conclusions and not a single one with evidence that disproves the theory, we provisionally accept it.
This was the position once held by creationism until it was categorically proven wrong time and time again.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 Forget the many holes in the theory, right? It doesn't matter when soft tissue is found in a dinosaur bone. It doesn't matter when the appendix is found to have a use IN HUMANS. It doesn't matter when fossils are far too scarce for the theory to be viable. None of the massive holes in the theory matter because of the notion "if not evolution, then what else?" Since I don't know what else could have created life, that makes me wrong and evolution right? Hmm...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
"It doesn't matter when soft tissue is found in a dinosaur bone"
Sloppy, very sloppy. No such discovery exists. Scientists speculated that material might be soft tissue, but when they tested it they found they had made a mistake.
"It doesn't matter when fossils are far too scarce for the theory to be viable."
Well my area is human evolution and we have tens of thousands of hominin fossils showing gradual transitions from small brained bipedal apes to man.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
2) This series has no major gaps let alone one big point of differentiation between ape and man, this is why creationist 'experts' never agree on which are fully human and which are fully ape.
"None of the massive holes in the theory matter"
While I am aware of no massive holes, it is the holes that are of interest to science, science is interested in what it doesn't know not what is well established.
There are many types of creationist, the most common being young earth creationist.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 "It is the holes that are of interest to science" OK, then why don't we go with the theory of Mormonism or Scientology. There's holes in those theories as well! Let's fill 'em up! It's the "scientific" way!
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"OK, then why don't we go with the theory of Mormonism or Scientology. There's holes in those theories as well! Let's fill 'em up! It's the "scientific" way!"
You cant fill the gaps in our knowledge of a hypothesis with no evidence base. You have no real starting point. What an incredibly stupid comment.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "The theory of evolution proves evolution? Ouch, doesn't your brain hurt when you use it like this"
Phylogenetic trees are a prediction of evolution. If the evidence is then shown, as it has categorically been, to fit with the prediction perfectly, then there is an increased probability that the theory from which the prediction is derived is true.
Let me demonstrate this with an example from christianity. If there is one true god, and christians have a personal relationship...
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
2) with this god then this god should, if it is consistent, tell all believers the same thing regarding, say homosexuality. One would expect each and every christian, to clearly know gods will on this issue and be as one. This is not the case, so the prediction fails to support a personal god who is capable of making his will known to believers.
Worse still, this failure IS a prediction of the hypothesis that each christian makes god in their own image with their own beliefs and prejudices.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 The phylogenetic trees are a construct based on the prediction of evolution. Yes, we're on the same page. I find it funny when I hear someone say "the geologic column proves evolution" or "phylogenetic trees prove evolution" When both of these constructs were FABRICATED on the basis the evolution did in fact happen. Evolution cannot prove evolution, can it?
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Evolution by natural selection explains what we see in the geological record and the relationship of morphological characterics among different species. Those aren't FABRICATED constructs, they are things you can see for yourself if you go out in the field. If you'd take a paleontology class, you'd see the evidence for yourself. Why are you creationists so afraid of studying the evidence for yourselves instead of just parroting what you read on apologist websites?
acr08807 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "Yes, we're on the same page"
No I do not think we are, you seem to have completely misunderstood. Phylogeny is a prediction, the exact structure of phylogeny is an observation. Likewise with the geological column. The order of the fossils is in no way fabricated, nor is the order of the genes and both fit evolutionary predictions perfectly and the fossil record flatly contradicts creationism. So while they only offer support for evolution, they completely disprove creationism.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 What is creationism in your mind? Are you ascribing a position to me which I do not hold? That the Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so? I do not think this. I do not know how life was created, but it sure as hell wasn't a lightning bolt in a puddle then BOOM we have reproducing life that, for WHATEVER reason, wants to perpetuate itself....
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2) "I do not know how life was created, but it sure as hell wasn't a lightning bolt in a puddle then BOOM we have reproducing life that"
Well I guess you are in a privileged position then, since you must have access to scientific papers that no one else has ever seen. I have little knowledge of abiogenesis, but I know for a fact that the warm pool hypothesis has not been ruled out, so your statement is nothing more than a baseless assertion seemingly based upon personal incredulity.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 Of course this is the part of the argument where you scream "NO NO NO! Abiogenesis is NOT evolution!" And I respond OK then, be dishonest. We'll stick with every thing AFTER a single cell mysteriously appeared out of a puddle.
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
3) Evolution is an explanation of how life diversifies and changes with time, a bit like how Newtons laws explain the motion of matter through time. Evolution requires life, as Newtonian mechanics require matter, but neither explains the origins of their subject matter, only it's behaviour once it exists.
Claiming that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life is directly akin to throwing out newtons laws because the don't explain the origin of matter. Seriously stupid.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "And I respond OK then, be dishonest."
Dishonest? Am I dishonest for accepting Newtons Laws? Which Newton dishonestly only applied after the origin of matter? Come on Newton you cretin, you cant get away with such incredible dishonesty. How dare you offer an explanation for one thing without explaining another, you make me sick Newton, I cant trust a word you say! Everyone knows that unless you explain everything you explain nothing!!!
Why are creationists so dumb?
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@KennyTew2 Newton's discoveries were based on evidence. Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor? HUH?!?!?! Newton wasn't so foolish. He never made a claim saying "since gravity exerts predictable forces, therefore....". No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more...
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "Newton's discoveries were based on evidence"
There are tens of thousands of papers with evidence for evolution, but that wasn't the point I was making. You made the completely erroneous and incredibly stupid claim that evolution cannot explain how life changes through time without also explaining the origin of life. My Newton example showed how stupid this line of thought is. It is customary, for the honest at least, to accept when they are wrong.
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more..."
He measured and observed reality and drew conclusions thereon, just like all scientists. If you think that theorising is foolish, please stop typing and throw your computer in the bin. The communication technology I am kicking your ass on would not work without the theory of relativity, and your computer requires quantum theory. Lets all stop theorising and get back to the stone age!
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 "Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor?"
It always amazes me how people can conclude that evolution didn't happen BEFORE learning about it. And even when you do make an effort you always read books and sites like, 'why evolution is an evil lie'.
It's like trying to get a balanced view of Margret Thatcher from Arthur Scargil!
KennyTew2 3 weeks ago
@lpstrat14 furthermore let's assume intelligent design is correct, no scientist would start an argument like that.
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 You can't go anywhere in science without first making a hypothesis which you then endeavor to prove wrong. But yes, I understand that insulting the hypothesis is all you evotards can do.
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 When your hypothesis is as flawed as yours,it's only worthy of ridicule, however, let me ask you. Name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science?
TheKitch2 3 weeks ago
@TheKitch2 I'll name one scientific accomplishment made using creation science when you tell me what evolution has done for science. Could we not have sequenced the human genome, cured polio, learned about human anatomy and gone to the moon without believing that we are related to flies, pigs and eagles and e. coli?
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
9112274 1 month ago
A christian doesn't know who yahweh is? Shows how much christians even know about the religion they base their lives on.The reason atheists usually know more about christianity than christians do is because we actually take the time to educate ourselves before making decisions about what we believe.
8698gil 2 months ago 2
Are evolutionists still repeating the Haeckel scam?
CohibaSkeeza 2 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza It doesn't matter that his drawings aren't being used today. What matters is that evolution gained support through what essentially amounts to false information. Faking fossils, faking drawings, etc. And is now going even further by taking a fossil or two and telling people that evolution is proven by the fossil record. How can you prove Thrinaxadon is a transition? You don't have any transitional forms, you have a few fossils upon which you impress your imagination.
CohibaSkeeza 2 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza
...just wow. It appears you don't know anything about anything.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Is the duck-bill platypus a transitional form to a duck that is still alive today? I'd bet if you found that in the fossil record, it would be claimed as such or similar.
CohibaSkeeza 2 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza
"Is the duck-bill platypus a transitional form to a duck that is still alive today?"
No. Monotremes are a rather early divergence.
"What matters is that evolution gained support through what essentially amounts to false information."
Are you capable of honesty? Haeckel's drawings were used by HIM to support his OWN pet version of embryology. They were not used to promote evolution over creationism.
Tell me, what have creationists NOT lied about?
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CohibaSkeeza said: " Is the duck-bill platypus a transitional form to a duck that is still alive today?"
Lol, EPIC FAIL.
I was going to say "go back to school", but it's clear you never actually went in the first place.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
Makes more sense to me than thinking we were poofed here by a spiritual being, which has no evidence whatsoever!
rSevenfold666 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how stupid, you ask why it goes through the stages that look like a tail or anything that it doesnt have, you say its because there not smart enough to grow in the body efficiently with only things that look like an adult humn, when you cant even create a stupid minewt protocell wich is said can be done by accident but you cant even do it on purpose. ridiculous you think you can generate life faster than life?!?! thats insanity mixed with guilible wishfull thinkins and assumptions....pathetic.
samster817 5 months ago
8:44- 9:09 And what would a human embryo be when it develops those laryngeal folds? In the fish stage of evolution? Just because an embryo develops seemingly evolutionary echoes of our 'pre-human' ancestors doesn't mean that it's going through a fish stage of evolution. Right from the moment of conception through the embryo stage to birth, it is a human being. It's just part of the developmental process that produces our larynx and other neck structures, NOT gills
AndromedaChao2 6 months ago
@AndromedaChao2 There aren't so much 'stages' of Evolution during Embryology as there is remnants of Ancestral traits expressed via Hox Genes. The Pharyngeal pouches expressed during early Embryonic Development are present in all Vertebrates (and even believed to be present in some Ancestral Chordates). These Pharyngeal pouches develop into different structures (i.e. Larynx, Gills) in various Vertebrate Embryos. This was not discovered by Haeckel but the German Biologist Martin Heinrich Rathke.
Scienceandorigins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scienceandorigins HOX genes have only been proven to create monstrosities and has no examples of beneficial mutation from this. its only copying and rearanging the blueprints for appendages heads and censory organ making a hideous mutation every time.
samster817 5 months ago
Dude I really like your informative videos. Thanks for sharing.
JustCommonMan 7 months ago
at 1:39...... Haeckel's Embryos? same beginning, different paths...
prototypo 7 months ago
Love the clips, was sad when I reached the last.
hatrecopter89 9 months ago
i have one question..................why have some reptiles then evolved whilst the others we left behind..................evolution=bullshit
hilariousbollywood 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood Other reptiles did evolve, simply in different ways. Different groups of a species adapted to a different environment and had different mutations. Todays reptiles are not the same as the ancestors they share with mammals. We didn't evolve from geckos, both humans and geckos evolved from a very distant common ancestor. Just like how we didn't evolve from monkeys, we simply share a common ancestor.
GnarlyNewEngland 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood
Explain that statement a little more. Your saying why were there different evolutionary paths? "Thats like saying if americans came from england why is there still people in england?" Your not getting the grasp of speciation.
venokthedemon 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood
Heres an Idea of speciation. We have a litter of dogs just 2 though a sister and brother They are of medium size and have a black fur color. The sister and brother pick different mates (of coarse) in an attempt to make god cry they have puppies. The brothers children keep many to all of the traits with black fur an medium size. While the sister children are slightly bigger than herself and have a white fur color.
venokthedemon 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood
Both families live in a hot environment. The white fur color is preffered because it will deflect all of the color wave lengths and make the dogs cooler than if they were any other color, While the black fur color is the worst choice because it absorbs all waves of color. The brother family still continues on With the black fur color medium size. The sister family though over many generations become larger and develop a higher bone dencity.
venokthedemon 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood
Both the sisters and brother family continue for over 100 Generations. By the end they might have a canine form but they have so many genetic differences they incompatable and can't breed with each other anymore. Thats what we call speciation, or "evolution". Thats why over the years we still have wolves despite the fact dogs descent from them. Thats why they were able to relate the giant panda with the african wild dog. Long term speciation.
venokthedemon 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood
And because a trait is preferred in an environment rather than another trait it doesn't mean the trait will continue it just means that the species that has this trait is more likely to succeeed. The white fur is better than black fur in the heat but both species continue on.
venokthedemon 9 months ago
@hilariousbollywood Mmmm, let me see... GEOGRAPHICAL ISOLATION? THE SEA?? Do you know about the sea? Idiot.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
Want to see the impact of mutations? Take a look here in Youtube. Here is the fairy tale of evolution in action...search for
Deformed, Mutated, Genetically Modified Animals Part 1!
achilles197474 10 months ago
@revangelst And I would further suggest that to interpret the Bible literally, you have to ignore a lot of (most?) modern historical, geological, biological, and cosmological scholarship.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@revangelst And what of the use of different names for God?
It reminds me of trying to make the various Zelda games fit in some chronological order, if that means anything to you.
At the very least, you have no more support for your interpretation than I do for mine.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
A god who needs to rest is no god at all. A god who loves is subjective; therefore, not objective and not a true god.
Genetics has PROVEN evolution to be fact. Don Exodus, here, has offered detailed explanations of the facts.
Puting creation at odds with evolution is childish but a very religious thing to do.
kempion 10 months ago
even if we assume that evolution is true, why would embyos repeat all his evolutionary history??
if whales and humans have some morphological similarities, why wouldn´t their embyos be similar too??
If we came from reptiles, why shouldn´t human embryos develope scales?
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 I'm not sure if humans ever have scales, but some rodents have scale-like tissues on their tails. Chickens can also develop teeth. See the last video in the series.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas
but, why would embryos pass to different evolutionary states in the first place? only some birds develope teeth (not all of them) why?? after all, all birds where suppose to evolved from reptiles with teeth. to be honest I don´t even understand the argument.
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Only some birds develop teeth because the genes for teeth aren't usually expressed anymore. Birds are a relatively recent form of dinosaur, which originally had teeth, so it's not surprising that the genes for teeth are still hanging around -- they just don't normally get used. Mutations can make the teeth reappear.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas
but, why would embryos repeat their evolutionary history during their development?
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1
It's not so much that they repeat their evolutionary history. It's more like this: the species already has a developmental pathway. As the species evolves, the already-extant developmental pathway gets added onto. So, for example, mammals go through a developmental pathway that's like a reptile's -- because the genes for that pathway are still there -- before they start developing more like a mammal. Evolution adds onto or changes what already exists.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas
so mammal and reptile embryos are similar simply because both have genetic and morfological similarities right?
So it can be said that embrology confirmes what we already know ´´mammals and reptiles share common stuff´´
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Not exactly. Bats and birds share similar morphological features, but bat embryos don't pass through a "bird-like" stage of development, because bats aren't evolved from birds.
Incidentally, in Darwin's time, we didn't know that mammals and reptiles shared "common stuff", because we had no understanding of genetics.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos. It provides evidence for the fact that species change gradually over time.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1 As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos. It provides evidence for the fact that species change gradually over time.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1
As to the embryos -- basically, organisms generally keep much of the developmental pathway from earlier evolutionary forms. That's why we have tails and gill slits as embryos. It's why wales have legs and teeth as embryos. It's why birds, which have three-digit wings, have five digits as embryos.
Evolution doesn't create creatures out of thin air -- it works with what it has. If an organism already has a developmental pathway, why reinvent the wheel?
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
I'm flabbergasted anyone can even suggest evolution is true and there is no God, much less pour all the "verbiage" into trying to substantiate it. The Bible speaks the truth when it says in Psalms 53:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." I fully expect vulgarity and tantrums for having posted this. How sad humanity has gotten so debased,
revangelist 10 months ago
@revangelist There's no reason why evolution and God can't exist at the same time.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas I can think of one reason: it's an insult to God. The Bible, which is His Words, says He did it in 6 days and rested the 7th. The proof for evolution (other than changes within a kind) is no where to be found.
revangelist 10 months ago
@revangelist I've never understood this line of reasoning. The Genesis account hasn't generally been taken literally since at least Hellenic times. When you read the Bible, you have to interpret it, or else you wouldn't even be able to translate the words into concepts. So what makes metaphor or poetry impossible?
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas The Bible is a literal book. The creation account is literal. There is nothing in the wording that would indicate otherwise. Context has always been the deciding factor of any writing whether it should be taken literal or metaphorically. Genesis contains an account from creation through Joseph (which includes the flood of Noah, also factual). The prophetic passages do use metaphoric terms and the context is clear when it does.
revangelist 10 months ago
@revangelist There is the fact that the Genesis creation story is made up of two different creation accounts from two different sources.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
@coltharpnicholas Not so-here's a partial answer in 2 parts
Pt 1: * Chapter 1 tells entire story in the order it happened. * Genesis 2:4-6 gives a summary of the first five days of creation. (cont.)
revangelist 10 months ago
Respond to this video...Pt2: * Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in Eden * The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The 2nd creation of trees was still on day 6 - was only those trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”
revangelist 10 months ago
@revangelist
"The Bible is a literal book."
I guess maybe if you don't know any better it could be. But we know better than that. Heck, most Christians don't even take the bible to be a literal book.
biscuithammer00 10 months ago
@biscuithammer00 Who's "we"? No one part of the "we" crowd, if they agree with you, knows "better". You just don't believe. That's just the way it is.
revangelist 10 months ago
@revangelist
Uh, no. Most educated people, theist or atheist, know that the bible isn't a literal book. Most theists accept that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, they just think that god uses evolution. I personally don't buy that, I think that evolution is sufficient to disprove god.
biscuithammer00 10 months ago
You continue to give misinformation, & false information. I did not say that the Lord Jesus Christ wrote Proverbs but that He inspired Solomon & others to write the book of Proverbs & all Holy Scripture (2Tim3:16; 2Pet 1:20-21), & therefore because He is God (Jn 1:1), it is His Word (Matt4:4). You have given false information concerning the history of Christianity beginning with Constantine, & other areas. Please refute these lies, & repent & trust the Lord Jesus to be saved from hell(Jn3:16).
idm2008 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is hard to believe that anyone would teach that people are descended from fish. Only goes to show...you really can't fix stupid. Similarity proves similarity, not relationship. Geez....
achilles197474 10 months ago
Sir, please correct your lies and misinformation and I will answer your question?
idm2008 10 months ago
Can somebody please explain all the changes on a DNA level, whats happening to the DNA as all these changes are taking place?
You have a string of DNA, and then you have to insert the correct genes in the correct place, for the change to take place. How does this happen without screwing up the entire string?
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
How does nature know to make these changes?
GrotesqueKevin 11 months ago
The Earth is flat, just look out your window and tell me if the ground looks flat or round. And ofcourse a banana fits perfectly in my hand. Evolution disproved. lol. You are causing creationists to damage their inner ears and Otolaryngologists everywhere are thanking you. Listen, you can hear them....Lalalalalalala. Nice vids btw.
ShaggyShagz13 1 year ago
Principles of evolution include difference, overpopulation, competition etc., etc.
Theories of evolution include Lamarckian evolution, natural selection, neo-darwinism etc.
can someone or everyone help me get all/some of the theories and principles please.
hopkin104 1 year ago
@hopkin104 Lamarkian is debunked, yet that doesn't stop people from using as a legitimate answer to tricky questions for evolution
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 well please help me out with the others.
hopkin104 1 year ago
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...(Rom1:20-22) Evolution is a lie,not science.Escape hell repent & trust Jesus(Jn3:16).
idm2008 1 year ago
@idm2008 We all have access to bibles, if you're gonna argue with evolutionists at least write your own arguments. We're all familiar with the manipulative texts contained in that ridiculous ancient book.
virtuosoikingpin 1 year ago
Your argument is unreasonable, & hypocritical.The Bible is not manipulative texts, but the Word of God that is 100% true without any error or contradiction written by "... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"(2Pet1:21). Evolutionist do not use their own arguments but quote from other sources that prove not to be science, but man's false theories , & lies that leads them away from the truth of Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, & tragically directs them to hell(Prov14:12).
idm2008 1 year ago
@idm2008 You obviously can't comprehend the material in the videos. I really don't blame you for not believing the proof when, to be able to understand it, your intelligence would need to be much higher than it is currently. Just don't vote please, and don't have children.
virtuosoikingpin 1 year ago
Friend it is common for evolutionists to attack the person rather than having a resonable argurment and dealing with the issue. The reason you attack me personally is because you have no sound, reasonable arguement for evolution because it not science, but a complete lie that attempts to attack the truth of Bible which science agrees with because God made it (Gen1:31; Jn1:3). Science is testable, observable, repeatable. Evolution (referring to so called macro evolution not adaptation)...
idm2008 1 year ago
@idm2008 Can you explain what you mean by "macro evolution"?
stoicsquirrel 1 year ago
...has never been observed, and therefore cannot be tested or repeated because it never exitsted.Therefore it is clearly not a science but a complete & utter lie produced by Satan in order to damn precious souls to hell by rejecting the truth of the Bible which is 100% true, and thus rejecting the only way of salvation and escape from hell found only in the Saviour of the world, God in flesh(Jn1:1,14, 1Tim3:16)Lord Jesus Christ(Jn14:6:Acts4:12). However science agrees with the Bible(Gen1:1-31).
idm2008 1 year ago
@idm2008 I call troll
virtuosoikingpin 1 year ago
@idm2008
Funny how SO MANY passages in the Bible read like a mantra endlessly repeating, "yes, yes, yes, THIS IS the one and only word of the one and only God, and if you turn away from us, Bad Things will happen to you!"
Exactly what one would expect from priests trying to consolidate their hold on their ignorant flock of sheep.
mosquitobight 1 year ago
@virtuosoikingpin Touché!
Xenophile665 11 months ago
@idm2008 "Bible is ... 100% true without any error or contradiction." Really? Who tempted David to number Israel and Judah?
Xenophile665 11 months ago
Friend the Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction (Jn17:17;2Tim3:16-17). It is clear that Satan tempted David to number Israel (1Cor21:1), & it is also clear that God Almighty allowed Satan to do so (2Sam24:1). God did not tempt Him to sin because the Bible says, " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"(Jam1:13). Therefore, there is no contradiction at all, & the Bible is 100% true (Jn17:17).
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 Neither John nor Timothy define your bible as "god's word" or "all scripture," since the entire bible did not exist at the times those books were written. 2Sam 24:1, says, clearly, that "the LORD incited David." Also, 1 Corinthians has only 16 chapters, so 21:1 does not exist. Looks like you flubbed it.
Xenophile665 11 months ago
Friend it is clear that I intended to quote 1Chr21:1 in reference to the context of our discussion, & not 1Cor21:1 which of course does not exist. By you being ungracious in your pointing out of this clear honest mistake only demonstrates your complete utter hatred of Biblical Christianity, & the truth of the gospel. You pervert the scriptures to your own destruction (2Pet3:16). This is tragic & I pray that you will repent & trust the Lord Jesus to escape hell before it is too late(Heb9:27)...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 It would've been clear if you'd typed 1Chr21:1 instead, don't you think? Besides, there's the contradiction: one verse says the Lord provoked David, one says Satan did. Therefore, imperfect bible. Q.E.D.
I don't hate Christianity, bubie - I hate dogmatic pulpit-pounders who claim to know the will of some unproven deity. Then they have the nerve tell ME how I'm supposed to live my life because they "know" what "Gawd" wants me to do. He can tell me himself, can't he?
Xenophile665 11 months ago
@idm2008 Your logic: "The Bible says it's true - therefore, it's true."
Same logic, different book: "The Quran says it's true - therefore, it's true."
Since the Quran says, "Those who believe that God has a son must be admonished, since this is a monstrous BLASPHEMY and FALSEHOOD (18:4-6)," and since your logic (used above) proves the Quran is true, then believing god has a son, is a lie. Liars go to hell. Therefore, you are going to Hell. Q.E.D.
(See how tangled your logic can be?)
Xenophile665 11 months ago
...Apostle John said under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in 1John2:14 clearly mentions the "word of God" abiding in the true born again believer. Your argument is ridiculous & unreasonable. The Bible is true not because I said it is true but because of the clear evidence of history (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, etc.), Archaeology(walls of Jericho, etc.), eyewitness accounts(1Cor15:1-7), most importantly the fulfillment of Bible Prophecy (Micah 5:2; Matt2:1;etc)...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 Yes, I've heard that too. Accuracy of geography in the bible does not validate the theology. As for fulfillment of prophecy, that's more circular logic. None of the writers saw Jesus alive after death. Not Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny. And none of the alleged "witnesses" left a word about seeing him either. And no historian records risen dead people at the time. Your bible was not written by those whose names are on the books, except some of Paul's.
Xenophile665 11 months ago
...friend your comments are not only ridculous & unreasonable but they are clearly ignorant of the facts, & again demonstrates your clear hatred of the truth of Biblical Christianity (John 17:17). The Apostle John, Paul, & Matthew along with others clearly witnessed the Lord Jesus Christ alive from the dead (John20:1-31;Acts1:1-3;Acts9:1-20;1Cor15:1-11). You clearly have responded without doing your proper research, but continue to make false statements & lies...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 My comments show that I read more than just apologists' writings. Your comments show that your mind is closed to the possibility that you are deluded. I don't blame you. It's tough to live a lie all your life, and then finally have to face it.
Again: None of those historians saw Jesus; none of the writers of the New Testament did either. Read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009).
Xenophile665 11 months ago
You statment is clearly false and uneducated and even skeptics would clearly disagree with you. The writers of the NT clearly claim to have seen the Lord Jesus Christ alive from the dead from the scriptures (John 20:1-21;1Cor15:1-11). The NT was completed in the first century AD, and the Biblical record clearly teaches that they saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ (1Cor15:1-11). A court of law would not ignore eye witness accounts yet you do. This is tragic...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 John did not write the gospel of John, nor the epistles of John. Paul could not have seen Jesus since he add already ascended to heaven. Read Ehrman.
Xenophile665 11 months ago
@idm2008 Where did anyone in the New Testament say that belief in the theory of evolution will condemn a person to hell?
Xenophile665 11 months ago
Friend the Bible says,"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev21:8), "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie"(Rev22:15). Evolution is a lie, & all liars & those that love lies will go to hell unless they repent(Lk3:13).
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 You stated earlier that 1Cor21:1 maded it "clear that Satan tempted David to number Israel." 1 Corinthians has only 16 chapters. You lied. Therefore, you have your "part in the lake which burns" also. Q.E.D. (I'll save you some sun block.)
Xenophile665 11 months ago
...We must "... rightly..." divide " ...the word of truth"(2Tim2:15), & therefore 2 Samuel 24:1 must be understood in light of all scripture specifically 1Chr21:1, which clearly teaches that Satan "provoked David," while 2 Samuel 24:1 teaches that the LORD "moved David." The word "moved" & the word "provoked" are translated from the same Hebrew word "cuwth" which means to seduce or entice. We know that God cannot & does not entice man to sin(Jam1:13-14), & that Satan is...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 So because you claim it's a holy, infallible book, it is. Right? Are you more sincere than a Muslim who believes his Quran is right? If so, how can you prove it?
Xenophile665 11 months ago
...the "tempter"(Matt4:3), therefore it is clear that the LORD allowed Satan to seduce David in 2 Samuel 24:1 & in 1Chr21:1). Therefore there is absolutely no error or contradiction in the Bible at all. The Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction(Jn17:17). Say that John or the Book of Timothy does not define the Bible as God's Word or all scripture this is absolutely false. 1 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." & the...
idm2008 11 months ago
@idm2008 Again, circular logic: "The bible is true, because verses in it say it's true." Pathetic. The Quran and the Book of Mormon do the same. That is NOT proof, it's not even evidence. Where's your proof, amigo?
Xenophile665 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... all living things to produce ..."after his kind"(Gn 1:24). Everday we test, observe,and repeatedly witness dogs make dogs, cats make cats, people make people, birds make birds,bees make bees, just like the Bible teaches.Therefore science agrees with the Bible but rejects the theory of evolution as a deceptive lie.Friends believe the Bible, repent of your sin (Lk 13:3), & receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Saviour by faith alone to escape hell before it is too late(Jn3:16)
idm2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Friends this video is teaching nothing but complete lies that is not science at all, but only demonstrates a complete hatred for the truth of Biblical Christianity, and its purpose is to damn multitudes of precious soul to an eternity in hell (1Tim6:20;1Pet5:8). The Bible is 100% true without any error or contradiction (Jn 17:17) by the evidence of history(Tacitus, Josephus, etc), archeology , & Bible Prophecy(Micah 5:2; Lk2:11-14,etc.). Evolution is not a science...
idm2008 1 year ago
@idm2008 You want to make my head explode from anger....Just know that your comment is scorned..ridiculed ect. for being ridiculous and ignorant.
virtuosoikingpin 1 year ago
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16).
idm2008 1 year ago