Evolution is a scientific fact. Why is it that we can construct concurring phylogenetic trees? Why is it that genetic similarity can be used to build a heirarchy? Why is it that we find gradually changing transitional forms in the fossil record?
"Searching for "Evolutionists" who will defend their position"??? The fact that you're using the term "evolutionist" tells me about all I need to know but, OK. Where do I start defending? More importantly, why would I need to. The evidence is all out there and all you have to is open your eyes and look.
@MrMZaccone Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
"Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction."
Fine...so you have no problem accepting that simple trigonometry and parallax tells you that Andromeda as our nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away.... thats real science... and you can demonstrate the math to yourself with no pencil, no paper... just with your eyes and your finger!
2.5 million light years is 2.5 million years... please explain this 'real science'.....
When did I say I hated animals, plants, and/or inanimate objects? I love animals, and my father is a botanist. I've raised 4 dogs throughout my lifetime and each of them have been sweet and loving. I'm typing you this message next to a bamboo plant.
Also, what does inanimate objects have to do with anything? Hatred of non-living (in-animate) objects is just fine. I hate missiles, cabbage patch kids, and garbage. Does this give you some idea of why your argument is retarded?
Judging by your numerous grammatical errors and poor logic, as well as an your obvious winnowing of sources, you're clearly as benighted as you are stupid. Your counter argument is shameful to innate reason of the human species. I urge you to let go of your ideas. I assume you're either inbred to think in the way you do, or you're weak and gullible. You're still a human being, so obviously I don't hate you, I just think that your ideas suck and I'd like to see them change.
@GiveMeClarity "You're still a human being, so obviously I don't hate you..."
Huh? Obviously? So you only hate animals, plants, and/or inanimate objects...or you just don't hate at all, in which case you're not human. Fascinating.
Just because there's still things we don't understand, it doesn't mean those things prove your iron age ideas to be correct. In fact it proves the opposite... no one actually knows the inner workings of genetics and how exactly the human species came to be. This poses a problem, and human kind pursues this problem with everyone's favorite lie detector... SCIENCE.
@GiveMeClarity All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
@BereanBeacon1 Or you could opt for one of the little science prizes. Like the X prize for example. It doesn't ask you to prove things that are total crap which nobody states to begin with (a safe bet for a prize fund)
No it asks you to build a spacecraft that travels several times in and out of orbit. Prize fund $10 million.
Ohh wait that was actually already won, 7 years ago! Total investment in the X prize AFTER it was won $1 billion. So $10k ...meh!
Now that all happened between 1996 to 2004 (X prize won) - 8 years. Virgin Atlantic are now considering it commercially.
So now Craig Venter has put up $10 million to entice invention of advancement in genomics.
"The $10 million Archon Genomics X PRIZE will be awarded to the first team that can build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less"
In ten years time you'll have a USB gene sequencer in the stores for $149.95 with software. So CLUCK that!
Awsome a man who was brainwashed by the evolution Fairytale all through school finds the truth that God Created Everything. If you want the truth read Gods living word the Bible. If you are interested in learning some more real Science check out my Favorited videos.
@coolvideo28 All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
@5tonyvvvv The left handed versions of proteins are marginally more stable, allowing for a chemical evolution of sorts. This explanation has been around for a few years now, try to keep up will ya? It's really a pain in the ass to try to debate and educate you at the same time. Oh, and RNA has been formed in the lab so, get over that one too.
@MrMZaccone These laboratory reactions involve strict control over temperature, pH, and concentration and ratio of reactants. Scientists select energy sources and conditions that promote prebiotic reactions, but avoid destruction of chemical products once they form UNREALISTIC conditions for primordial Earth.
The copying of these compounds would never occur on a primordial earth
@MrMZaccone These problems are so severe that the late Leslie Orgel actually commented that "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth."
And Leslie Orgel is an atheist scientist..
Its a strawman because it points to intelligence.not time and chance
@5tonyvvvv You're a moron. NO! Leslie Orgel WAS an atheist scientists who championed the Panspermia theory and DIED before the lab creation of RNA occurred. He died in 2007 and the lab creation of RNA was in 2009. Orgel also said "evolution is smarter than you are" and he was right. Apparently it's also smarter than he was.
@MrMZaccone You read my comment wrong moron, I know Leslie Orgel was an atheist he gave up on abiogenesis, jack szostak has taken over..his experiments are ridiculous and laughable..and would never occur on a primordial earth, all scientists do is copy and borrow information under controlled experiments, and say look we created self replicating molecules, what bullshit!
@5tonyvvvv Yeah thats clearly why Jack Szostak won the Nobel prize for Medicine...clearly he's an idiot... not as bright as you obviously.
Y'know when everyone thats brighter than you and has more information is considered by you to be 'laughable' and 'ridiculous' then you have removed yourself from the debate voluntarily!
As it turns out I'm in a similar field myself....self replication is a pretty well documented process...it has been for some time. FYI this is 2011...not 1911 or 1811!
In the corner of one of the labs in my department is a machine that emits radiation... beta, gamma and alpha particles... its not a closely guarded thing... but expensive and could prove dangerous to someone if they sat their ass on it all day...
Do you know what we use it for? have a guess... go on.... [stick tongue in cheek and smirks]
I'll give you a clue... you won't like the answer...so it'll be the last one on your list..So think of the one thing you don't want it to do!
@MumblingMickey Who said it was 1811 0r 1911 ??? you jackass. Did I say jack Szostak was stupid?..I said the conditions of his experiments are ridiculous and have nothing to do with origin of life experiments!!!..and there are plenty of PhD chemists that believe in God!!
@5tonyvvvv "I said the conditions of his experiments are ridiculous and have nothing to do with origin of life experiments!!"
As I said this is probably why he won the Nobel prize for medicine then? I'm sure there are lots of scientists worldwide that have beliefs in Gods.
The general population have a 80% belief. The minute you start looking at people with the letters P H and D after their name that belief plummets.. If you look at Nobel laureates its like finding a needle in a haystack!
@5tonyvvvv Anyway.... erm... any idea what that machine is for... here I'll give you another clue... in 2005 the NAS wrore an integration development plan for biotech and nano tech research.... its entitled "Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative"
It job is to consider the ethical considerations of research in nano technology and biotech chemistry..
So that machine is there to adhere to the NIINAS documents recommendations. Go on..have a guess why its there?
@MumblingMickey Yes, but he has conducted origin of life experiments, but he always has the same Homochirality problem!!..Where is digital code and information coming from?.amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER!!!!..and even if they did, you would never have usable information!!
@5tonyvvvv What experiments could be done on something there is not data for? The only thing that can be done there is to demonstrate that X happen... which has been done. Now that does not mean this is how it happened... only that this is one way it can happen! There are many others.
"amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER"
No they don't... theres no chance involved... which is why yet again I point you to my original question.
@MumblingMickey Homochirality has not been solved, as far as RNA forming and peptides this is a joke, highly trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment including temperature and borrowing and coping information is not solving anything. Along with synthesizing machines and activated bases and Templates, I would say this is far from creating life from chemicals. Iam sure you will disagree..
@5tonyvvvv Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Previously creationists argued this was impossible. After its shown possible you argue its unlikely. When its demonstrated to be not only likely but unavoidable you argue what? that its a product of 'highly trained chemists'... where to next?
"I would say this is far from creating life from chemicals"
Yet again I draw you attention to the machine in the corner of my lab. Go on... guess what its used for?!?!?
@5tonyvvvv You absolutely aren't going to ask what its for are you?
Here let me give you another clue. I'm an nano-technologist. We are required by law, international treaty and by OECD rules to have at least one of these machines available at all times. We have used it several times.
Go on...have a guess what it does.any old guess.
The reason I harp on about this is because the machines use and purpose explains 100% why you are spouting absolute bullshit.
@MumblingMickey Your not answering anything Dummy!!.. your just assuming this would happen on a primordial earth through undirected natural processes!!
We use that machine to destroy self replicating structures. Since evolution is a process not confined to biological life replicating polymers 'if' introduced into the environment would start to evolve naturally. The machine bombards them with high levels of radiation destroying them.
Self assembly and replication are an absolute fact. $4 billion every year is spent proving that!
CONT. Father is was a fact even 40 years ago... demonstrated mathematically... later theoretically by people like me...and now 'actually' and 'demonstrably' hence all the investment. Unless you think $4 billion PA of investment falls out of the fucking sky on hopes and dreams?
You'll get to try explain all that away in about 5 years time... good luck with that!
"amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER!!!!"
L-α-Amino acids and D-α-amino acids, mediated by phosphorus pentachloride do assemble into polypeptides. DL-α-amino acids do too but its problematic...β-amino acids and α-Amino acids do not assemble into polypeptides or polymers with any tested catalyst so far.
Its not a chance event, its chemistry. This also falls under the NIINAS documentation. Which brings me back to that machine. Any ideas?
@MumblingMickey Clearly you have no clue what your talking about, homochirality has never been solved bone head!..and controlled laboratory conditions are not plausible on a primordial earth!.. you talk a lot of crap..take your assumptions and indoctrinated dummies like you!!
@5tonyvvvv I'm a bone head WORKING in the field that you claim is a waste of my time...and I have been doing that for 23 fucking years you dolt! If you had bothered you lazy fucking ass to take a look at my channel you'd see pretty clearly that chemistry and physics are not just a fucking reading hobby of mine!
Indoctinated? fucking indoctrinated the irony of that does not go unnoticed!
Careful now or I'll smash your fucking world by telling you WHAT that little machine is used for!
@MumblingMickey Ok, than lets see a protocell??? from basic chemicals that were on a primordial earth?? Let me guess the conditions will never be right to produce one..lets see a living cell form? why do we only see life from life? You have faith abiogenesis happened!!.. lets see amino acids organize them selves with order and information ???? and keep ignoring homochirality Dummy!!!!!!
@5tonyvvvv "Ok, than lets see a protocell? from basic chemicals that were on a primordial earth? "
What are you fucking talking about. You may as well be arguing wheels don't roll.
No doubt when products appear in the stores there will be some crazy fucking excuse from the creationist idiots, .but to be honest I couldn't give a fuck. Be deluded if you want to be you are 100% wrong cos to me evolution is the fucking enemy I'm obliged to try avoid and nobody has given me the tools to do that!
@MumblingMickey Look at your own words Dummy "we used machines and spent 4 billion dollars" that proves that it could never happen by chance through natural undirected processes.LOL,,HAHAHA..Your so STUBBORN!!!!! yeah borrowing and copying information is creating using machines..LOL
@5tonyvvvv 4 billion Per annum, thats only in nanotech. All to demonstrate replication can be developed into products.
Nobody assumed anything other than it was entirely possible. Except you and your creationist retards that is. Sucking up air and trying to stop progress. Fucking up education and insisting we'd all be better banging rocks together for fire! And all the time producing nothing whatsoever but strife.
Now as you might have gathered you are fucking miles out of your depth!
@5tonyvvvv "that proves that it could never happen by chance "
Look at what you said...we fashioned wheels using machines... that proves that things don't roll by chance through undirected processes!
Says he standing at the bottom of a hill while a boulder rolls towards him.
Chemistry is what makes this happen, its inevitable.
Three times I told you this has nothing to do with probability. All boulders will roll down a hill, not some of them under special circumstances...ALL of them.
@5tonyvvvv The most stupid thing here is you are actually still arguing its impossible.
Then you go on to insist...yes but you guys made it happen.
No we didn't we observed it happening. Just as the first person to see a boulder roiling down a hill realised round things roll! The boulder does not roll by chance...gravity makes it roll. A wheel is just a modified boulder and the inverter of the wheel did not invent rolling.
Next you'll be insisting rainbows are made by god!
@5tonyvvvv y'know what the really funny thing here is? You'll actually get to see products based on thison the shelves. It will be explained to you then as I am explaining now (But you are too fucking deluded with head slapping god love to listen) That this is a natural process.
Physicists don't MAKE it happen, its a process. In the future using this technology you'll still be too fucking deluded to understand its just humans copying nature.
Every invention is humans copying or using nature!
@5tonyvvvv I've seen non biological structures... full polymers self assemble from basic chemical compounds ... they are certainly not living when they start out... and they do self assemble.
I've also seen polymers replicate themselves... both biological and non biological.... and they do so from simple chemistry... its a perfectly natural process.
In fact I'm constrained by international law in that respect since all such structures must be destroyed.
@MumblingMickey In CONTROLLED LABORATORY CONDITIONS!!!!!.. where you are controlling every step of the experiment!!!!!..Wow!!! you people are so stubborn its amazing!! These reactions take place because you make them happen!!!..LOL..natural processes never do this, everything in nature is leading towards breaking down!!!..the same way stanley miller used a trap to collect his amino acids..None of this would ever happen on primordial earth!!!!!
@5tonyvvvv Is observed to be a process under laboratory conditions... So for example Oppenheimer did not INVENT nuclear fission... he observed it to be possible and harnessed it! And he done so under labaratory conditions...
But if you look up at the sun you will see for yourself that that process existed BEFORE Oppenheimer.
Physicists don't create the laws of the nature. We only observe them! We can't MAKE two particles bond ... regardless of what conditions we apply. Chemistry dictates that.
If it is actually impossible for living things to not be capable of being formed from non living things...then what are you arguing about...clearly many billions are being wasted every year demonstrating this!
Its not your money anyway...its mostly private investment... So all these investors and the literally millions of biologists, physicists and engineers involved in the field are all wrong...and you are right.
@5tonyvvvv "In CONTROLLED LABORATORY CONDITIONS!!!!!.. where you are controlling every step of the experiment!!!!!."
~Sorry no, you are confused here. Physicists cannot control every step of any experiment... we cannot MAKE things form compounds, We cannot make things form replicating structures...nor can we MAKE them self assemble... we can only observe what does and what does not do those things.
Science does not know everything...if it did ...it would stop!
@MumblingMickey Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@5tonyvvvv actually, there are certain things that are leading towards "order". Molecules and atoms try to find the lowest possible energy states because they are stable, thus resulting in the formation of ionic and covalent bondings in basic molecules. Just look at how coal is formed through the immense pressure without human intervention. Energy is given out when bonds in between molecules are formed...But these molecules are more complex than their constituents.
@swisscatochi Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@5tonyvvvv You need to define what you consider 'alive' or 'living'
Viruses for example are not alive... they are biological thats for sure. They do replicate that too is observed, they can move from A to B... They also change structure from parent to offspring during replication...but they do not have metabolic features...thus they are not considered to be alive.
The same is true of nano structures... they are not classified as 'alive' because they have no metabolic properties.
@5tonyvvvv So if I take a lab mouse and overdose it on adrenalin and it dies...is it still 'alive'? Well its certainly still a full biological organism... its brain may not be functioning...but thats okay lots of things have no brain or nervous system to begin with, but are alive. Why is it now considered to no longer be 'alive'?
Many of the cells in its body are still alive...they are dying but some can still reproduce themselves... and will until they run out of resources and energy.
Darwin knew fuck all about generics... And Dawkins is mostly a dickhead although I'll certainly listen to him when he comments on biology...since he is qualified to make statements on biology...but not on sociology.
"Natural processes don't produce life from non life!!!!"
When you define what you consider to be 'alive' then you might better be able to answer that restructure that statement so that it makes some kind of sense! Until then you have no clue!
@5tonyvvvv And lastly you have no clue what Darwinian evolution states. We've moved on from that since it was penned over 150 years ago. We now call the entire thing 'Genomics'. The study of how living things are living things and how since we know how they came to be...how we can use that information to create NEW things which are not prone to evolution.
Thats the difficult bit, we can build such structures but processes like evolution will fuck it up for us! Hence all the legislation.
@MrMZaccone I would not go as far as to call them precursors.You are forgetting DNA oligonucleotides, and all of this is being conducted at just the right temperatures ..which would never occur on a primordial earth..these experiments are carefully controlled ..these reactions would NEVER occur on an early earth.
@MrMZaccone "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.
@MrMZaccone homochirality has not been solved moron..there are plenty assumptions..being passed off as fact. thats what you atheist morons want to believe.. A better hypothesis, no not hypothesis..its the answer..a mind created life not a time chance process..an Intelligence.
@MrMZaccone If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
@MrMZaccone Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
@MrMZaccone This RNA is made from borrowed preexisting information...just to get it started ..nothing is being created in test tubes ..more like plagiarizing what an intelligence did in the first place, dummy..
The RNA world doesn't explain the origin of genetic information
Even if a system of ribozymes to build proteins had arisen from an RNA replicator, a complex informational template would still be needed. In other words, genetic information is still necessary.
@MrMZaccone The theory of natural selection indicates there is no direction the molecule is working toward (hence, un directed), so there would be no feedback because it would not be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself...IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
@5tonyvvvv What? you are saying that things that already happened are no indication of future events.... erm.... thats bollox!
Natural selection has nothing to do with molecules.. its to do with alterations over time in relation to an environment... that happens with living things... but also with many other things... ideas for example are an example...their environment changes and so do ideas.
They pass from one generation to another, react to change, or die out. Thats natural selection.
@MumblingMickey "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
@MumblingMickey Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@MumblingMickey Abiogenesis and evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists.
@MrMZaccone Y'know with idiots like this knocking about...one day soon we'll not only be able to screen for diseases but also for intellect... when that happens this morons offspring need to be consigned before they gestate to the hospital incinerator!
@MrMZaccone hmm... the problem is that humans can't ALL be bright to continue to run society there simply must be total idiots and they have to be the majority.
Thankfully most of them don't realise that.
But with technology advancing at breakneck speed they will soon be in competition with machines. My guess is any kid born in the next 10 years who ends up uneducated won't survive to 30, we don't have the money or resources to feed them and nobody would be interested in making more of them.
@5tonyvvvv You're right all life is dead...we can clearly see that...theres nothing alive...cos its all impossible!
So all these guys spending billions on genomics are doing it for what reason? they like wasting money perhaps? maybe they are all stupid? certainly with all their phd's and IQ levels you couldn't attain if we added your entire family history together going back a century... clearly they must be mad....
Anyway this moron atheist thinks you are brain dead!
@coolvideo28 LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying...You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL..homochirality destroys abiogenesis and evolution
@5tonyvvvv I'm only going to ask one question. What's more likely, that some combination of chemical processes that we can't quite fully understand created life? or that your imaginary friend did it?
Come on even prominent ID supporters dont believe in ID. If they would really believe in their theory, they would try to tell allways the truth (to aho they are trustworthy) and try to defend their theory with real arguments. Instead they try to mislead people and openly lie to them. Why ? Becasue they know its their only option, since truth is not on their side
Didn't Darwin himself finally admit that there is a God, on his deathbed? And didn't George Carlin do the same? Two confirmed straight minded Athiest/Evolutionists! Or were they both delusional as some Athesists believe Christians are? HHHhhmmmmm....Interesting
@buitrami The story of Darwin's deathbed recantation was a lie told by a chistian. His daughter, who was with him when he died said the individual in question never visited as claimed. In any case, it would be irrelevant because of the 100+ years of science standing between us and Darwin's original observations. Evolution is an observed and observable fact and one of the most well supported theories in all of science. End of story.
Some versions of the BB theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
"If evolution changed apes into people..." (at 04.46) - oh dear, the level of this man's analysis (and perhaps of his understanding, too) is of the nursery school playground.
I cannot believe the ignorance I hear on this audio track. The only way this man could gain supporters is to be addressing a group as ignorant as himself. These people don't have the curiosity to even try and discover any truth about evolutionary theory. They are simpleton followers of doctrine...the same type who would pick up a gun or a sword or even a chalice of poison and take it if only their leader were to command it of them. These people vote, and that is our worst concern.
You have a severe misunderstanding of the Theory of Information. Even if your statement was true it has no bearing on the validity of evolution. There is complete consensus on evolution among properly educated scientists (i.e. not Our Lady of Faith Diploma Factory) This is not being destroyed or dying out, in fact every every major biological discovery in history could not be more supportive of evolution.
Oh for crying out loud boy. Nobody lacks understanding of the evo jargon. I've studied every claim ever made by the god-denialist humanist naturalis idiots. It's time to become a realist before you pass from this world.
kyebean, I'd advise against trying to enlighten NephilimFree. You're dealing with a seriously deluded individual, who wouldn't recognise logic or reason if they picked up a bible and smacked him on the head with it.
If only he could just keep his disgustingly stupid opinions to himself. I think he must live under a nuclear power plant or something. Nobody is that deficient naturally. The only reason I even bother with these dimwits is because I believe there's plenty of ignorant and uneducated people out there that sadly enough might be convinced by their dishonest, deluded ideas.
Unfortunately Neph, you're stuck with Evolution, not for emperical reasons, but for logical ones. It's implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection.
You may argue that there are other processes involved. You may argue that evolution doesn't tell the whole story. However Evolution you cannot avoid.
Hardly. Evolutionism is dying. The majority of the world's population does not believe in it, and this number continues to grow. In 1850 almost nobody believed in it. By 1980 lots did because of the hard work to oindoctrinate in secular schools. Today, people are rejecting it. In 40 yrs, it will be the biggest joke in the history of the world and nobody will dare admit they believe it for fear of looking like a fool.
Nobody is going to take you by hand to a link in Google for "DNA Computing". All one has to do is google it and see you are wrong that DNA does not store and retrieve information using algorithms.
I'm not going to accept your ridiculous unwillingness to type 2 words and click. You've already learned what i have said is true.
Information and algorithms are products only of intelligence. Life is designed. It proves it itself.
Neph, its never been about laziness, it's about /your/ burden of proof. If you make a claim, you must substantiate it. Not doing so is a logical fallacy. Doesn't that occur to you every time you repeat that line? (Would you like me to explain why?)
BTW, I apologize that I still haven't finished a reply to your PM. It was an extremely long message you sent me, but I think I already responded to the more important points.
Hey Weed. That's his normal bullshit tactic of avoiding debate. And respect with Nephy isn't something that he gives, especially when you call him on his BS.
Tell me this. Untill the 19th century, nobody had ventured more than a few dozen feet deep into any ocean. In the 20th century, man developed diving bells and discovered much more. In the later half of the 20yth century, we have been able to take video cameras to the ocean floor.
How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors? By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist?
"Tell me this...- that's a fantastic way to dodge around what i just asked. but what i'd like to see is your evidence of DNA containing algorithims.
"How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors?" - easy it didnt, it provided a vague metaphore that idiots tried to relate to modern science.
"By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist? " - again, he didnt.
The Naochian Flood is irrefutable. It is a geologic fact that the Earth has been inundated. Neither creationists nor evolutionists argue that the Earth is covered with deep sediment (averaging over 1/2 mi.), but the evolutionist must apply imaginary time to avoid the truth and lie about the existance of God.
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
Recently, a huge asteroid cam close to Earth. Where is it now? Somewhere in the SS moving at the same speed it was moving before it approached the Earth. It has never been and can never be captured by the Earth. The approaching and exit velocities are the same. Once it leaves Earth's immediate gravitational pull, it will be moving at the same speed it was as it began it's approach. This is a scientific fact, empriical law of science proves it.
"This is a scientific fact, empriical law of science proves it."
Despite the fact that you will not reference any of your claims on such things as "This means they cannot be slowed down and captured by a planet. It is impossible." or "is not great enough to capture anything larger than a refrigerator."
This means they cannot be slowed down and captured by a planet. It is impossible. Evolutionists put this concept forth because they have noalternative. The only other possibility is that they were placesd where they are by God, and since they refuse to admit the obvious, they concoct all manner of ridiculous theories to explain away the conditions of the universe.
Now here's the kicker: The gravitational pull of planets is not great enough to capture anything larger than a refridgerator. it cannot happen. Approaching asteroids accellerate on approach and decellerate on exit. This is an equal and opposite reaction: physical law. This means their end velocity is the same as their start velocity. Thier speed does not change in the end. They keep going.
"the moons were captured by the planet they currently orbit"
If that were true, none of them would be spinning. Evos claim our moon does not spin because of capture, yet out moon is much larger than most of the moons in the SS.
Capture is impossible. If a moon were to pass close enough for "capture" it would pass and keep going because it would be moving at more than the escape velocity of the planet.
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
Scientific observations since 1829 (!) have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
Had the planets and sun come from the same mass, they all would have been spinning in the same direction. There are no 2 ways about it Denial of empirical law does nothing but illuminate evolutionist escapism. They do the same thing with Punctuated Equalibrium.
If you had actually bothered to watch the video you would understand that the moons were captured by the planet they currently orbit. Those moons are just large captured asteroids and after being slingshot around the solar system they ended up spinning the other way. Remember that the rotation isn't just determined by the sun by also other planets and bodies with in our solar system.
Did you know that our solar system also defies science? 9 moons in our solar system spin backwards from their planets in contradiction of the empirical scientific law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum! Venus rotates on it's side. So does Saturn. Saturn's rings should have been drawn in by gravity billions of yrs ago. etc. Yup. God surely did do it! Cosmology can't explain it, that's for sure! This illuminates the fact that secular theories do not conform to what is observed.
"9 moons in our solar system spin backwards from their planets in contradiction of the empirical scientific law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum!"
They are yound. If billions of years had passed, gravity would have drawn them into the planet. Furthermore, and this one will blow your mind, some of these rings are BRAIDED. THere is no possible mechanism in physics that can explain this. This completely defies evolutionist cosmology.
Evolutionism is not science. All claims of evolutionary change are assumptions conjhectured as if they were fact, and cannot be supported by science. Nothing about evolution is observable, testable, or repeatable. It hides in unimaginable expanses of time where the imagination can play games like, "I thoink so, therefore it did."
No sweaty. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
christianity : the belief that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force in your soul present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree.
how was that nasty? you think the truth sounds nasty? haha. as far as i can tell from looking at your comments and videos, you like to badmouth evolutionists and atheists yourself. not very christ-like of you. i think i should be allowed to speak however i want about something that doesn't exist though. i'll tell you what, if you prove god exists i'll shut up
Prove? How many things should i provide? I'll give just one. DNA uses algorithms to store and retrieve information. Both algorithms and information are products only of intelligence. This is empirical proof tat DNA, thus all life, is a product of supernatural intelligence.
Scientists use computers to simulate and attempt to decipher the algorithms used by DNA's support systems to store and retrieve information in the DNA molecule. This field of study is called "DNA Computing".
ok for starters DNA is what the algorithm is made up of secondly scientists are using it to make computers (DNA computing) this is making more useful than it otherwise would have been and basically giving the finger to God.
No, the algorithm is not made of DNA. DNA contains the algorithms. However you try to rationalize it, algorithms are a product only of intelligence. The same is true of information. This alone destreoys evolutionism. And that's how the cookie crumbles.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Why is it that we can construct concurring phylogenetic trees? Why is it that genetic similarity can be used to build a heirarchy? Why is it that we find gradually changing transitional forms in the fossil record?
TaslemGuy 6 months ago
The truth is, organisms evolve.
odinata 7 months ago
"Searching for "Evolutionists" who will defend their position"??? The fact that you're using the term "evolutionist" tells me about all I need to know but, OK. Where do I start defending? More importantly, why would I need to. The evidence is all out there and all you have to is open your eyes and look.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 So, explain the challenge. So far you've said nothing worth hearing.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Which would you take?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction."
Fine...so you have no problem accepting that simple trigonometry and parallax tells you that Andromeda as our nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away.... thats real science... and you can demonstrate the math to yourself with no pencil, no paper... just with your eyes and your finger!
2.5 million light years is 2.5 million years... please explain this 'real science'.....
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MaximusRelaximus
When did I say I hated animals, plants, and/or inanimate objects? I love animals, and my father is a botanist. I've raised 4 dogs throughout my lifetime and each of them have been sweet and loving. I'm typing you this message next to a bamboo plant.
Also, what does inanimate objects have to do with anything? Hatred of non-living (in-animate) objects is just fine. I hate missiles, cabbage patch kids, and garbage. Does this give you some idea of why your argument is retarded?
GiveMeClarity 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon
Judging by your numerous grammatical errors and poor logic, as well as an your obvious winnowing of sources, you're clearly as benighted as you are stupid. Your counter argument is shameful to innate reason of the human species. I urge you to let go of your ideas. I assume you're either inbred to think in the way you do, or you're weak and gullible. You're still a human being, so obviously I don't hate you, I just think that your ideas suck and I'd like to see them change.
GiveMeClarity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GiveMeClarity CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@GiveMeClarity "You're still a human being, so obviously I don't hate you..."
Huh? Obviously? So you only hate animals, plants, and/or inanimate objects...or you just don't hate at all, in which case you're not human. Fascinating.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
Just because there's still things we don't understand, it doesn't mean those things prove your iron age ideas to be correct. In fact it proves the opposite... no one actually knows the inner workings of genetics and how exactly the human species came to be. This poses a problem, and human kind pursues this problem with everyone's favorite lie detector... SCIENCE.
GiveMeClarity 1 year ago
@GiveMeClarity All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Or you could opt for one of the little science prizes. Like the X prize for example. It doesn't ask you to prove things that are total crap which nobody states to begin with (a safe bet for a prize fund)
No it asks you to build a spacecraft that travels several times in and out of orbit. Prize fund $10 million.
Ohh wait that was actually already won, 7 years ago! Total investment in the X prize AFTER it was won $1 billion. So $10k ...meh!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Now that all happened between 1996 to 2004 (X prize won) - 8 years. Virgin Atlantic are now considering it commercially.
So now Craig Venter has put up $10 million to entice invention of advancement in genomics.
"The $10 million Archon Genomics X PRIZE will be awarded to the first team that can build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less"
In ten years time you'll have a USB gene sequencer in the stores for $149.95 with software. So CLUCK that!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Awsome a man who was brainwashed by the evolution Fairytale all through school finds the truth that God Created Everything. If you want the truth read Gods living word the Bible. If you are interested in learning some more real Science check out my Favorited videos.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv The left handed versions of proteins are marginally more stable, allowing for a chemical evolution of sorts. This explanation has been around for a few years now, try to keep up will ya? It's really a pain in the ass to try to debate and educate you at the same time. Oh, and RNA has been formed in the lab so, get over that one too.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone These laboratory reactions involve strict control over temperature, pH, and concentration and ratio of reactants. Scientists select energy sources and conditions that promote prebiotic reactions, but avoid destruction of chemical products once they form UNREALISTIC conditions for primordial Earth.
The copying of these compounds would never occur on a primordial earth
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone These problems are so severe that the late Leslie Orgel actually commented that "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth."
And Leslie Orgel is an atheist scientist..
Its a strawman because it points to intelligence.not time and chance
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv You're a moron. NO! Leslie Orgel WAS an atheist scientists who championed the Panspermia theory and DIED before the lab creation of RNA occurred. He died in 2007 and the lab creation of RNA was in 2009. Orgel also said "evolution is smarter than you are" and he was right. Apparently it's also smarter than he was.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone You read my comment wrong moron, I know Leslie Orgel was an atheist he gave up on abiogenesis, jack szostak has taken over..his experiments are ridiculous and laughable..and would never occur on a primordial earth, all scientists do is copy and borrow information under controlled experiments, and say look we created self replicating molecules, what bullshit!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yeah thats clearly why Jack Szostak won the Nobel prize for Medicine...clearly he's an idiot... not as bright as you obviously.
Y'know when everyone thats brighter than you and has more information is considered by you to be 'laughable' and 'ridiculous' then you have removed yourself from the debate voluntarily!
As it turns out I'm in a similar field myself....self replication is a pretty well documented process...it has been for some time. FYI this is 2011...not 1911 or 1811!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
CONT.
In the corner of one of the labs in my department is a machine that emits radiation... beta, gamma and alpha particles... its not a closely guarded thing... but expensive and could prove dangerous to someone if they sat their ass on it all day...
Do you know what we use it for? have a guess... go on.... [stick tongue in cheek and smirks]
I'll give you a clue... you won't like the answer...so it'll be the last one on your list..So think of the one thing you don't want it to do!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Who said it was 1811 0r 1911 ??? you jackass. Did I say jack Szostak was stupid?..I said the conditions of his experiments are ridiculous and have nothing to do with origin of life experiments!!!..and there are plenty of PhD chemists that believe in God!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "I said the conditions of his experiments are ridiculous and have nothing to do with origin of life experiments!!"
As I said this is probably why he won the Nobel prize for medicine then? I'm sure there are lots of scientists worldwide that have beliefs in Gods.
The general population have a 80% belief. The minute you start looking at people with the letters P H and D after their name that belief plummets.. If you look at Nobel laureates its like finding a needle in a haystack!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Anyway.... erm... any idea what that machine is for... here I'll give you another clue... in 2005 the NAS wrore an integration development plan for biotech and nano tech research.... its entitled "Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative"
It job is to consider the ethical considerations of research in nano technology and biotech chemistry..
So that machine is there to adhere to the NIINAS documents recommendations. Go on..have a guess why its there?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Yes, but he has conducted origin of life experiments, but he always has the same Homochirality problem!!..Where is digital code and information coming from?.amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER!!!!..and even if they did, you would never have usable information!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv What experiments could be done on something there is not data for? The only thing that can be done there is to demonstrate that X happen... which has been done. Now that does not mean this is how it happened... only that this is one way it can happen! There are many others.
"amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER"
No they don't... theres no chance involved... which is why yet again I point you to my original question.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Homochirality has not been solved, as far as RNA forming and peptides this is a joke, highly trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment including temperature and borrowing and coping information is not solving anything. Along with synthesizing machines and activated bases and Templates, I would say this is far from creating life from chemicals. Iam sure you will disagree..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Previously creationists argued this was impossible. After its shown possible you argue its unlikely. When its demonstrated to be not only likely but unavoidable you argue what? that its a product of 'highly trained chemists'... where to next?
"I would say this is far from creating life from chemicals"
Yet again I draw you attention to the machine in the corner of my lab. Go on... guess what its used for?!?!?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv You absolutely aren't going to ask what its for are you?
Here let me give you another clue. I'm an nano-technologist. We are required by law, international treaty and by OECD rules to have at least one of these machines available at all times. We have used it several times.
Go on...have a guess what it does.any old guess.
The reason I harp on about this is because the machines use and purpose explains 100% why you are spouting absolute bullshit.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Your not answering anything Dummy!!.. your just assuming this would happen on a primordial earth through undirected natural processes!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Your not answering anything Dummy!"
We use that machine to destroy self replicating structures. Since evolution is a process not confined to biological life replicating polymers 'if' introduced into the environment would start to evolve naturally. The machine bombards them with high levels of radiation destroying them.
Self assembly and replication are an absolute fact. $4 billion every year is spent proving that!
Be careful what you ask for in future!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
CONT. Father is was a fact even 40 years ago... demonstrated mathematically... later theoretically by people like me...and now 'actually' and 'demonstrably' hence all the investment. Unless you think $4 billion PA of investment falls out of the fucking sky on hopes and dreams?
You'll get to try explain all that away in about 5 years time... good luck with that!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
"amino acids don't self assemble themselves by chance EVER!!!!"
L-α-Amino acids and D-α-amino acids, mediated by phosphorus pentachloride do assemble into polypeptides. DL-α-amino acids do too but its problematic...β-amino acids and α-Amino acids do not assemble into polypeptides or polymers with any tested catalyst so far.
Its not a chance event, its chemistry. This also falls under the NIINAS documentation. Which brings me back to that machine. Any ideas?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Clearly you have no clue what your talking about, homochirality has never been solved bone head!..and controlled laboratory conditions are not plausible on a primordial earth!.. you talk a lot of crap..take your assumptions and indoctrinated dummies like you!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I'm a bone head WORKING in the field that you claim is a waste of my time...and I have been doing that for 23 fucking years you dolt! If you had bothered you lazy fucking ass to take a look at my channel you'd see pretty clearly that chemistry and physics are not just a fucking reading hobby of mine!
Indoctinated? fucking indoctrinated the irony of that does not go unnoticed!
Careful now or I'll smash your fucking world by telling you WHAT that little machine is used for!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Ok, than lets see a protocell??? from basic chemicals that were on a primordial earth?? Let me guess the conditions will never be right to produce one..lets see a living cell form? why do we only see life from life? You have faith abiogenesis happened!!.. lets see amino acids organize them selves with order and information ???? and keep ignoring homochirality Dummy!!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Ok, than lets see a protocell? from basic chemicals that were on a primordial earth? "
What are you fucking talking about. You may as well be arguing wheels don't roll.
No doubt when products appear in the stores there will be some crazy fucking excuse from the creationist idiots, .but to be honest I couldn't give a fuck. Be deluded if you want to be you are 100% wrong cos to me evolution is the fucking enemy I'm obliged to try avoid and nobody has given me the tools to do that!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Look at your own words Dummy "we used machines and spent 4 billion dollars" that proves that it could never happen by chance through natural undirected processes.LOL,,HAHAHA..Your so STUBBORN!!!!! yeah borrowing and copying information is creating using machines..LOL
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv 4 billion Per annum, thats only in nanotech. All to demonstrate replication can be developed into products.
Nobody assumed anything other than it was entirely possible. Except you and your creationist retards that is. Sucking up air and trying to stop progress. Fucking up education and insisting we'd all be better banging rocks together for fire! And all the time producing nothing whatsoever but strife.
Now as you might have gathered you are fucking miles out of your depth!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "that proves that it could never happen by chance "
Look at what you said...we fashioned wheels using machines... that proves that things don't roll by chance through undirected processes!
Says he standing at the bottom of a hill while a boulder rolls towards him.
Chemistry is what makes this happen, its inevitable.
Three times I told you this has nothing to do with probability. All boulders will roll down a hill, not some of them under special circumstances...ALL of them.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv The most stupid thing here is you are actually still arguing its impossible.
Then you go on to insist...yes but you guys made it happen.
No we didn't we observed it happening. Just as the first person to see a boulder roiling down a hill realised round things roll! The boulder does not roll by chance...gravity makes it roll. A wheel is just a modified boulder and the inverter of the wheel did not invent rolling.
Next you'll be insisting rainbows are made by god!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv y'know what the really funny thing here is? You'll actually get to see products based on thison the shelves. It will be explained to you then as I am explaining now (But you are too fucking deluded with head slapping god love to listen) That this is a natural process.
Physicists don't MAKE it happen, its a process. In the future using this technology you'll still be too fucking deluded to understand its just humans copying nature.
Every invention is humans copying or using nature!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Thats not what Darwinism states and your holy prophet Dawkins says. Natural processes don't produce life from non life!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I've seen non biological structures... full polymers self assemble from basic chemical compounds ... they are certainly not living when they start out... and they do self assemble.
I've also seen polymers replicate themselves... both biological and non biological.... and they do so from simple chemistry... its a perfectly natural process.
In fact I'm constrained by international law in that respect since all such structures must be destroyed.
Sorry to disappoint there.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey In CONTROLLED LABORATORY CONDITIONS!!!!!.. where you are controlling every step of the experiment!!!!!..Wow!!! you people are so stubborn its amazing!! These reactions take place because you make them happen!!!..LOL..natural processes never do this, everything in nature is leading towards breaking down!!!..the same way stanley miller used a trap to collect his amino acids..None of this would ever happen on primordial earth!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Is observed to be a process under laboratory conditions... So for example Oppenheimer did not INVENT nuclear fission... he observed it to be possible and harnessed it! And he done so under labaratory conditions...
But if you look up at the sun you will see for yourself that that process existed BEFORE Oppenheimer.
Physicists don't create the laws of the nature. We only observe them! We can't MAKE two particles bond ... regardless of what conditions we apply. Chemistry dictates that.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
If it is actually impossible for living things to not be capable of being formed from non living things...then what are you arguing about...clearly many billions are being wasted every year demonstrating this!
Its not your money anyway...its mostly private investment... So all these investors and the literally millions of biologists, physicists and engineers involved in the field are all wrong...and you are right.
So you'll have no problem with it yes?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "In CONTROLLED LABORATORY CONDITIONS!!!!!.. where you are controlling every step of the experiment!!!!!."
~Sorry no, you are confused here. Physicists cannot control every step of any experiment... we cannot MAKE things form compounds, We cannot make things form replicating structures...nor can we MAKE them self assemble... we can only observe what does and what does not do those things.
Science does not know everything...if it did ...it would stop!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv actually, there are certain things that are leading towards "order". Molecules and atoms try to find the lowest possible energy states because they are stable, thus resulting in the formation of ionic and covalent bondings in basic molecules. Just look at how coal is formed through the immense pressure without human intervention. Energy is given out when bonds in between molecules are formed...But these molecules are more complex than their constituents.
swisscheesepotatochi 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swisscatochi Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv You need to define what you consider 'alive' or 'living'
Viruses for example are not alive... they are biological thats for sure. They do replicate that too is observed, they can move from A to B... They also change structure from parent to offspring during replication...but they do not have metabolic features...thus they are not considered to be alive.
The same is true of nano structures... they are not classified as 'alive' because they have no metabolic properties.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv So if I take a lab mouse and overdose it on adrenalin and it dies...is it still 'alive'? Well its certainly still a full biological organism... its brain may not be functioning...but thats okay lots of things have no brain or nervous system to begin with, but are alive. Why is it now considered to no longer be 'alive'?
Many of the cells in its body are still alive...they are dying but some can still reproduce themselves... and will until they run out of resources and energy.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv
Darwin knew fuck all about generics... And Dawkins is mostly a dickhead although I'll certainly listen to him when he comments on biology...since he is qualified to make statements on biology...but not on sociology.
"Natural processes don't produce life from non life!!!!"
When you define what you consider to be 'alive' then you might better be able to answer that restructure that statement so that it makes some kind of sense! Until then you have no clue!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv And lastly you have no clue what Darwinian evolution states. We've moved on from that since it was penned over 150 years ago. We now call the entire thing 'Genomics'. The study of how living things are living things and how since we know how they came to be...how we can use that information to create NEW things which are not prone to evolution.
Thats the difficult bit, we can build such structures but processes like evolution will fuck it up for us! Hence all the legislation.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone I would not go as far as to call them precursors.You are forgetting DNA oligonucleotides, and all of this is being conducted at just the right temperatures ..which would never occur on a primordial earth..these experiments are carefully controlled ..these reactions would NEVER occur on an early earth.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone homochirality has not been solved moron..there are plenty assumptions..being passed off as fact. thats what you atheist morons want to believe.. A better hypothesis, no not hypothesis..its the answer..a mind created life not a time chance process..an Intelligence.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv And your evidence for this "mind"??? You have none.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone It wasn't time and chance thats for sure!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv So you're saying the peptide bonds that hold proteins together don't occur?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone This RNA is made from borrowed preexisting information...just to get it started ..nothing is being created in test tubes ..more like plagiarizing what an intelligence did in the first place, dummy..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
highly impossible at best.
The RNA world doesn't explain the origin of genetic information
Even if a system of ribozymes to build proteins had arisen from an RNA replicator, a complex informational template would still be needed. In other words, genetic information is still necessary.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone The theory of natural selection indicates there is no direction the molecule is working toward (hence, un directed), so there would be no feedback because it would not be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself...IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv What? you are saying that things that already happened are no indication of future events.... erm.... thats bollox!
Natural selection has nothing to do with molecules.. its to do with alterations over time in relation to an environment... that happens with living things... but also with many other things... ideas for example are an example...their environment changes and so do ideas.
They pass from one generation to another, react to change, or die out. Thats natural selection.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Abiogenesis and evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists.
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Learn Homochirality!!!!!..Stubborn atheist!!!
The synthesis of equal mixtures of racemates
in a solution, there is NO way to get the stereospecific,you cant separate them.
synthesis of molecules without using already EXISTING enzymes Thus, the products of theoretical random
reactions tend to be mixtures of isomers (pairs of chiral compounds)50/50 solution!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone Y'know with idiots like this knocking about...one day soon we'll not only be able to screen for diseases but also for intellect... when that happens this morons offspring need to be consigned before they gestate to the hospital incinerator!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey It seems to me we're starting to screen for intellect right now, local school boards aside.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone hmm... the problem is that humans can't ALL be bright to continue to run society there simply must be total idiots and they have to be the majority.
Thankfully most of them don't realise that.
But with technology advancing at breakneck speed they will soon be in competition with machines. My guess is any kid born in the next 10 years who ends up uneducated won't survive to 30, we don't have the money or resources to feed them and nobody would be interested in making more of them.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Scary thought.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
@MrMZaccone Yeah its not going to pan out to well for a lot of people... but what can you do?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv You're right all life is dead...we can clearly see that...theres nothing alive...cos its all impossible!
So all these guys spending billions on genomics are doing it for what reason? they like wasting money perhaps? maybe they are all stupid? certainly with all their phd's and IQ levels you couldn't attain if we added your entire family history together going back a century... clearly they must be mad....
Anyway this moron atheist thinks you are brain dead!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@coolvideo28 LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying...You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL..homochirality destroys abiogenesis and evolution
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I'm only going to ask one question. What's more likely, that some combination of chemical processes that we can't quite fully understand created life? or that your imaginary friend did it?
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
Come on even prominent ID supporters dont believe in ID. If they would really believe in their theory, they would try to tell allways the truth (to aho they are trustworthy) and try to defend their theory with real arguments. Instead they try to mislead people and openly lie to them. Why ? Becasue they know its their only option, since truth is not on their side
MrRichardQED 1 year ago
Yes Lucy is an ape. Humans are apes so our ancestory would be apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz lol
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
Didn't Darwin himself finally admit that there is a God, on his deathbed? And didn't George Carlin do the same? Two confirmed straight minded Athiest/Evolutionists! Or were they both delusional as some Athesists believe Christians are? HHHhhmmmmm....Interesting
buitrami 1 year ago
@buitrami
There is no evidence George Carlin did that. Moreover, Darwin became an agnostic deist after he turned away from Christianity.
PhysicsCardiology 1 year ago
@buitrami WTF Deathbead conversion? You have to be a low life to disperse such missinfo.
graphattic 1 year ago
@buitrami Darwin was a christian, he delayed printing his works because it would upset his christian wife.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@buitrami The story of Darwin's deathbed recantation was a lie told by a chistian. His daughter, who was with him when he died said the individual in question never visited as claimed. In any case, it would be irrelevant because of the 100+ years of science standing between us and Darwin's original observations. Evolution is an observed and observable fact and one of the most well supported theories in all of science. End of story.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
Some versions of the BB theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
These people vote, and that is our worst concern. hahahahahaha dude smartest thing ive herd all day
dezeloner 2 years ago
Jesus, this guy is such a dipshit. It hurts.
theshredator 2 years ago
"If evolution changed apes into people..." (at 04.46) - oh dear, the level of this man's analysis (and perhaps of his understanding, too) is of the nursery school playground.
Techno9408 2 years ago
Freedom of speech does not mean this nonsense!
GTHRaptorCaptor 2 years ago
I cannot believe the ignorance I hear on this audio track. The only way this man could gain supporters is to be addressing a group as ignorant as himself. These people don't have the curiosity to even try and discover any truth about evolutionary theory. They are simpleton followers of doctrine...the same type who would pick up a gun or a sword or even a chalice of poison and take it if only their leader were to command it of them. These people vote, and that is our worst concern.
charadester 2 years ago
Poor guy. Once someone has been brainwashed, it's hard to be deprogrammed.
XXL2oo 2 years ago
a positive 10 for all of nephilimfrees' comments
rancantrell 2 years ago
Algorithms and information are products only of intelligence.
Evolutionism has been destroyed by modern science.
The wrorld is awakening.
Evolutionism is dying out.
People around the world are rejecting it in great numbers.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You have a severe misunderstanding of the Theory of Information. Even if your statement was true it has no bearing on the validity of evolution. There is complete consensus on evolution among properly educated scientists (i.e. not Our Lady of Faith Diploma Factory) This is not being destroyed or dying out, in fact every every major biological discovery in history could not be more supportive of evolution.
kyebean 2 years ago
Oh for crying out loud boy. Nobody lacks understanding of the evo jargon. I've studied every claim ever made by the god-denialist humanist naturalis idiots. It's time to become a realist before you pass from this world.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Realist?
gamesbok 2 years ago
kyebean, I'd advise against trying to enlighten NephilimFree. You're dealing with a seriously deluded individual, who wouldn't recognise logic or reason if they picked up a bible and smacked him on the head with it.
stalwartatheist 2 years ago
If only he could just keep his disgustingly stupid opinions to himself. I think he must live under a nuclear power plant or something. Nobody is that deficient naturally. The only reason I even bother with these dimwits is because I believe there's plenty of ignorant and uneducated people out there that sadly enough might be convinced by their dishonest, deluded ideas.
kyebean 2 years ago
"The wrorld is awakening."
I hope it won't catch me and eat me! What ever this thing is!
7omnia7 2 years ago
Unfortunately Neph, you're stuck with Evolution, not for emperical reasons, but for logical ones. It's implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection.
You may argue that there are other processes involved. You may argue that evolution doesn't tell the whole story. However Evolution you cannot avoid.
gamesbok 2 years ago
@gamesbok
Hardly. Evolutionism is dying. The majority of the world's population does not believe in it, and this number continues to grow. In 1850 almost nobody believed in it. By 1980 lots did because of the hard work to oindoctrinate in secular schools. Today, people are rejecting it. In 40 yrs, it will be the biggest joke in the history of the world and nobody will dare admit they believe it for fear of looking like a fool.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nobody is going to take you by hand to a link in Google for "DNA Computing". All one has to do is google it and see you are wrong that DNA does not store and retrieve information using algorithms.
I'm not going to accept your ridiculous unwillingness to type 2 words and click. You've already learned what i have said is true.
Information and algorithms are products only of intelligence. Life is designed. It proves it itself.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph, its never been about laziness, it's about /your/ burden of proof. If you make a claim, you must substantiate it. Not doing so is a logical fallacy. Doesn't that occur to you every time you repeat that line? (Would you like me to explain why?)
BTW, I apologize that I still haven't finished a reply to your PM. It was an extremely long message you sent me, but I think I already responded to the more important points.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"I'm not going to accept your ridiculous unwillingness to type 2 words and click. "
He's asking for your specific source.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Also, if you want to continue this conversation with me, would you please this time actually hit the reply button?
I likely wont remember to check this page unless I get a notification in my inbox.
I think we've shown enough mutual respect at this point that this shouldn't be too much of a request.
I know you pride yourself on scaring off defenders of Evolution, but that's generally not the case, we just don't know that you've replied.
(If you'd like, I"ll finish the reply to that PM?)
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Hey Weed. That's his normal bullshit tactic of avoiding debate. And respect with Nephy isn't something that he gives, especially when you call him on his BS.
magick205 2 years ago
"Hey Weed. That's his normal bullshit tactic of avoiding debate. "
Yes, I'm aware of how he runs things.
"And respect with Nephy isn't something that he gives,"
In the past he's actually been very respectful to me, considering how he's treated other people.
"especially when you call him on his BS. "
You cant come into it with the attitude that he's an asshole. Doing so gives him the automatic moral upper hand.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Tell me this. Untill the 19th century, nobody had ventured more than a few dozen feet deep into any ocean. In the 20th century, man developed diving bells and discovered much more. In the later half of the 20yth century, we have been able to take video cameras to the ocean floor.
How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors? By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"Tell me this...- that's a fantastic way to dodge around what i just asked. but what i'd like to see is your evidence of DNA containing algorithims.
"How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors?" - easy it didnt, it provided a vague metaphore that idiots tried to relate to modern science.
"By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist? " - again, he didnt.
types10001 2 years ago
Creation Science. That is an extremely funny term.
bigfilmhat 3 years ago
Ken Ham? Bible college? After the first 25 seconds I know this is a video by idiots for idiots.
bobx2x2 3 years ago
That COMMENT was for idiots.
V1RU5ex3 3 years ago 4
The Naochian Flood is irrefutable. It is a geologic fact that the Earth has been inundated. Neither creationists nor evolutionists argue that the Earth is covered with deep sediment (averaging over 1/2 mi.), but the evolutionist must apply imaginary time to avoid the truth and lie about the existance of God.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Here are some references and they worked out the little problems you can't seem to get past.
Consequences of Large Impacts in the Late Stage of Terrestrial Planet Formation by D.P. Sheehan et al., Icarus 142(1): 219-237, November, 1999;
Venus' Free Obliquity by C.F. Yoder, Icarus 117(2): 250-286, October, 1995;
A Possible Constraint to Uranus' Great Collision by A. Brunini, Planetary and Space Science 43(8): 1019-1021, August, 1995;
plusistwo 3 years ago
-Continued-
Evolution of the Spin of Venus by J. McCue & J.R. Dormand, Earth, Moon and Planets 63(3): 209-225, December, 1993;
Why Does the Earth Spin Forward? by L. Dones & S. Tremaine, Science 259(5093): 350-354, January 15, 1993]
plusistwo 3 years ago
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Remember that the rotation isn't just determined by the sun by also other planets and bodies with in our solar system."
The gavitational pull of other planets upon any plnet's moon is nominal.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Recently, a huge asteroid cam close to Earth. Where is it now? Somewhere in the SS moving at the same speed it was moving before it approached the Earth. It has never been and can never be captured by the Earth. The approaching and exit velocities are the same. Once it leaves Earth's immediate gravitational pull, it will be moving at the same speed it was as it began it's approach. This is a scientific fact, empriical law of science proves it.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"This is a scientific fact, empriical law of science proves it."
Despite the fact that you will not reference any of your claims on such things as "This means they cannot be slowed down and captured by a planet. It is impossible." or "is not great enough to capture anything larger than a refrigerator."
plusistwo 3 years ago
This means they cannot be slowed down and captured by a planet. It is impossible. Evolutionists put this concept forth because they have noalternative. The only other possibility is that they were placesd where they are by God, and since they refuse to admit the obvious, they concoct all manner of ridiculous theories to explain away the conditions of the universe.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
"This means they cannot be slowed down and captured by a planet. It is impossible."
Actually it depends on the trajectory, there are times where you can gain speed from the planet, NASA does it all the time with satellites.
plusistwo 3 years ago
Which God?
gamesbok 2 years ago
Now here's the kicker: The gravitational pull of planets is not great enough to capture anything larger than a refridgerator. it cannot happen. Approaching asteroids accellerate on approach and decellerate on exit. This is an equal and opposite reaction: physical law. This means their end velocity is the same as their start velocity. Thier speed does not change in the end. They keep going.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
"Now here's the kicker: The gravitational pull of planets is not great enough to capture anything larger than a refridgerator."
We want to site a source on that?
plusistwo 3 years ago
What happened to comet Shoemaker-Levi 9?
gamesbok 2 years ago
"the moons were captured by the planet they currently orbit"
If that were true, none of them would be spinning. Evos claim our moon does not spin because of capture, yet out moon is much larger than most of the moons in the SS.
Capture is impossible. If a moon were to pass close enough for "capture" it would pass and keep going because it would be moving at more than the escape velocity of the planet.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"If that were true, none of them would be spinning."
Why? You have to do more then randomly make a statement.
"it would pass and keep going because it would be moving at more than the escape velocity of the planet."
Your assuming that they would be moving faster than the escape velocity and in Jupiters case the escape velocity is much greater.
plusistwo 3 years ago
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Scientific observations since 1829 (!) have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Had the planets and sun come from the same mass, they all would have been spinning in the same direction. There are no 2 ways about it Denial of empirical law does nothing but illuminate evolutionist escapism. They do the same thing with Punctuated Equalibrium.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If you had actually bothered to watch the video you would understand that the moons were captured by the planet they currently orbit. Those moons are just large captured asteroids and after being slingshot around the solar system they ended up spinning the other way. Remember that the rotation isn't just determined by the sun by also other planets and bodies with in our solar system.
plusistwo 3 years ago
Did you know that our solar system also defies science? 9 moons in our solar system spin backwards from their planets in contradiction of the empirical scientific law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum! Venus rotates on it's side. So does Saturn. Saturn's rings should have been drawn in by gravity billions of yrs ago. etc. Yup. God surely did do it! Cosmology can't explain it, that's for sure! This illuminates the fact that secular theories do not conform to what is observed.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"9 moons in our solar system spin backwards from their planets in contradiction of the empirical scientific law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum!"
Please watch: watch?v=95Jn4Qn0Dj8
crazypills2 3 years ago
How old do you think Saturn's rings are?
gamesbok 2 years ago
They are yound. If billions of years had passed, gravity would have drawn them into the planet. Furthermore, and this one will blow your mind, some of these rings are BRAIDED. THere is no possible mechanism in physics that can explain this. This completely defies evolutionist cosmology.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nobody thinks the rings are billions of years old, with the exception of yourself.
Why you think the would be drawn into the planet, when our moon's orbit is increasing is unclear.
'Braded' features are inevitable when you have a moon with an orbit with an eliptical axis processing against the axis of the rings.
The radial features are magnetic.
Physics isn't your strong point.
I'll stick with the science. You stick to the magic, OK?
gamesbok 2 years ago
@gamesbok
Evolutionists claim they are millions of years old.
Braided rings of Saturn are scientifically impossible. There is no mechanism that could cause them to twine around each other.
All a moon would do is pull the rings toward it. It could not braid them.
DOAH
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I'll stick with the science. You stick to the magic, OK?
gamesbok 2 years ago
Evolutionism is not science. All claims of evolutionary change are assumptions conjhectured as if they were fact, and cannot be supported by science. Nothing about evolution is observable, testable, or repeatable. It hides in unimaginable expanses of time where the imagination can play games like, "I thoink so, therefore it did."
That's not science at all.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No sweaty. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
Try a new trick.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Since I referenced mine you want to back yours up with a reference?
plusistwo 3 years ago
Atheism is a religion based largely upon evolutionism, whoch prtends to answer the same questions as religions do:
1) where we came from: rock poop
2) how we got here: random chance
3) the purpose of life: survival of the fittest
4) where we are going: dirt
Atheism and evolutionism are religion.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Evolution does not give a purpose of life and is not a religion
Most evolutionists in the US are Christian.
YellowCrux 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you believe this came to be by natural processes, you are clinically insane:
/watch?v=ixgFEMWd8Ps
NephilimFree 3 years ago
christianity : the belief that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force in your soul present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree.
and WE are the insane ones?
ushimanni 3 years ago
It takes a lot of nasty comments about God to cover up your concience doesn't it.. How many nasty words per week are you up to now?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
how was that nasty? you think the truth sounds nasty? haha. as far as i can tell from looking at your comments and videos, you like to badmouth evolutionists and atheists yourself. not very christ-like of you. i think i should be allowed to speak however i want about something that doesn't exist though. i'll tell you what, if you prove god exists i'll shut up
ushimanni 3 years ago
Prove? How many things should i provide? I'll give just one. DNA uses algorithms to store and retrieve information. Both algorithms and information are products only of intelligence. This is empirical proof tat DNA, thus all life, is a product of supernatural intelligence.
Shut up now.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
no. and how is that proof of the christian god? what else ya got? let's see your whole list of evidence
ushimanni 3 years ago
"DNA uses algorithms to store and retrieve information" wait what? where on earth did you hear that?
types10001 3 years ago
Scientists use computers to simulate and attempt to decipher the algorithms used by DNA's support systems to store and retrieve information in the DNA molecule. This field of study is called "DNA Computing".
NephilimFree 3 years ago
ah i see where you are confused now.
ok for starters DNA is what the algorithm is made up of secondly scientists are using it to make computers (DNA computing) this is making more useful than it otherwise would have been and basically giving the finger to God.
types10001 3 years ago
No, the algorithm is not made of DNA. DNA contains the algorithms. However you try to rationalize it, algorithms are a product only of intelligence. The same is true of information. This alone destreoys evolutionism. And that's how the cookie crumbles.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
please provide evidence for algorithims in dna, starting with what they are made of.
types10001 3 years ago
Google will not hurt you in any way.
Don't be afraid.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
the problem is that what your describing isnt in google :)
types10001 2 years ago