@PeaceAndGloryMB Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
@tnafguy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
@MakaEuan Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
Watching this thing he sure takes a lot time to get to his point, but he is factually wrong on several points and I am only 20 minutes in. Gravity does not REFRACT light as he claims, it curves spacetime and the light follows that curve. Ok 23 minutes in and he is talking about light going into orbit. That NEVER happens. He seems to have learned all his science from watching PBS and misunderstanding what he sees. I am about 30 minutes in now and he STILL has not made his point.
In fact, the location is a hot spot for tracks and many claims have been made by scientists over the centuries. Further investigation has changed many of the interpretations.
But how funny that someone would claim evidence as a hoax when considering Piltdown Man, Haeckels Embryo Charts, Archaeoraptor etc etc (the list goes on!). These hoaxes were perpetrated on the general public for decades!
@heloWelo You realize that Piltdown man was not as popular as creation folks might claim. Haekels drawing are replaced by pictures of developing embryos and we still see the same changes. Archaeraptor is a composite of 2 fossils, one of which is an important discovery of the feathered dinosaur-bird lineage
@snakeguy76 Piltdown man is not the only transitional form that has been discredited. The theory Recapitulation was discredited and destroyed by Mendel's law. The part of Archeoraptor that was feathered was a bird, like Archaeoptryx. It was No more a dinosaur than the modern chicken.
@CrownIdeas Good call. Microraptor was a dromaeosaurid - a dinosaur not a chicken. But if you understand a chicken as a type of dinosaur then I'm ok with that. We understand that the idea that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" is inaccurate. But I'm curious to hear your description of Mendels' law and how it destroys an entire field of evolutionary developmental embryology. You know they have made some amazing strides since the 19th century.
@snakeguy76 No, the top part of the composite was called Yanomis a so called primitive bird not a microraptor. Nope chickens are not dinosaurs. They are in the avian class and they are a domesticated form of jungle fowl. Dinosaurs would be classified as reptilia... As to Medel and recapitulation: if characterisics of the offspring follow set rules of inheritance and independent assortment your not going to have a recapitulation of evolution in the embryo, only traits of the 2 parents.
@CrownIdeas The bottom was microraptor. Birds are a subset of archosaurs which include dinosaurs and crocodiles. Reptilia is not a monophyletic group. It is not recapitulation. Genes expressed during developement do not always remain expressed in the adult form. But explain why do whales and snake embryos have legs and chicken embryos have fingers and teeth only to lose them during gestation? They must have inherited the genes. The genes are passed down through generations.
@snakeguy76 I'm not sure but I think it is still in much dispute wether or not birds are archosaurs.. I would dispute it even if it is accepted widely. At any rate birds are still in the Aves classification and crocodiles are reptilia. What we find in genetics is different genes creatiing somewhat similar structures or vice versa. If recapitulatioin is so well supported by evidence, why is it so hard to find a modern embryo comparison chart. All I can find is Heackels fraudulent drawings..
@CrownIdeas No there is zero dispute as to birds location. The class system you refer to a nice & neat but they are not the phylogenetic classifications. Technically speaking there are no "reptiles" but diapsids - which include snakes lizards crocs dinos and birds. Look for a modern cladogram of diapsids.
As I had said a few times already the Idea of recapitulation is not true. But the embryology does not dispute evolution. Explain why bird embryos have fingers.
@snakeguy76 The short answer.... Bird embryos don't have fingers. There are structures in the embryo that sprout and are close to the same lenghth but develop into different length bones in the wing.
It seems to me a phylogenic classification is all based on speculation. The linnaian form of classification deals with what is observable today, instead of speculating on how something supposedly developed in the past.
@CrownIdeas The linnean classification was a form of classification where animals were grouped together based on similarities. Linneaus taxonomy was a way of grouping and identifying organisms. It was done base on physical characteristics.
Phylogenetics groups organisms the same way with genetics and biochemistry. It does not change the way they are classified. Birds would still be grouped as type of arcosaur based on their anatomy, embryology and genetics.
@snakeguy76 I can see some shared physical characteristics and I see they both lay eggs. But I would be interested to see the genetic similarities We have very little genetic material from dinosaurs to compare it with though. I wonder why in the last 10 years dna analysis hasn't been donbe on the findings of Dr Mary Schwietzer. Also there were all those unfossilized dino bones found in Alaska that were reported to have bone marrow in them. Seemingly impossible if really 65 million years old.
@CrownIdeas Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
@snakeguy76 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
In 1965 Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists.
@imaginefree69 How can you determine the level of how hard it is to prove one god exists to the other if neither have been proven? Your statement of "logically impossible to have those characteristics" self implodes. You are NOT all knowing, so you could never know what would be possible or impossible for all things, since you do not know all things.
and if you are NOT all knowing and loving in nature, how would you even know what needed to be prevented since you are not loving.
"you could never know what would be possible or impossible" That's where you're wrong, taylor. The universe exists and operates according to some well-defined laws. These laws state that oxymorons cannot exist. One cannot have a fossilized flame, for instance, nor a one-dimensional swan, nor a loving god that tortures his creation for ever. It's called REASON, and though it's not very popular within religion it is essential to an adult understanding of reality.
That is why no scientist would claim he could disprove the existence of god. But that doesn't make it proof for god's existence like creationists claim. It's the question of the 'absolute truth'. There are some philosophers that say (in short) even detectable things do not constitute an absolute truth, because we're restricted to our senses and so cannot be sure that everything we detect is the truth.
Wether our senses represent a relative or an absolute truth, it is the only thing science must rely on because every human being's senses work the same way and tell them the same. If you see a red ball everyone else will se a red ball too. Religion is somewhat different from that and cannot constitute an absolute truth, because it's founded in belief and imagination that is different in every person. Therefore one cannot prove God, because it is not detectable for every one in the same way.
It's hard to prove that leprachauns don't exist. It's hard to prove there's no god. But it's easy to prove the Christian God doesn't exist. It is logically impossible that any being can have the following characteristics: 1- all-knowing 2- all-powerful 3- actively involved in human affairs 4- loving in nature. 1 and 2 and 3 are consistent. 1 and 3 and 4 can be consistent. But to see evil and choose not to stop it one cannot be loving. Mutually exclusive attributes equals nonexistence.
First they say that the bible is the true word of god... then when it contradicts itself, or 1st grade science, then it requires some crazy interpretations and translation. You cant talk your way around the inadequacies of the bible, and come away believing any of this nonsense.
It is obvious that you havne't listened to enough of Wilder smith's lectures, if you had you would find that it isn't the matter that is the subject but the creator that made the matter then made man from the matter.
I do understand your position though it is common, not fully understanding the context.
Listen to more of his lectures and it will be clear what he is saying. Go to hi website and you can download these lectures.
who cares if the man visited an archeological site?
He is a professor of Biology, that is what the lecture is about. Now take your logically fallacious attempts to discredit the man and erase them instead of copying and pasting them everywhere. What are you some kind of self replicating straw man virus?
tell me, do you think this comment evolved by natural process, or do you think there is a designer who designed it?
In 1965 Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists.
Things are evolving even now. A butterfly in Hawaii has become a new species evolving a mouth piece that can eat only banana flowers, bananas were only been brought to Hawaii in recent times.
Well, not proof, but demonstration beyond any reasonable doubt, just like atomic theory or tide theory have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, and there is no more scientific controversy over either of them. (Proof only applies to math and logic)
But yeah.. this guy proves nothing but his own ignorance. It's sad that some people think ignorance of evolution is the same as an argument against it. The description box is laughable and/or sad.
So let me get this straight......They started as butterflies, changed a little, and now it is a butterfly?????? Gee, that sure is proof of nothing!!!!! (except maybe your intelligence level) ROFLMAO!
And I would like to see a butterfly eat a banana!!!!! That would be a good one!!!
The butterfly in question developed a mouth part that would take food from the banana flower, and nothing else. Its not a difficult concept to understand. It CHANGED, as life evolution does.
Changed your mind, changed your opinion, changed your position.
Things do change, they do move on from Bronze age scripture.
In Britain in the 19th century moths adapted by natural selection to a darker colour through natural selection because of the smog from new industry that was bliting the land.
Then the clear air act came in during the 50s and through natural selection became light colored again.
Human diseases to are excellent examples of evolution.
Viruses evolve and bacteria evolves to and becomes more resistant to anti-biotics.
You are right about one thing... Evolution means "change over time!! BUT there is NO changing of one species into another!!! Your moth story is the same- they started as moths, & ended as moths!! STILL MOTHS!!! That is more of an adaptation, NOT evolution!!
Once a moth, still a moth... Evolution is Science FICTION!!!
Diseases are adapting, you can call that evolution, BUT it still is a different form of the same thing!!! Going from one species to another is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Adaptations a not an incorrect word. But it is a different species of moth, it has indeed "adapted" to its changing environment through evolution by way of natural selection and genetic mutation, and thats what evolution is.
Did you want to see the moth turn into a turtle?
It doesnt work like that, no one suggests it does.
Humans have only been trying to observe things for century, things take millions of years to make serious changes, we can see that in the fossil records.
But they both are moths! One species, different types! Evolutionists have preached that we "evolved" from pond scum through many species to humans.
They think dinasoaurs "evolved in to birds"
So, YES that IS what they are suggesting.
There is NO "fossil record" of anything changing in to something else!!! Now they know they are full of shit, so they change their story, again & again! Never has been any "serious changes"
I dont know what he is refering to specifically but micro evolution is proof of macro. Micro is undeniable since it has been observed in many aniamals (ex bacteria developing immunity to drugs, and lizards developing larger stomachs) because you can logically conclude that after enough of these changes over a long eough period of time they will develop into a new species. Kinda like how a baby never turns into an old man. It turns into a toddler, teen ect. Just think that but over a longer time.
This man PROVES beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that evolution IS a science FICTION FAIRY TALE!!!!! It is scinteficly IMPOSSIBLE that anything evolved from anything else!!!!
Anyone that believes in evolution does so because they hate God!!!! Plain & simple......
The MOST scientific words you can say about our origions is..."In The Beginning, God Created the Heavns and Earth!!!!!!
Evolution is part of a long war against God. you can NOT believe in God AND evolution at the same time!!! They are incompatible! If you want to believe in evolution, fine BUT don't say God did it!!!
That won't work. Evolution is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE! No matter how long you want!!
And my statement "The most scientific thing you can sat about our origins IS "In The Beginning, God CREATED Heaven & Earth!!!
If evolution is scientifically impossible then why has it been proven beyond all reasonable doubt? (not enough room to explain here) And the Bible said the world was round, not a sphere. And your beleif that you have to choose is simple minded. Science does not even attempt to predict a god, that would be a logical fallacy. Also to your comment below there is a fossil record just google transitional fossils and then click the first link.
Believe what ever you want to! BUT, the Bible still is true, and you WILL answer to God when you die! There is MANY things that discredit evolution, making it a scientific impossibility! Nothing ever develops into a new species! Only in science fiction comic books!!! And you can think whatever you want of me. That still does NOT change the facts that you WILL stand before God one day!!!
Do you want to bet a million dollars on that??? You will loose!!!
And you are VERY right about my "stone age religion" - Jesus IS the same Yesterday, Today, & FOREVER!!!
God does not need to change, because HE IS the Way, the TRUTH, & the Life!!!!
Your screen name tells exactly why you hate God, and are an evolutionist- You want to be free to practice your own sexual immoralities, without worrying about standing before God in Judgment when you die!!! (hope U live to Repent!!!)
Again, your foolish comments are without merit! Humans were formed from the dust. Snakes & donkeys have been used by the Lord to deliver a message in the past!
The Bible NEVER said the sun revolves around the earth, OR that the earth is flat!!!
Though I have demonstrated your errors previously, you continue to paste the same old lies all over YT in the hopes of deceiving the simple
Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
You imagine that you are free to fulfill your wicked desires, but you are storing up wrath for yourself
@diamy00 The Bible is filled with fairy tales about talking animals and 4-legged insects and humans made out of dust and men walking on water and a 600 year old desert dwelling goat herder building a ship of of desert shrubs to carry every species of animal in the world for a year and a half and a prince on a white horse coming to take you to live happily ever after in his mansion, plus errors and lies and contradictions... And Creationists laugh at SCIENCE? Hahahahaaa!!!!!
I won't repent to some imaginary being and ask forgiveness from "him", but instead I will apologize to the one I harmed and try to fix what I did. Oh, on top of that, I am also going to hell. What is the proof of hell? Or heaven, or god? None. So, he wants me to burn forever if he doesn't try to persuade me with proof. He knows I am reasonable because I believe things with proof, no less. He has no proof, so he is unfair if he burns me.
Hell was not made for men, it was made for Satan and his angels, because YHWH is intolerant of disobedience setting the precedent of righteousness.
For YHWH so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 This earth is bound to perish; where would be this everlasting life be? Some men will never know True Love.
Then why does he bring people there too? Atheists? What about children that die before knowing god? Aborted or miscarried fetuses? Don't tell me they went with satan's side. And besides, god knew Satan would sin, and thus he created hell knowing that this would have happened. The same goes for every being. He know everything, right? I think not. He knew that Satan would do those things in the Garden of Eden. Good work, god.
For all have sinned (broken the 10 commandments) and come short of the glory of YHWH. - Romans 5:8 For the wages of sin is death, ... - Romans 6:23 You deserve to burn because you broke the Creator's Law.
But these things are written that you may believe that YWHWSHUA is the Anointed Son of YHWH, and that believing you may have life in His name. - John 20:31
It is up to you my friend: choose the darkness in the lake of eternal fire, or choose eternal life through the Anointed Son of the Creator.
So you evaded my points. I said that god knew that I would go to hell when he created me. He knew I would "sin". He knew it all, knew about what Satan would do, knew about the wars, and still, he is benevolent. Can you explain it to me?
"Ch. 2 is an account of the same events" Genesis chapter 1 Verse 21- God made the birds (day 5) V 25- God made the wild animals (day 6) V 27- God created man in his own image.. male and female he created them Now chapter 2 V7- God made man from the dust of the ground V19- God made birds and ALL the beasts (same day!) V22- God made a woman from the man's rib (because he didn't want to marry an aardvark or a zebra) It's a direct contradiction. They cannot both be true.
Sorry my friend,They BOTH Are True! YOU are knit-picking at the Bible, because YOU do not want to believe it! Your eyes are blinded from understanding the Truth! The Bible IS the 100% Correct & True Word of God! For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to soul and spirit, a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is none hidden from His sight, but all are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, lifes DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information. Wilder is genius!
Using definitions of science and evolution, shows that macroevolution is not observed and is not a fact. The debate is not science versus religion, but is rather the secular worldview versus the Christian worldview. Presents evidence against evolution and for creation from biology.
The fundamental flaw in the comments on this video (which I have not watched - 80 minutes is too long) is that the probabilites do NOT MULTIPLY. See the link from my page. This
The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.
A purely material origin of life is thus precluded. <<
Therefore a Creator who can do all things, did so, through the process of evolution, which is clearly disguised in human written scripture stories, described in all human religons.
An infinite Creator sent Darwins brain to clarify & understand the mechanics of creating through evolution; Creator's "one" cause set in motion "one" effect & a universe was born as an acorn becomes a mighty oak! The time lines & matter contents vary, the analogy is the same! All religions, sciences & physics, have one common study; that is, "one" cause to "one" effect etc. Results a proliferation or distintegration of further evolving according to chance &/or choice of God's good or human evil!
Very informative, thanks for posting.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeaceAndGloryMB Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnafguy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
i hoped that you might present something considerable but you start with the predication that god exists, all else are spinning wheels
MakaEuan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakaEuan Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnafguy
Unfortunately you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
odinata 5 months ago
Watching this thing he sure takes a lot time to get to his point, but he is factually wrong on several points and I am only 20 minutes in. Gravity does not REFRACT light as he claims, it curves spacetime and the light follows that curve. Ok 23 minutes in and he is talking about light going into orbit. That NEVER happens. He seems to have learned all his science from watching PBS and misunderstanding what he sees. I am about 30 minutes in now and he STILL has not made his point.
ZenMondo 1 year ago
In fact, the location is a hot spot for tracks and many claims have been made by scientists over the centuries. Further investigation has changed many of the interpretations.
But how funny that someone would claim evidence as a hoax when considering Piltdown Man, Haeckels Embryo Charts, Archaeoraptor etc etc (the list goes on!). These hoaxes were perpetrated on the general public for decades!
heloWelo 2 years ago
@heloWelo You realize that Piltdown man was not as popular as creation folks might claim. Haekels drawing are replaced by pictures of developing embryos and we still see the same changes. Archaeraptor is a composite of 2 fossils, one of which is an important discovery of the feathered dinosaur-bird lineage
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Piltdown man is not the only transitional form that has been discredited. The theory Recapitulation was discredited and destroyed by Mendel's law. The part of Archeoraptor that was feathered was a bird, like Archaeoptryx. It was No more a dinosaur than the modern chicken.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Good call. Microraptor was a dromaeosaurid - a dinosaur not a chicken. But if you understand a chicken as a type of dinosaur then I'm ok with that. We understand that the idea that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" is inaccurate. But I'm curious to hear your description of Mendels' law and how it destroys an entire field of evolutionary developmental embryology. You know they have made some amazing strides since the 19th century.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 No, the top part of the composite was called Yanomis a so called primitive bird not a microraptor. Nope chickens are not dinosaurs. They are in the avian class and they are a domesticated form of jungle fowl. Dinosaurs would be classified as reptilia... As to Medel and recapitulation: if characterisics of the offspring follow set rules of inheritance and independent assortment your not going to have a recapitulation of evolution in the embryo, only traits of the 2 parents.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas The bottom was microraptor. Birds are a subset of archosaurs which include dinosaurs and crocodiles. Reptilia is not a monophyletic group. It is not recapitulation. Genes expressed during developement do not always remain expressed in the adult form. But explain why do whales and snake embryos have legs and chicken embryos have fingers and teeth only to lose them during gestation? They must have inherited the genes. The genes are passed down through generations.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 I'm not sure but I think it is still in much dispute wether or not birds are archosaurs.. I would dispute it even if it is accepted widely. At any rate birds are still in the Aves classification and crocodiles are reptilia. What we find in genetics is different genes creatiing somewhat similar structures or vice versa. If recapitulatioin is so well supported by evidence, why is it so hard to find a modern embryo comparison chart. All I can find is Heackels fraudulent drawings..
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas No there is zero dispute as to birds location. The class system you refer to a nice & neat but they are not the phylogenetic classifications. Technically speaking there are no "reptiles" but diapsids - which include snakes lizards crocs dinos and birds. Look for a modern cladogram of diapsids.
As I had said a few times already the Idea of recapitulation is not true. But the embryology does not dispute evolution. Explain why bird embryos have fingers.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 The short answer.... Bird embryos don't have fingers. There are structures in the embryo that sprout and are close to the same lenghth but develop into different length bones in the wing.
It seems to me a phylogenic classification is all based on speculation. The linnaian form of classification deals with what is observable today, instead of speculating on how something supposedly developed in the past.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas The linnean classification was a form of classification where animals were grouped together based on similarities. Linneaus taxonomy was a way of grouping and identifying organisms. It was done base on physical characteristics.
Phylogenetics groups organisms the same way with genetics and biochemistry. It does not change the way they are classified. Birds would still be grouped as type of arcosaur based on their anatomy, embryology and genetics.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 I can see some shared physical characteristics and I see they both lay eggs. But I would be interested to see the genetic similarities We have very little genetic material from dinosaurs to compare it with though. I wonder why in the last 10 years dna analysis hasn't been donbe on the findings of Dr Mary Schwietzer. Also there were all those unfossilized dino bones found in Alaska that were reported to have bone marrow in them. Seemingly impossible if really 65 million years old.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrownIdeas Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snakeguy76 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!! A.E wilder smith!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
In 1965 Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists.
What kind of people ignore the advice of Jesus
to judge teachers by their fruit,
and look to known fraud artists to find truth?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@imaginefree69 How can you determine the level of how hard it is to prove one god exists to the other if neither have been proven? Your statement of "logically impossible to have those characteristics" self implodes. You are NOT all knowing, so you could never know what would be possible or impossible for all things, since you do not know all things.
and if you are NOT all knowing and loving in nature, how would you even know what needed to be prevented since you are not loving.
jtaylorcane 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Does anyone else realize that science (demonstrable knowledge) can not disprove or prove things that are invisible or have never been seen?
sopobiker 2 years ago
That is why no scientist would claim he could disprove the existence of god. But that doesn't make it proof for god's existence like creationists claim. It's the question of the 'absolute truth'. There are some philosophers that say (in short) even detectable things do not constitute an absolute truth, because we're restricted to our senses and so cannot be sure that everything we detect is the truth.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
Wether our senses represent a relative or an absolute truth, it is the only thing science must rely on because every human being's senses work the same way and tell them the same. If you see a red ball everyone else will se a red ball too. Religion is somewhat different from that and cannot constitute an absolute truth, because it's founded in belief and imagination that is different in every person. Therefore one cannot prove God, because it is not detectable for every one in the same way.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
One of the proofs that there is the Creator, is the impossibility of the contrary.
Sophistry takes place in the wicked minds of men.
sopobiker 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@ Imaginefree69
You obviously have not been informed by any legitimately educated Christian before. So here is your simple answer to that silly analysis you gave.
First, try reading the text you choose to critique first, then step to the debate plate.
God allows Satan to wreak havoc on earth because in the end a new world will have come, and satan will be in eternal damnation with his followers.
The point of keeping satan around as an example is to prevent a second rebellion!
Kylehintz87 2 years ago
"The point of keeping satan around"
And this is in response to what, exactly?
I've looked back six months
and see nothing that this is relevant to.
And as you yourself suggest,
try reading the text you choose to critique first.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
First they say that the bible is the true word of god... then when it contradicts itself, or 1st grade science, then it requires some crazy interpretations and translation. You cant talk your way around the inadequacies of the bible, and come away believing any of this nonsense.
mpfield1966 2 years ago
The contradictions can be easily explained away, but when YOU are dead set on rejecting the Bible you can easily get what you want from it..
QAndyRa 2 years ago
there are times where i would agree .not.
ScorpioX19 2 years ago
Imaginefree69,
It is obvious that you havne't listened to enough of Wilder smith's lectures, if you had you would find that it isn't the matter that is the subject but the creator that made the matter then made man from the matter.
I do understand your position though it is common, not fully understanding the context.
Listen to more of his lectures and it will be clear what he is saying. Go to hi website and you can download these lectures.
devildoggrunt 2 years ago
re: imaginefree
who cares if the man visited an archeological site?
He is a professor of Biology, that is what the lecture is about. Now take your logically fallacious attempts to discredit the man and erase them instead of copying and pasting them everywhere. What are you some kind of self replicating straw man virus?
tell me, do you think this comment evolved by natural process, or do you think there is a designer who designed it?
diamy00 2 years ago
"who cares if the man visited an archeological site?"
Interpretation:
This man agrees with our doctrine,
so who cares that he is a convicted fraud artist?"
I do.
So does any rational and honest person.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
wich you have shown that you are NOT one!!!
smytb 2 years ago
Comment removed
diamy00 2 years ago
In 1965 Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Things are evolving even now. A butterfly in Hawaii has become a new species evolving a mouth piece that can eat only banana flowers, bananas were only been brought to Hawaii in recent times.
Proof of evolution, and there are many more.
LouisPlume 3 years ago
Well, not proof, but demonstration beyond any reasonable doubt, just like atomic theory or tide theory have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, and there is no more scientific controversy over either of them. (Proof only applies to math and logic)
But yeah.. this guy proves nothing but his own ignorance. It's sad that some people think ignorance of evolution is the same as an argument against it. The description box is laughable and/or sad.
Flyborg 3 years ago
HA HA HA!!!
So let me get this straight......They started as butterflies, changed a little, and now it is a butterfly?????? Gee, that sure is proof of nothing!!!!! (except maybe your intelligence level) ROFLMAO!
And I would like to see a butterfly eat a banana!!!!! That would be a good one!!!
(I live in Hawaii)
smytb 2 years ago
The butterfly in question developed a mouth part that would take food from the banana flower, and nothing else. Its not a difficult concept to understand. It CHANGED, as life evolution does.
Changed your mind, changed your opinion, changed your position.
Things do change, they do move on from Bronze age scripture.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
BUT it started as a butterfly, and ended as a butterfly!!!!
That is NOT evolution, it is ADAPTATION!!!
Once a butterfly, always a butterfly!!!ROFLMFAO!!
smytb 2 years ago
Its still a new species.
Evolution just means "change".
In Britain in the 19th century moths adapted by natural selection to a darker colour through natural selection because of the smog from new industry that was bliting the land.
Then the clear air act came in during the 50s and through natural selection became light colored again.
Human diseases to are excellent examples of evolution.
Viruses evolve and bacteria evolves to and becomes more resistant to anti-biotics.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
You are right about one thing... Evolution means "change over time!! BUT there is NO changing of one species into another!!! Your moth story is the same- they started as moths, & ended as moths!! STILL MOTHS!!! That is more of an adaptation, NOT evolution!!
Once a moth, still a moth... Evolution is Science FICTION!!!
Diseases are adapting, you can call that evolution, BUT it still is a different form of the same thing!!! Going from one species to another is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
smytb 2 years ago
Adaptations a not an incorrect word. But it is a different species of moth, it has indeed "adapted" to its changing environment through evolution by way of natural selection and genetic mutation, and thats what evolution is.
Did you want to see the moth turn into a turtle?
It doesnt work like that, no one suggests it does.
Humans have only been trying to observe things for century, things take millions of years to make serious changes, we can see that in the fossil records.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
But they both are moths! One species, different types! Evolutionists have preached that we "evolved" from pond scum through many species to humans.
They think dinasoaurs "evolved in to birds"
So, YES that IS what they are suggesting.
There is NO "fossil record" of anything changing in to something else!!! Now they know they are full of shit, so they change their story, again & again! Never has been any "serious changes"
Scientifically IMPOSSIBLE!!! Sorry, pal!!!
smytb 2 years ago
I dont know what he is refering to specifically but micro evolution is proof of macro. Micro is undeniable since it has been observed in many aniamals (ex bacteria developing immunity to drugs, and lizards developing larger stomachs) because you can logically conclude that after enough of these changes over a long eough period of time they will develop into a new species. Kinda like how a baby never turns into an old man. It turns into a toddler, teen ect. Just think that but over a longer time.
masterohumans 2 years ago
This man PROVES beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that evolution IS a science FICTION FAIRY TALE!!!!! It is scinteficly IMPOSSIBLE that anything evolved from anything else!!!!
Anyone that believes in evolution does so because they hate God!!!! Plain & simple......
The MOST scientific words you can say about our origions is..."In The Beginning, God Created the Heavns and Earth!!!!!!
smytb 3 years ago
I hope that was a joke.
masterohumans 2 years ago
YES, evolution sure IS a joke!!!!!
Science Fiction / Fantasy is a good category to put evolution in!!!!!!
smytb 2 years ago
I was refering to you saying those who beleive in evolution hate God, and claiming the line from the Bible is scientific.
masterohumans 2 years ago
Evolution is part of a long war against God. you can NOT believe in God AND evolution at the same time!!! They are incompatible! If you want to believe in evolution, fine BUT don't say God did it!!!
That won't work. Evolution is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE! No matter how long you want!!
And my statement "The most scientific thing you can sat about our origins IS "In The Beginning, God CREATED Heaven & Earth!!!
The Bible said the world was round 5000
years BEFORE Science discovered that!!!
smytb 2 years ago
If evolution is scientifically impossible then why has it been proven beyond all reasonable doubt? (not enough room to explain here) And the Bible said the world was round, not a sphere. And your beleif that you have to choose is simple minded. Science does not even attempt to predict a god, that would be a logical fallacy. Also to your comment below there is a fossil record just google transitional fossils and then click the first link.
masterohumans 2 years ago
Believe what ever you want to! BUT, the Bible still is true, and you WILL answer to God when you die! There is MANY things that discredit evolution, making it a scientific impossibility! Nothing ever develops into a new species! Only in science fiction comic books!!! And you can think whatever you want of me. That still does NOT change the facts that you WILL stand before God one day!!!
Do you want to bet a million dollars on that??? You will loose!!!
smytb 2 years ago
What discredits evolution besides the Bible? And make sure your answer has to do with science.
masterohumans 2 years ago
Real science proves the total impossibility of evolution!!
There is NO fossil record of "transitional species", because they do not exist!
smytb 2 years ago
"Real science proves the total impossibility of evolution!!
There is NO fossil record of "transitional species", because they do not exist!"
Another ignorant attacker.
Here's a tip-
ALL life forms and ALL fossils are transitional.
The only thing that doesn't change is your bronze-age religion.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
NO, my friend. You are the foolish one!
NO Lifeforms are "transitional"
And you are VERY right about my "stone age religion" - Jesus IS the same Yesterday, Today, & FOREVER!!!
God does not need to change, because HE IS the Way, the TRUTH, & the Life!!!!
Your screen name tells exactly why you hate God, and are an evolutionist- You want to be free to practice your own sexual immoralities, without worrying about standing before God in Judgment when you die!!! (hope U live to Repent!!!)
smytb 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that Pi = 3 (rather than 3.1416...)
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
This is a better source of information
than the careful collection and examination of data?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Again, your foolish comments are without merit! Humans were formed from the dust. Snakes & donkeys have been used by the Lord to deliver a message in the past!
The Bible NEVER said the sun revolves around the earth, OR that the earth is flat!!!
Maybe your head is flat!!!! LOL
smytb 2 years ago
"Humans were formed from the dust."
The bible says humans are made from dirt.
Or that man was made from dirt and woman from his rib.
Depending on which version of Creation you read.
Science tells us that the ocean is the womb of life on earth.
As neither of us was there to observe the process,
let's look and see what humans are really made of:
Hmmm...
Nearly all salt water and a few minerals.
Sea water.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
imaginefree,
you are the known fraudster.
Though I have demonstrated your errors previously, you continue to paste the same old lies all over YT in the hopes of deceiving the simple
Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
You imagine that you are free to fulfill your wicked desires, but you are storing up wrath for yourself
Repent
diamy00 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Repent. The longer you wait the less likely you will and if you do not, the lake of fire will you dwell for ever and ever. Repent!
sopobiker 2 years ago
I won't repent to some imaginary being and ask forgiveness from "him", but instead I will apologize to the one I harmed and try to fix what I did. Oh, on top of that, I am also going to hell. What is the proof of hell? Or heaven, or god? None. So, he wants me to burn forever if he doesn't try to persuade me with proof. He knows I am reasonable because I believe things with proof, no less. He has no proof, so he is unfair if he burns me.
justforflag2 2 years ago
Hell was not made for men, it was made for Satan and his angels, because YHWH is intolerant of disobedience setting the precedent of righteousness.
For YHWH so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 This earth is bound to perish; where would be this everlasting life be? Some men will never know True Love.
sopobiker 2 years ago
Then why does he bring people there too? Atheists? What about children that die before knowing god? Aborted or miscarried fetuses? Don't tell me they went with satan's side. And besides, god knew Satan would sin, and thus he created hell knowing that this would have happened. The same goes for every being. He know everything, right? I think not. He knew that Satan would do those things in the Garden of Eden. Good work, god.
justforflag2 2 years ago
"Obey and worship me
or I will bring famine and disease upon you today
and torture you for ever, with no chance of reprieve."
his is what you call "True Love"?
Poor you.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Please, what book are you quoting form again??
Kylehintz87 2 years ago
For all have sinned (broken the 10 commandments) and come short of the glory of YHWH. - Romans 5:8 For the wages of sin is death, ... - Romans 6:23 You deserve to burn because you broke the Creator's Law.
sopobiker 2 years ago
But these things are written that you may believe that YWHWSHUA is the Anointed Son of YHWH, and that believing you may have life in His name. - John 20:31
It is up to you my friend: choose the darkness in the lake of eternal fire, or choose eternal life through the Anointed Son of the Creator.
sopobiker 2 years ago
So you evaded my points. I said that god knew that I would go to hell when he created me. He knew I would "sin". He knew it all, knew about what Satan would do, knew about the wars, and still, he is benevolent. Can you explain it to me?
justforflag2 2 years ago
"In The Beginning, God CREATED Heaven & Earth!!!"
Which version of Creation in the Bible do you like best?
Genesis Chapter ONE,
in which humans were created AFTER plants and animals?
Or chapter TWO, in which humans were created BEFORE plants and animals?
Chapter ONE,
in which man and woman were created at the same time?
Or chapter TWO,
in which man was created before the plants
and woman was created after all the animals?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Your foolish comments prove that you have no clue what the Bible really says!
Both chapters line up perfectly together.
Ch. 2 is an account of the same events, just told a little differently.
Satan has blinded your eyes from the truth!!!!!
smytb 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Sorry my friend,They BOTH Are True! YOU are knit-picking at the Bible, because YOU do not want to believe it! Your eyes are blinded from understanding the Truth! The Bible IS the 100% Correct & True Word of God! For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to soul and spirit, a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is none hidden from His sight, but all are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
smytb 2 years ago
"The Bible said the world was round 5000
years BEFORE Science discovered that!!!"
Yes.
Round and FLAT.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Sorry Pal!
You are imagining things if you think it said that!!!
Show me, if you can...(YOU CAN'T)
smytb 2 years ago
"Show me, if you can"
FLAT EARTH IN THE BIBLE:
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a CIRCLE (Hebrew CHUWG).
(DURE is Old Hebrew for "sphere", but Isaiah used CHUWG)
Daniel 4:10-11a tree that is as tall as the heavens
can be seen from everywhere on the earth
Matthew 4:8 has Jesus viewing the whole earth from a tall mountain.
Revelation 1:7 says every eye will see Jesus coming in the clouds.
Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation all require a flat earth.
Well, either flat or bowl-shaped.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Again, YOU are knit-picking, because YOU do not want to know the Truth!
I pray that you repent & turn to Jesus while you still can!!! Because You WILL see & know that the Bible IS True.
It will be for your eternal salvation OR your eternal damnation!!!! That choice is YOURS, & Yours ALONE!!!
smytb 2 years ago
The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, lifes DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information. Wilder is genius!
utubejvs3 3 years ago
Darwin was not wrong. God sent Darwin to enlighten human beings.
EGMAG 3 years ago
Using definitions of science and evolution, shows that macroevolution is not observed and is not a fact. The debate is not science versus religion, but is rather the secular worldview versus the Christian worldview. Presents evidence against evolution and for creation from biology.
utubejvs3 3 years ago
The fundamental flaw of your comment is that you are close minded and your imagination is futile and foolish. You have no excuse.
Look in the mirror...according to you you're an accident without purpose and so is your comment. No one cares...who loves the Creator.
utubejvs3 4 years ago
Actually his comment has purpose, but you're unable to see what it is!
whovian1971 3 years ago
Mind does think in time!
EGMAG 3 years ago
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."
Lovtrup, Soren
utubejvs3 3 years ago
A flash is still time.
EGMAG 3 years ago
The fundamental flaw in the comments on this video (which I have not watched - 80 minutes is too long) is that the probabilites do NOT MULTIPLY. See the link from my page. This
entire argument is bogous.
tomdschneider 4 years ago
Not everyone has conceptual thoughts.
EGMAG 3 years ago
The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.
Gitt, Werner
utubejvs3 3 years ago
A purely material origin of life is thus precluded. <<
Therefore a Creator who can do all things, did so, through the process of evolution, which is clearly disguised in human written scripture stories, described in all human religons.
EGMAG 3 years ago
An infinite Creator sent Darwins brain to clarify & understand the mechanics of creating through evolution; Creator's "one" cause set in motion "one" effect & a universe was born as an acorn becomes a mighty oak! The time lines & matter contents vary, the analogy is the same! All religions, sciences & physics, have one common study; that is, "one" cause to "one" effect etc. Results a proliferation or distintegration of further evolving according to chance &/or choice of God's good or human evil!
EGMAG 3 years ago
You are quoting? How about reading my paper? Then we can discuss actual science and the actual model.
tomdschneider 3 years ago
Sorry I didn't understand what you mean by that EMAG.
tomdschneider 3 years ago