No idiot, you treat biology and science like a religion, your personal religion. It's beyond pathetic. Of course biology isn't a religion, but you apparently didn't get the memo. The irony of your statements...
I never asserted that science was a religion. I asserted that you treat science as your personal religion. Huge difference. After telling you this a dozen times, you still don't get it.
You are the only I am unable to have a productive conversation with. As a matter of fact, I've never seen you have a productive conversation with anyone. You are so desperately trying to prove God doesn't exist, trying to push your scientism or strong atheism, or whatever anti-metaphysical views you hold, that you don't even allow yourself to comprehend what others are saying. There really seems to be no hope for you.
Every single assertion you make is demonstrably false.\
"You are the only I am unable to have a productive conversation with."
Bullshit.
I've butted into a dozen "conversations" you've had around the tubes in the past months, and you constantly poop fluff and call names when your opponent points out your fallacies.
I've never tried to prove God doesn't exist--and I've never tried to prove that Unicorns don't exist--same thing.
For sure. I'd take a step further and say it is a social delusion. I mean, just look at the comments. Evolutionists can't even think for themselves, they just repeat the same incoherent nonsense over and over. Hence why you call them evoTARDs, because their intellect is literally retarded by the insanity of their beliefs.
The scientific community is not allowed to appeal to a greater reality in order to explain our world by the definition of science that it is currently peddling. This definition's very goal is to allow for evolution to replace design, period. None of that matters. All that matters is the evidence and the truth.
A perversion of science? Science is simply observation and repeated experimentation within the language of mathematics. You speak of it like a religion, that's insane.
@circusOFprecision Science will be allowed to appeal to a greater reality when observation and repeated experimentation suggest a greater reality. Simple as that.
The only shill following people around trolling is you. You have a right to your religion, but I've said that I'm not interested, so take it somewhere else.
That's because there is no hard scientific evidence to a greater reality.
You misinterpreted my point. Anti-evolutionists commonly make totally fantastic and speculative claims which have more to do with a more faith based way of thinking and claim to have made such conclusions using the scientific method even though the actually haven't.
Therefore, it perverts and is a mockery of science.
So what about the claim that God created the world in six days? Or that Adam and Eve existed as described in the Bible? Or that the world is only 6000 years old? Or that giant humans once existed?
If you want an actual scientific answer, read Dr. Schroeder's The Science of God. He explains several of those questions scientifically. He also interprets the Bible as is, from the hebrew. You don't have to agree, but you can't pretend that only fundamentalist creationists trying to twist reality to a literal interpretation of text are the only people asking or answering these questions. It's not pure fantasy. Educate yourself as to other ideas, which certainly include science.
I have a better idea. Why don't you offer something that's peer reviewed? I only educate myself to scientific ideas that follow the scientific method. Creationism does the opposition of such. Rather than gathering evidence and constructing a theory based on such evidence, it makes a conclusion and looked for evidence to support it.
Evolutionism is an ancient pagan fairy tale you can find its sources in Vedic legends,ancient Greece,old Jewish Kabbalah,ancient Tibetan legends .Yep Evolutionism is just an ancient pagan religion disguised as science
@SonofJaphet You can also find it in the texts of medieval scholars who have been sainted. It's not until the Protestants fucked everything up and Biblical literalism took over that it's been seen as at all antithetical to religion.
In any case, gradual change in life, even to the point of speciation, is something that's been observed by humans. Sudden appearance of life, by divine interaction or anything else, has not.
@IoEstasCedonta Noboby saw a reptile changing into a bird it is impossible because they dont have the same respiratory system or a whale changing into a cow now this is what i call a fairy tale
@SonofJaphet Whales have ungulate ancestors, not the other way around.
Birds split from the nearest extant reptilian branch (crocodilians) 245 million years ago. The respiratory systems of both have changed, just like dogs and crops have changed over time. Is it that hard to see that changes over decades or centuries might be less than those over millions of years, or that not every single step over millions of years might be well-understood?
@IoEstasCedonta Again you re out of the boundaries of science now you re in ancient pagan religion just likein the old Vedic fairy tale : Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago.So if you believe in Evolution you must believe in old unscientific pagan fairy tales
@SonofJaphet Why? Tornadoes are seen in ancient "pagan" myths as well (and not once in the Bible); do I have to believe in "old unscientific pagan fairy tales" to believe in them? Scientifically, a gradual evolution agrees with human observations much better than a sudden creation, and evidence goes directly against much of the Bible, even parts atheists were willing to accept, such as a unified Israel under David.
...genetic material. This allows for greater natural selection possibilities, thus being favored, and through this process sexual reproduction developed.
11. Woa woa woa sexual reproduction does NOT "shuffle the deck" of gene combinations. If this happened, we would all die shortly after conception.
12. Simple, science deals with the observable, natural world. By definition or not, god is NOT testable.
13. ID is not science, as it has no testable theories, but evolution can be used to predict.
If anyone who reads this needs explanation on the misleading qualities of probability laws, reply to my comment.
9. Lol second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system. Guess what Earth isn't? Oh yeah, a closed system.
10. Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily more secure than asexual reproduction, as the second one leads to clones. When genetic material is diverse and jumbled in a gene pool, evolution is most effective, yielding the most efficient organisms through available....
.... 6. The statement is false. Random mutations are not the driver for evolution. Also, evolution happens slowly, which allows the organisms to survive the nucleotide changes. Of course major changes didn't happen over a few generations; nothing could survive that.
7. First, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life, and so this part is superfluous. Second, it is NOT mathematically impossible for life to arise by "chance."
8. Laws of probability are flimsy and deliberately misleading
... only ignorance on the part of the video maker.
4. The human tracks next to dinosaur prints were disproven, and surprisingly, even creationist "scientists" agreed. (btw check our lots of evidence of major time difference)
5. Once again, ignorance. Mutations are mostly neutral, with a small number being beneficial or detrimental. Also, mutation is not the driving force for evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution works, and this cannot be "simulated" by x rays. ....
1. The first part about the frog is superfluous and grossly incorrect.
2. We don't have millions of transitional fossils because fossils are rare formations due to body composition and conditions, but we do have thousands, and they are what this video claims they aren't.
3. The supposed "rapid and sudden" appearance of body forms in the Cambrian period takes millions of years, which is "short" in geological time terms. Then jumping from "quick" appearance to creator highlights...
Nice work... I like the info on the fruit flies... Complex internal organs such as eyes, the heart, the liver, the pancreas etc haven't changed for millions of years either.
I stopped at the probability part where he started spouting crap about the impossibility of modern cells forming randomly. He was already at two strikes from the transitional fossils and fruit fly bits; the probability bullshit showed the content of his character and how little he cares about his intellectual integrity.
I love how the assertions made in this video are so intellectually bankrupt that it needs some crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise behind it to dramatise it and make it more credible. The nature of anti-evolutionary arguments are just like the nature of blind faith itself: Rooted in pre-modern pseudo-philosophical opinions, that remain unchanged forever. Just like biblical theory has remained unchanged for over a thousand years. It's like a blind, deaf, retard banging their head against a wall
@TheJackFrench "crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise behind it to"
While I believe that evolution has some problems (tautological aspects, unfalsifiable aspects and untestable aspects), it is certainly the best scientific ie natural theory for the origin and diversity of life. That being said, I just have to point out that your phrase, quoted above, is the most pretentious I've seen in a LOT of youtube comments, specifically "crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise" made me puke in my lap...
I still think this creationist-evolution debate is bogus because Alister Mcgrath and Stephen J. Gould both said that evolution is completely compatible with theism and equally compatible with atheism. McGrath then goes on to say that "evolution can be interpreted in a theistic or atheistic way, but it doesn't demand either of these."
A message to creationists / intelligent design people - stop listening to people who don't know science / biology / archeology. Read widely, you don't need to even look at athiest books to find overwhelming DOCUMENTED and TESTED evidence.
i'm sorry, i stopped listening after 'atheistic movement religiously spreading ignorance and propaganda.' this video uses far too many assumptions and false claims. get it together, man!
"Evolution is an "anti-theory" that produces "anti-knowledge" ".
Incredible! I agree it's one of the dumbest assertions on youtube.
So that when one says "Everything has been created by an intelligent designer, and we cannot test him because we cannot understand his true nature" can produce knowledge ? can produce medecines ? can help understand of growing, physiology, ecology, some of diseases, and that can help us creating new algorithms that perform very well ???
"Evolution states org. should takes million of years to evolve..."
and
"Science shows a rapid ans dudden appearence and diversification..."
What you missed is that the "rapid and sudden" was actually during a period of tens of millions years.... and life has appeared hundreds millions years before that, so complex organisms have in fact several million of years to evolve....
there is no contradiction, except if you misinterpret "rapid"
The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age. That is what caused the Dark Ages!
People are stupid. Evolution is obviously against god, I mean... sure it is a "FACT" as it certainly is supported by all the physical evidence and logic.
God warned about this. He said to believe in Him. Ignore the facts and evidence and read the Bible. It's easier to understand, and it makes life less complicated, plus it'll make you feel more powerful because you got GOD on your side. Pray for all those who prefer truth to God, they surely are going to hell.
rationalanarchy u say its been tested in a lab so an intelligence had to set perfect conditions for this to occur??? so hmmm an intelligence did have to intervene interesting
None of the "facts" in this video are true. I'm not sure if you're deliberately lying or just very stupid, but some simple internet research proves everything in this video wrong.
1859:1964 edition ....check the video @ 9:26....if you don't think that's one of the Stupidest things ever written(and to be in a book hailed as scientific theory at it's best, even More laughable!!) you've got serious issues...
i never set specific criteria ....you told me that from uni-to-multi-cellular organisms changing....is evidence for macro evolution .I disagree...as i mentioned before i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new "kinds" of animals arising....animal-multicellular,eukaryotic organism with voluntary movement...
if that's what you want to call it ....i'm o.k. w/ that.....but there are many people who would agree with me in saying your Examples are not Proof of new animals arising out of different ones.....
unicelluar to multicellular is Not evidence for macroevolution!! im just not willing to go there ...and many scientist( in all areas of science)are not as well ...
as i said before!! i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new kinds of animals arising....let's keep observing these "cellular" Changes and See....if they morph into larger and larger complex animals...
Macroevolution if it true is more than just speciation. The end result is a new taxa/family. The observed instances of speciation I found did not result in a new taxa/family. One example of natural speciation I read about is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish that, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. It's still a fish!
macro evolution?? look it up..it has to do with new taxonomic groups coming from different ones.....i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new kinds of animals arising...cells do have the ablity to adapt to environment as well.
i don't have a reply really.. what works for you? does that evidence convince You that one type of animal can completely morph into another over millions of years?...without observation..?? new taxonomic groups?? i don't agree with the theory
species of bacteria...new?.."species of bacteria"..that can digest nylon....Still species of bacteria...this is observed resistance Not macroevolution....fruitflies being bred...bred is the key word intelligence is invoked...perfect example of micro-evolution...still a fruit fly specimen ...maybe your the ignorant
then why are there no "laws" of evolution encompassed in a general theory of evolution......because all we've observed in the wild is microevolution...observed on numerous occasions.....give me one example..
By the way, I just wanted to mention that this video is not just awful but GOD awful. I mean, does this nobody actually think that he knows more about evolutionary theory than the entire scientific community? If evolutionary theory were nearly as weak as these ignoramuses lead people to believe then the scientific community would pounce on it like a tiger on a confused deer. If anyone were able to falsify evolutionary theory then they would be famous and awarded all sorts of honors and funding.
hahaha.....nobody cares what you think about this video buddy. Do you listen to yourself....throwing inslults left and right. You evolutionists pseudoscientists are worst than the most extreme religious fanatic.
Yes, I do re-read what I type before I post it and it seems pretty solid. Not once did I assert something that I can't back up and I made some good points by asking you several questions (which have yet to be answered). You still have yet to provide evidence supporting ID. Evolution is pseudoscience?! lol, ok you are quite delusional. Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY in science, go look it up. You are really lost buddy, you simply have no idea what you're talking about regarding evolution.
Nothing can be fact and theory, that's highly illogical. Evolution is inconclusive Science with no backing. Please check out Michael Denton, he explains why evolution is in shambles.
"Nothing can be fact and theory, that's highly illogical"
Then you clearly don't understand how science works. The claim that gravity happens is a FACT while the explanations of how it works is a THEORY. It's not a matter of something is either a theory or a fact, that's not how it works. Theories use the accumulated evidence (facts) and attempt to explain how the facts work the way that they do. There's the fact that evolution happens and then there is the theory that explains the mechanisms.
You got a lil confused here....evolution is the theory not the fact. The fact is the variety of life....evolution is the theory that tries (very hard) to explain it.
"Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth
Theory: contemplation, speculation , guess or conjecture.
A fact cannot be modified, a cup is a cup, a foot is a foot, a chair is a chair.
This suppose accumulation of evidence is bull, where are these facts, has evolution ever being observed? NO. Is there any factual evidence of evolution? NO. Is evolution just speculation? YES..Evolution is just an idea, belief generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof just like GOD.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
many scientific theories have been proven wrong... that is why they are scientific theories not scientific facts! They need to be FALSIFIABLE...there needs to be a chance of it being incorrect, otherwise it is a scientific fact. Why is it not worldwide known that every living specie has come from the same ancestors over millions of years by natural selection (evolution)??? Tell me why there is so much controversy if it is a known fact?
Theories don't become facts, they are always theories (it's as high as an idea can go). Also, you are confused with what I am saying. Evolution (a change in the proportion of alleles in a population over time) is an observable fact, while common descent is the theory. While it is always possible for the theory to be falsified (finding any modern mammal in Precambrian strata, for example) so much evidence supports the theory, as well as there being no known contradictory evidence, it's unlikely.
Further, I would guess that the controversy over evolutionary theory stems from the ideological conflict between common descent and purposeful design. I never said that evolutionary theory is 100% fact, I said evolution is a fact. If evolution happens now, it's reasonable to assume that it happened in the past. This explains what we see in the fossil record (nested hierarchies of organisms), genetics, comparative anatomy, and the many other fields of science that support evolutionary theory.
gravity is a Law....not a theory.....evolution is Not a Law....it is a theory(scientifically speaking)....if we could observe macro-evolution happening ..it may therefore become a Law.....someday
@lunabirdie There is a theory of gravity which attempts to explain the fact of gravity, so there is the scientific theory that tries to explain the natural law (how it happens). Macro-evolution is evolution over a long period of time so observing it would be quite difficult, but there are many observed instances of speciation. I guess u didn't read my earlier posts; theories don't upgrade to laws or facts, theories take all known facts and try to explain them. So evolution is a theory and a fact
Also, it is not necessary to observe "macro" evolution to make the claim that evolution is a fact. I suggest u look up the definition of biological evolution. If "micro" evolution is observed than evolution is a fact (things evolve), what ur arguing is that things don't evolve past a certain point, which is foolish. Populations of organisms r always evolving and over a long enough period of time they will b much different than their ancestors were, assuming there r environmental pressures.
The Scientific community only has evolution to work with anything else involves I.D which we know is simply unacceptable "sarcasm". I think you have a high standard for Scientists.
Scientist makes theory, other Scientists say "hey we can work with that and get our billions in Government funding", others follow, books are written and sold, theory is taught in school as fact....etc....etc....etc..
"Scientist makes theory, other Scientists say 'hey we can work with that and get our billions in Government funding'"
Again, you clearly do not understand how science works. Scientists are constantly trying to prove each other wrong and falsify each others' ideas. If someone really wanted funding then he or she would simply need to falsify evolutionary theory (which should be easy according to you), yet it has not happened.
It is true that there are no other known alternatives to evolution (that have the same explanatory power and evidential support). The reason evolution is the only theory that is considered is because all of the evidence supports it. There has yet to be any evidence discovered that contradicts current understandings of evolutionary theory. ID has no practical applications, has no explanatory power, and has no evidence supporting it (not to mention it cannot be tested).
so you claim......with your knowledge and understanding (limited if you ask me). Science is not in a position to make absolute statements on what is considered right or wrong. We still dont understand a great deal of life processes and yet some arrogant fools still try to sell Evolution as the only alternative.
Evolution theory is supported by the evidence in a way that no other explanation is, which is why there are no alternatives as of right now. If someone were to propose an alternative theory that was supported by the evidence, as well, then it would be investigated and possibly considered. Science can state what is observable fact, such as gravity and evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Google 'observed instances of speciation.'
Evolutionary change is brought on by a need to adapt. If a fruit fly's situation reguarding its ability to survive doesent change then even 100 million years wont produce a dramatic change. To put it simply "If it aint broke, it can't be fixed". Until a situation arises which threatens their existance (such as all the fruit on Earth slowly becoming extenct) you cant really expect a major biological change.
Our DNA cannot produce more information , it can mutate but will only contain information that's already there, if what you claim is real , then why aren't there any links between any species in terms of evolution? We have dug and dug and dug and yet nothing, we found dinosaur bones but nothing in between no "missing link", take religion out of the way, do you really believe that everything around you was created by chance? Do you know how complex our DNA is?
The source of new information is mutation. Gene duplication: a gene duplicates and the copy gene is allowed to accumulate as many mutations as it wants, accumulating new information in the process. No links between different species? Are you willfully ignorant or just incredibly lazy? Whale, horse, ape, reptile-to-mammal and reptile-to-bird evolution are all well documented and exhibited in the fossil record. It's embarrassing how misinformed you are, it almost has to be intentional.
Please provide some evidence to your claims. If it was true then why are scientist trying to find a "missing link" between a inter species connection. Mutation does not add anything it uses what it already has ex: a child with 3 legs or a woman with 3 breasts. If mutations did contain information of amphibian or other creatures then they should have come up in our gene pool, a child born with a fin wouldn't be so irregular since our DNA should that information.
Why don't you just google what I said and learn on your own? Maybe you should try reading an actual book on the subject or do some solid research instead of picking up dishonest nonsense from biased sources. I'll help you along: just go to google and type in "reptile-to-mammal evolution" or anything else I posted (such as gene duplications). You could even use wiki and you'll get some solid sources; although I do suggest you visit talkorigins(dot)org, it is an outstanding source on evolution.
I have, I am not selective in my research if I was then I wouldn't know what you are talking about. I have done research and there is no reptile to mammal evolution, it is theorized that maybe, possibly, could be that we came from reptiles, there is no evidence of this so called leap of species. It's funny how science magazines show it as proof yet it is a story of fantasy, genetics shows nothing of that sort and neither does a fossil record, it is purely absurd speculation.
Am I speaking with a logical human being? You're the one who is suppose to provide me with a reptile to mammal evolution not me. I said there is no successful reptile to mammal evolution, so how can i provide you with information if I'm telling you that it does not exist? You're suppose to refute me by providing a intelligible source or argument of some sort.
Just because you don't know about it does not mean that the evidence no longer exists, you just haven't done adequate research. I sent you the link containing evidence for evolution and will be looking forward to your response.
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.
Here are the sources for transitional fossils I listed (ran out of room): (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002).
fact 2 - it was around 50 million years, and in that period oxygen was becoming abundant.
fact 3 - you dont understand evolution
fact 4- you dont understand evolution
fact 5 - has nothing to do with evolution, its abiogenesis, and the probability is the same for any cell, and because cells exist, things lucked out with your "impossible" situations
your vids are great. when ppl start making a mockery of what u say and skip[ around the point they dont know what to say thats why all the evolutionist are ganing up on us fight the good fight.brother in christ.
Even if this video had disproved evolution, (which I never really expected you to accomplish..) you still would need some reason to revert back to a belief system of thousands of years ago, that is basically saying "we don't know what it is, so it must be something supernatural!"
You can't assume it is god just because of low probabilities for life. The "proof" for god is so intrinsically man-made, it doesn't even make sense anyone ever believed in them!
This is not a argument which is correct, its a argument that evolutionists claim they are the ones who are correct but have no evidence, no facts to their claims, theory=speculation is not a fact unless its somewhat observed. Intelligent design although more simple in terms of Science is a bit complicated. I can see intelligent design all around me from DNA to our planetary system to the Universe, its quite complex, its what I call order not randomness.
Nice dodge, but you proved only statements, when I was looking for references to studies or webpages, or in fact anything.
For the most part of ID has been discredited as pseudoscientific. Even though ID does seem to fit well to our surroundings and our common day senses, but the same phenomena can be explained far better by the scientific discoveries of recent times. Not by the god-did-it argument (sorry for involving god in this, if you don't believe in it. I simply mean god as a designer).
I find it hard to believe that any real Scientist can call ID pseudoscience, they simply say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", I can observe my surroundings and find order and intelligent construction but unfortunately we live in a era were any mention of God is illogical since its more logical to believe in arguments that have no backing, modern Science has proven nil in terms of our creation and/or purpose, even in nature everything has a purpose.
Except evolution can explain how order can arrive by purely natural means over a period of time, while ID claims that order cannot arrive "by accident" (which is a straw man argument) and simply says that a god did it. Notice how evolution can actually explain HOW apparent design and order can be brought about by purely natural means while ID does not. It's all about explanatory power and ID does not have any. Evolutionary theory has no supporting evidence while ID and a belief in a god do?!?!
Further, there are many things in nature that do not exhibit intelligent design. Is your god an underachiever? What evidence supports ID? Show me any evidence that supports the idea that a god designed something and that that same something cannot possibly come about by purely natural means and I'll definitely give it a shot. I know that there are natural explanations for pretty much everything you attribute to intelligent design because I have read them while you have not. Do some research.
There are several possible explanations of how the first living cell arose, but this is abiogenesis and not evolution. Do you maybe want to do some actual research and see if you can find out on your own? Do you really want me to spoon feed you?
Well the distinction happens to be necessary because evolutionary theory (it's major mechanisms, at least) doesn't really apply until billions of years after the first forms of life arose. Evolution is in the biological sciences because it can be observed and tested. The statement that evolution (change over time) has occurred in the past and continues to occur is an absolute FACT, while evolutionary theory tries to explain HOW the fact of evolution happens and the underlying mechanisms.
It's similar to how we look at gravity. We know that evolution happens just as we know that gravity happens, while each has a theory that attempts to explain HOW it happens. Evolution and gravity are both facts and are explained by their respective theories. Pseudoscience? lol, you are quite lost, little one. Are you aware that more than 95% of biologists accept evolution? What do you know that these experts, who have dedicated their lives to their particular fields, don't know?
Stop comparing the theory of relativity with the theory of evolution, though Einsteins theory is still a theory. His theory states that time and space are mutually dependent and the contraction of space and the dilatation of time originate with motion as real physical processes, there are quite a few scientists that refute his theory.Theory's come and go, they are not fact they are just speculations.
I really suggest you visit notjustatheory(dot)org so you can understand what the term 'theory' means in science, because you are confusing it with the definition from common usage.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory. Evo is the same
You just watched a 10 minute video about why it can't be true... which provided no evidence towards that effect.
Watch the video response to this. Putting aside its nosy remarks towards creationists - totally unnecessary and beside the point - the video actually has the science behind it.
Don't you just love it when creationists make fools of themselves?
Schadenfreude is not particularly honourable. But there is something inevitably hilarious when someone carefully digs a great big hole, lays a banana skin down beside it then takes a run up, skids on the banana skin, flies in the air & crashes down on his back right in the deepest part of the hole.
Another ignorant rant from a Christian who doesn't even know what science is, let alone evolution. The only thing this video communicates is that we really ought to find a way to stop so many people from having their minds raped by that nasty industry.
You made it farther than I did hairy.. I mean it's not like you haven't seen this dumb shit a thousand times.. I go straight to the comment section, that's where the real funny is.. a non stop knee slapping Parade of Delusion.. how do people this obviously damaged even function in Society?
They play on the fact that there are gaps in th theory of evolution and therefor, to a certain degree you must have faith,. Of course " faith "has different meanings. We trust indeed in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the appropriate fields. There will always be gaps in evolution,like in every other scientific theory.
You better refine your researching skills because not only do you not provide any links to support your rediculous claims, most of your claims just prove how little you know about any science.
To be brief: Why do Theists, namely Christians, assume Athiesm and Evolution are forms of religion? THEY ARE NOT RELIGIONS, you obviously have them confused with the cult of scientology. Evolution & Athiesm worships no deity, rituals, traditions etc. Evolution is a process, Atheism is non theist.
I think they group atheism as a religion, for they feel that science takes a great deal of faith to accept. I mean, lets be honest when faced with heaping piles of evidence it takes a large amount of faith to realise we are all part of a common ancestor.
I think in summary the reply video is just further evidence of a fanatical fundamemtal belief in Science. You WANT science to able to explain our universe, (it doesnt however...read about the origin of life or the creation of matter among other things) and when the so-called "skeptic" is presented with evidence that contradicts what he WANTS to believe, he will cling to his "religion" in a most unscientifc fashion.
I just watched the response video and I truly beg to differ.
I think perhaps it is YOU and shanedk who need to spend a bit more time in Bio 101.
The dinosaur tracks and the human tracks, I will concede that is absurd...AND I will concede that I dont know much about heterozygotes, but my guess is that their natural procliviity toward selecting the "right tie" for the "right suit" is typically less than that of a homozygote. :-)
However on some of the more salient points the reply video is feckless at best.
Cambrian- The "sudden" appearance does not pertain to a length of time, it pertains to the fact that those fossils "show up" in complete form, without the expected transitions. That is what we mean by "sudden" and that contradicts old man Darwin.
Origin- Yes we all know that origin is not part of Darwin's theory...but it is the same discussion...we say life was created, you say it wasn't.
Lack of transitons- Yes you may be able to scrape up a very few fossils that could be argued to be transitions, or argued not to be. That still contradicts evolution, Darwin himself said we should be literally stumbling all over transitionals in all sorts of stages, but we aren't .
Mutation and Natural Selection- Yes they have been observed but NEVER has the mutation added new info.
Probability- Mathematics is what it is and cant be changed.
Nice job on this. Atheists WANT to believe in evolution, and even when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes their position, they refuse to accept it.
Often people who dont want to accept God do so because they feel guilty about something they have done or the way they are living and IF there is a God then they have to be accountable.
If they refuse to accept God then they can continue to rebel and not feel that they have to be accountable.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Takes more faith to believe in that evo-garbage then it does to believe in conscious energy.
Hypocrisy, thy name is "evolutionists". All hail the mythical, unfound ape-man!!!
buffboynick 2 months ago
GOOD THING SCIENTISTS FOUND THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS !
Species that possess transitional features: Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bisbas3232
Dr. Schroeders bullshit is just another example of circusClown attempt to force fit his religious opinions to reality.
This guy has been debunked.
odinata 3 months ago
Calling Biology a "religion" can't turn it into one.
The fact that foxes are related to wolves has nothing to do with mythology.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
No idiot, you treat biology and science like a religion, your personal religion. It's beyond pathetic. Of course biology isn't a religion, but you apparently didn't get the memo. The irony of your statements...
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
No, idiot. Asserting science is a religion doesn't make it so.
Nor does asserting that only the assertions that support your personal religion qualify as science.
You are too stupid--this is why your opinions haven;t made it off the pages of the Enquirer to the Universities Science Departments.
Demonic UFO's?
A hahhahhahahhahaha!
What a gullible turd.
Idiot.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
I never asserted that science was a religion. I asserted that you treat science as your personal religion. Huge difference. After telling you this a dozen times, you still don't get it.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Repeating over and over doesn't make it true, and it does absolutely NOTHING for your assertion that their is INDEED a religion underlying science.
YOU are the one who CLAIMS that a god is necessary in DNA.
YOU are the one treating Biology as vehicle foy YOUR religious opinions.
YOUR"E entire argument is indeed that these new BIOLOGY lessons from Shapiro and Stanford and Hovind etc ARE pointing to GOD--
You're religion.
But you still don't get it....
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
You are the only I am unable to have a productive conversation with. As a matter of fact, I've never seen you have a productive conversation with anyone. You are so desperately trying to prove God doesn't exist, trying to push your scientism or strong atheism, or whatever anti-metaphysical views you hold, that you don't even allow yourself to comprehend what others are saying. There really seems to be no hope for you.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You think insulting me is an attempt to have a productive conversation?
You think "No idiot, you treat biology and science like a religion, your personal religion."
is part of a PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION?
:ou've done nothing but sprinkle derisive comments in between your claims of the supernatural and your assertions that established science is wrong.
The problem is within you.
odinata 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Every single assertion you make is demonstrably false.\
"You are the only I am unable to have a productive conversation with."
Bullshit.
I've butted into a dozen "conversations" you've had around the tubes in the past months, and you constantly poop fluff and call names when your opponent points out your fallacies.
I've never tried to prove God doesn't exist--and I've never tried to prove that Unicorns don't exist--same thing.
I've shown that your assertions are false.
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision What does evolution have to do with God?
You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
gregrutz 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bisbas3232
evolution = a FAIRYTALE for adults
evoTARDSareINSANE 6 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
For sure. I'd take a step further and say it is a social delusion. I mean, just look at the comments. Evolutionists can't even think for themselves, they just repeat the same incoherent nonsense over and over. Hence why you call them evoTARDs, because their intellect is literally retarded by the insanity of their beliefs.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
amen brother (pardon the pun lol)
:)
evoTARDSareINSANE 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Is that why the vast majority of those in the scientific community believe that evolution is the most accurate model for why we exist?
Sorry but creationism is a fairy tale and is a perversion of science.
TheAntiV 6 months ago
@TheAntiV
The scientific community is not allowed to appeal to a greater reality in order to explain our world by the definition of science that it is currently peddling. This definition's very goal is to allow for evolution to replace design, period. None of that matters. All that matters is the evidence and the truth.
A perversion of science? Science is simply observation and repeated experimentation within the language of mathematics. You speak of it like a religion, that's insane.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Science will be allowed to appeal to a greater reality when observation and repeated experimentation suggest a greater reality. Simple as that.
IoEstasCedonta 3 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta
Science is unable to explain everything. That fact alone refutes your empty assertion.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The empty assertion is that the limitations of science, which aer ever expanding, indicate a superstitious explanation.
You aren't interested in truth--you shill for your religion.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
The only shill following people around trolling is you. You have a right to your religion, but I've said that I'm not interested, so take it somewhere else.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
This is the name of the game.
You deny the facts, I demonstrate just how severely wrong you are.
The Evangelical Jihad dies here.
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Fact"?
IoEstasCedonta 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
That's because there is no hard scientific evidence to a greater reality.
You misinterpreted my point. Anti-evolutionists commonly make totally fantastic and speculative claims which have more to do with a more faith based way of thinking and claim to have made such conclusions using the scientific method even though the actually haven't.
Therefore, it perverts and is a mockery of science.
TheAntiV 6 months ago
@TheAntiV
What kind of fantastic claims are you talking about?
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You want a list?
TheAntiV 3 months ago
@TheAntiV
Sure. And then give me the irrefutable scientific explanation for said claim.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
That's my point. There is no scientific explanation for their claims. It's pure fantasy.
TheAntiV 3 months ago
@TheAntiV
You didn't back up your assertions. You took the lazy way out. Therefore I am not obligated to even consider your opinion.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
So what about the claim that God created the world in six days? Or that Adam and Eve existed as described in the Bible? Or that the world is only 6000 years old? Or that giant humans once existed?
TheAntiV 3 months ago
@TheAntiV
If you want an actual scientific answer, read Dr. Schroeder's The Science of God. He explains several of those questions scientifically. He also interprets the Bible as is, from the hebrew. You don't have to agree, but you can't pretend that only fundamentalist creationists trying to twist reality to a literal interpretation of text are the only people asking or answering these questions. It's not pure fantasy. Educate yourself as to other ideas, which certainly include science.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I have a better idea. Why don't you offer something that's peer reviewed? I only educate myself to scientific ideas that follow the scientific method. Creationism does the opposition of such. Rather than gathering evidence and constructing a theory based on such evidence, it makes a conclusion and looked for evidence to support it.
TheAntiV 3 months ago
Evolutionism is an ancient pagan fairy tale you can find its sources in Vedic legends,ancient Greece,old Jewish Kabbalah,ancient Tibetan legends .Yep Evolutionism is just an ancient pagan religion disguised as science
SonofJaphet 7 months ago
@SonofJaphet You can also find it in the texts of medieval scholars who have been sainted. It's not until the Protestants fucked everything up and Biblical literalism took over that it's been seen as at all antithetical to religion.
In any case, gradual change in life, even to the point of speciation, is something that's been observed by humans. Sudden appearance of life, by divine interaction or anything else, has not.
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta Noboby saw a reptile changing into a bird it is impossible because they dont have the same respiratory system or a whale changing into a cow now this is what i call a fairy tale
SonofJaphet 4 months ago
@SonofJaphet Whales have ungulate ancestors, not the other way around.
Birds split from the nearest extant reptilian branch (crocodilians) 245 million years ago. The respiratory systems of both have changed, just like dogs and crops have changed over time. Is it that hard to see that changes over decades or centuries might be less than those over millions of years, or that not every single step over millions of years might be well-understood?
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta Again you re out of the boundaries of science now you re in ancient pagan religion just likein the old Vedic fairy tale : Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago.So if you believe in Evolution you must believe in old unscientific pagan fairy tales
SonofJaphet 4 months ago
@SonofJaphet Why? Tornadoes are seen in ancient "pagan" myths as well (and not once in the Bible); do I have to believe in "old unscientific pagan fairy tales" to believe in them? Scientifically, a gradual evolution agrees with human observations much better than a sudden creation, and evidence goes directly against much of the Bible, even parts atheists were willing to accept, such as a unified Israel under David.
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta you, sir, speaks the truth in our evolutionary hearts.
Mastermint 3 months ago
...genetic material. This allows for greater natural selection possibilities, thus being favored, and through this process sexual reproduction developed.
11. Woa woa woa sexual reproduction does NOT "shuffle the deck" of gene combinations. If this happened, we would all die shortly after conception.
12. Simple, science deals with the observable, natural world. By definition or not, god is NOT testable.
13. ID is not science, as it has no testable theories, but evolution can be used to predict.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
If anyone who reads this needs explanation on the misleading qualities of probability laws, reply to my comment.
9. Lol second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system. Guess what Earth isn't? Oh yeah, a closed system.
10. Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily more secure than asexual reproduction, as the second one leads to clones. When genetic material is diverse and jumbled in a gene pool, evolution is most effective, yielding the most efficient organisms through available....
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
.... 6. The statement is false. Random mutations are not the driver for evolution. Also, evolution happens slowly, which allows the organisms to survive the nucleotide changes. Of course major changes didn't happen over a few generations; nothing could survive that.
7. First, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life, and so this part is superfluous. Second, it is NOT mathematically impossible for life to arise by "chance."
8. Laws of probability are flimsy and deliberately misleading
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
... only ignorance on the part of the video maker.
4. The human tracks next to dinosaur prints were disproven, and surprisingly, even creationist "scientists" agreed. (btw check our lots of evidence of major time difference)
5. Once again, ignorance. Mutations are mostly neutral, with a small number being beneficial or detrimental. Also, mutation is not the driving force for evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution works, and this cannot be "simulated" by x rays. ....
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
Video Breakdown
1. The first part about the frog is superfluous and grossly incorrect.
2. We don't have millions of transitional fossils because fossils are rare formations due to body composition and conditions, but we do have thousands, and they are what this video claims they aren't.
3. The supposed "rapid and sudden" appearance of body forms in the Cambrian period takes millions of years, which is "short" in geological time terms. Then jumping from "quick" appearance to creator highlights...
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
Nice work... I like the info on the fruit flies... Complex internal organs such as eyes, the heart, the liver, the pancreas etc haven't changed for millions of years either.
omni2145 8 months ago
I stopped at the probability part where he started spouting crap about the impossibility of modern cells forming randomly. He was already at two strikes from the transitional fossils and fruit fly bits; the probability bullshit showed the content of his character and how little he cares about his intellectual integrity.
Legit73Resurected 9 months ago
Evolution/Atheism is garbage! it's place should be 6 feet below the ground. Not even worthy to be recorded in our history books! Junk this crap now!
Inciteyou 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inciteyou You are a simpleton
Oddessuss 9 months ago
@Inciteyou Junk science? we're gone.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 7 months ago
I love how the assertions made in this video are so intellectually bankrupt that it needs some crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise behind it to dramatise it and make it more credible. The nature of anti-evolutionary arguments are just like the nature of blind faith itself: Rooted in pre-modern pseudo-philosophical opinions, that remain unchanged forever. Just like biblical theory has remained unchanged for over a thousand years. It's like a blind, deaf, retard banging their head against a wall
TheJackFrench 1 year ago
@TheJackFrench "crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise behind it to"
While I believe that evolution has some problems (tautological aspects, unfalsifiable aspects and untestable aspects), it is certainly the best scientific ie natural theory for the origin and diversity of life. That being said, I just have to point out that your phrase, quoted above, is the most pretentious I've seen in a LOT of youtube comments, specifically "crazy-symphonic cacophony of noise" made me puke in my lap...
rgs11 10 months ago
It is, what I believe, a huge misconception and misunderstanding in woth the theistic and atheistic communities.
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
I still think this creationist-evolution debate is bogus because Alister Mcgrath and Stephen J. Gould both said that evolution is completely compatible with theism and equally compatible with atheism. McGrath then goes on to say that "evolution can be interpreted in a theistic or atheistic way, but it doesn't demand either of these."
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
Evolution and abiogenesis will fall as science deepens our understanding of the world around us. I have a feeling it won't be around much longer.
repticman123 1 year ago
A message to creationists / intelligent design people - stop listening to people who don't know science / biology / archeology. Read widely, you don't need to even look at athiest books to find overwhelming DOCUMENTED and TESTED evidence.
Morahg 1 year ago
i'm sorry, i stopped listening after 'atheistic movement religiously spreading ignorance and propaganda.' this video uses far too many assumptions and false claims. get it together, man!
Cypher520 1 year ago
and a creationist just ruined Clint Mansell... fantastic
HeshMetalhead 1 year ago
@bisbas3232 at 8:45
"Evolution is an "anti-theory" that produces "anti-knowledge" ".
Incredible! I agree it's one of the dumbest assertions on youtube.
So that when one says "Everything has been created by an intelligent designer, and we cannot test him because we cannot understand his true nature" can produce knowledge ? can produce medecines ? can help understand of growing, physiology, ecology, some of diseases, and that can help us creating new algorithms that perform very well ???
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
at 1:27, i don't understand what you are saying :
"Evolution states org. should takes million of years to evolve..."
and
"Science shows a rapid ans dudden appearence and diversification..."
What you missed is that the "rapid and sudden" was actually during a period of tens of millions years.... and life has appeared hundreds millions years before that, so complex organisms have in fact several million of years to evolve....
there is no contradiction, except if you misinterpret "rapid"
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
People are stupid. Evolution is obviously against god, I mean... sure it is a "FACT" as it certainly is supported by all the physical evidence and logic.
God warned about this. He said to believe in Him. Ignore the facts and evidence and read the Bible. It's easier to understand, and it makes life less complicated, plus it'll make you feel more powerful because you got GOD on your side. Pray for all those who prefer truth to God, they surely are going to hell.
Squirtbop 2 years ago
@Squirtbop Moron
pauljn147 1 year ago
@pauljn147 You obviously don't appreciate brute sarcasm.
Squirtbop 1 year ago
rationalanarchy u say its been tested in a lab so an intelligence had to set perfect conditions for this to occur??? so hmmm an intelligence did have to intervene interesting
broverover 2 years ago
Lab tests reenact natural phenomena.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
None of the "facts" in this video are true. I'm not sure if you're deliberately lying or just very stupid, but some simple internet research proves everything in this video wrong.
will9831 2 years ago
it's still funny!
lunabirdie 2 years ago
1859:1964 edition ....check the video @ 9:26....if you don't think that's one of the Stupidest things ever written(and to be in a book hailed as scientific theory at it's best, even More laughable!!) you've got serious issues...
lunabirdie 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i never set specific criteria ....you told me that from uni-to-multi-cellular organisms changing....is evidence for macro evolution .I disagree...as i mentioned before i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new "kinds" of animals arising....animal-multicellular,eukaryotic organism with voluntary movement...
lunabirdie 2 years ago 2
if that's what you want to call it ....i'm o.k. w/ that.....but there are many people who would agree with me in saying your Examples are not Proof of new animals arising out of different ones.....
lunabirdie 2 years ago
unicelluar to multicellular is Not evidence for macroevolution!! im just not willing to go there ...and many scientist( in all areas of science)are not as well ...
lunabirdie 2 years ago
Sorry.... i guess i just don't get it !..:(..
lunabirdie 2 years ago
pg 184 the origin of species fucking laughable!!! how can anyone believe that shit....
lunabirdie 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as i said before!! i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new kinds of animals arising....let's keep observing these "cellular" Changes and See....if they morph into larger and larger complex animals...
lunabirdie 2 years ago
Macroevolution if it true is more than just speciation. The end result is a new taxa/family. The observed instances of speciation I found did not result in a new taxa/family. One example of natural speciation I read about is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish that, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. It's still a fish!
lunabirdie 2 years ago
macro evolution?? look it up..it has to do with new taxonomic groups coming from different ones.....i'm not comfortable w/ "cell theory" being the end all be all to entirely new kinds of animals arising...cells do have the ablity to adapt to environment as well.
lunabirdie 2 years ago
i don't have a reply really.. what works for you? does that evidence convince You that one type of animal can completely morph into another over millions of years?...without observation..?? new taxonomic groups?? i don't agree with the theory
lunabirdie 2 years ago
party
lunabirdie 2 years ago
species of bacteria...new?.."species of bacteria"..that can digest nylon....Still species of bacteria...this is observed resistance Not macroevolution....fruitflies being bred...bred is the key word intelligence is invoked...perfect example of micro-evolution...still a fruit fly specimen ...maybe your the ignorant
lunabirdie 2 years ago
then why are there no "laws" of evolution encompassed in a general theory of evolution......because all we've observed in the wild is microevolution...observed on numerous occasions.....give me one example..
lunabirdie 2 years ago
The theorem of evolution was postulated due to effects which became evident over time.
If you truly disagree with the scientific postulate, why don't you submit a paper. No doubt you will submit a single sentence "God made us."
Additionally, if creationism were true, then why is it not evident scientifically?
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
0:17
No, because we don't come from frogs.
0:49
Yes.
0:59
false, however, the way creationist think Evolution most look is also hilarious.
1:28
Yes, around six million years. -.-
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
By the way, I just wanted to mention that this video is not just awful but GOD awful. I mean, does this nobody actually think that he knows more about evolutionary theory than the entire scientific community? If evolutionary theory were nearly as weak as these ignoramuses lead people to believe then the scientific community would pounce on it like a tiger on a confused deer. If anyone were able to falsify evolutionary theory then they would be famous and awarded all sorts of honors and funding.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
hahaha.....nobody cares what you think about this video buddy. Do you listen to yourself....throwing inslults left and right. You evolutionists pseudoscientists are worst than the most extreme religious fanatic.
bisbas3232 2 years ago
Yes, I do re-read what I type before I post it and it seems pretty solid. Not once did I assert something that I can't back up and I made some good points by asking you several questions (which have yet to be answered). You still have yet to provide evidence supporting ID. Evolution is pseudoscience?! lol, ok you are quite delusional. Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY in science, go look it up. You are really lost buddy, you simply have no idea what you're talking about regarding evolution.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Nothing can be fact and theory, that's highly illogical. Evolution is inconclusive Science with no backing. Please check out Michael Denton, he explains why evolution is in shambles.
mackjeez 2 years ago
"Nothing can be fact and theory, that's highly illogical"
Then you clearly don't understand how science works. The claim that gravity happens is a FACT while the explanations of how it works is a THEORY. It's not a matter of something is either a theory or a fact, that's not how it works. Theories use the accumulated evidence (facts) and attempt to explain how the facts work the way that they do. There's the fact that evolution happens and then there is the theory that explains the mechanisms.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
You got a lil confused here....evolution is the theory not the fact. The fact is the variety of life....evolution is the theory that tries (very hard) to explain it.
bisbas3232 2 years ago
"Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth
Theory: contemplation, speculation , guess or conjecture.
A fact cannot be modified, a cup is a cup, a foot is a foot, a chair is a chair.
This suppose accumulation of evidence is bull, where are these facts, has evolution ever being observed? NO. Is there any factual evidence of evolution? NO. Is evolution just speculation? YES..Evolution is just an idea, belief generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof just like GOD.
mackjeez 2 years ago
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
many scientific theories have been proven wrong... that is why they are scientific theories not scientific facts! They need to be FALSIFIABLE...there needs to be a chance of it being incorrect, otherwise it is a scientific fact. Why is it not worldwide known that every living specie has come from the same ancestors over millions of years by natural selection (evolution)??? Tell me why there is so much controversy if it is a known fact?
Tahnz86 2 years ago
Theories don't become facts, they are always theories (it's as high as an idea can go). Also, you are confused with what I am saying. Evolution (a change in the proportion of alleles in a population over time) is an observable fact, while common descent is the theory. While it is always possible for the theory to be falsified (finding any modern mammal in Precambrian strata, for example) so much evidence supports the theory, as well as there being no known contradictory evidence, it's unlikely.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago 2
Further, I would guess that the controversy over evolutionary theory stems from the ideological conflict between common descent and purposeful design. I never said that evolutionary theory is 100% fact, I said evolution is a fact. If evolution happens now, it's reasonable to assume that it happened in the past. This explains what we see in the fossil record (nested hierarchies of organisms), genetics, comparative anatomy, and the many other fields of science that support evolutionary theory.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago 2
gravity is a Law....not a theory.....evolution is Not a Law....it is a theory(scientifically speaking)....if we could observe macro-evolution happening ..it may therefore become a Law.....someday
lunabirdie 2 years ago
@lunabirdie There is a theory of gravity which attempts to explain the fact of gravity, so there is the scientific theory that tries to explain the natural law (how it happens). Macro-evolution is evolution over a long period of time so observing it would be quite difficult, but there are many observed instances of speciation. I guess u didn't read my earlier posts; theories don't upgrade to laws or facts, theories take all known facts and try to explain them. So evolution is a theory and a fact
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Also, it is not necessary to observe "macro" evolution to make the claim that evolution is a fact. I suggest u look up the definition of biological evolution. If "micro" evolution is observed than evolution is a fact (things evolve), what ur arguing is that things don't evolve past a certain point, which is foolish. Populations of organisms r always evolving and over a long enough period of time they will b much different than their ancestors were, assuming there r environmental pressures.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
The Scientific community only has evolution to work with anything else involves I.D which we know is simply unacceptable "sarcasm". I think you have a high standard for Scientists.
Scientist makes theory, other Scientists say "hey we can work with that and get our billions in Government funding", others follow, books are written and sold, theory is taught in school as fact....etc....etc....etc..
mackjeez 2 years ago
"Scientist makes theory, other Scientists say 'hey we can work with that and get our billions in Government funding'"
Again, you clearly do not understand how science works. Scientists are constantly trying to prove each other wrong and falsify each others' ideas. If someone really wanted funding then he or she would simply need to falsify evolutionary theory (which should be easy according to you), yet it has not happened.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
It is true that there are no other known alternatives to evolution (that have the same explanatory power and evidential support). The reason evolution is the only theory that is considered is because all of the evidence supports it. There has yet to be any evidence discovered that contradicts current understandings of evolutionary theory. ID has no practical applications, has no explanatory power, and has no evidence supporting it (not to mention it cannot be tested).
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
so you claim......with your knowledge and understanding (limited if you ask me). Science is not in a position to make absolute statements on what is considered right or wrong. We still dont understand a great deal of life processes and yet some arrogant fools still try to sell Evolution as the only alternative.
bisbas3232 2 years ago
Evolution theory is supported by the evidence in a way that no other explanation is, which is why there are no alternatives as of right now. If someone were to propose an alternative theory that was supported by the evidence, as well, then it would be investigated and possibly considered. Science can state what is observable fact, such as gravity and evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Google 'observed instances of speciation.'
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@bisbas3232
If creationism is true, then who created the creator?
GanguGengu 1 year ago
Reguarding your Fruit Fly statement.
Evolutionary change is brought on by a need to adapt. If a fruit fly's situation reguarding its ability to survive doesent change then even 100 million years wont produce a dramatic change. To put it simply "If it aint broke, it can't be fixed". Until a situation arises which threatens their existance (such as all the fruit on Earth slowly becoming extenct) you cant really expect a major biological change.
Babylauncher3000 2 years ago
Our DNA cannot produce more information , it can mutate but will only contain information that's already there, if what you claim is real , then why aren't there any links between any species in terms of evolution? We have dug and dug and dug and yet nothing, we found dinosaur bones but nothing in between no "missing link", take religion out of the way, do you really believe that everything around you was created by chance? Do you know how complex our DNA is?
mackjeez 2 years ago
The source of new information is mutation. Gene duplication: a gene duplicates and the copy gene is allowed to accumulate as many mutations as it wants, accumulating new information in the process. No links between different species? Are you willfully ignorant or just incredibly lazy? Whale, horse, ape, reptile-to-mammal and reptile-to-bird evolution are all well documented and exhibited in the fossil record. It's embarrassing how misinformed you are, it almost has to be intentional.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Please provide some evidence to your claims. If it was true then why are scientist trying to find a "missing link" between a inter species connection. Mutation does not add anything it uses what it already has ex: a child with 3 legs or a woman with 3 breasts. If mutations did contain information of amphibian or other creatures then they should have come up in our gene pool, a child born with a fin wouldn't be so irregular since our DNA should that information.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Why don't you just google what I said and learn on your own? Maybe you should try reading an actual book on the subject or do some solid research instead of picking up dishonest nonsense from biased sources. I'll help you along: just go to google and type in "reptile-to-mammal evolution" or anything else I posted (such as gene duplications). You could even use wiki and you'll get some solid sources; although I do suggest you visit talkorigins(dot)org, it is an outstanding source on evolution.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
I have, I am not selective in my research if I was then I wouldn't know what you are talking about. I have done research and there is no reptile to mammal evolution, it is theorized that maybe, possibly, could be that we came from reptiles, there is no evidence of this so called leap of species. It's funny how science magazines show it as proof yet it is a story of fantasy, genetics shows nothing of that sort and neither does a fossil record, it is purely absurd speculation.
mackjeez 2 years ago
"I have done research and there is no reptile to mammal evolution..."
Then you have not done your research. Can you tell me where you get your information?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Am I speaking with a logical human being? You're the one who is suppose to provide me with a reptile to mammal evolution not me. I said there is no successful reptile to mammal evolution, so how can i provide you with information if I'm telling you that it does not exist? You're suppose to refute me by providing a intelligible source or argument of some sort.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Just because you don't know about it does not mean that the evidence no longer exists, you just haven't done adequate research. I sent you the link containing evidence for evolution and will be looking forward to your response.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Here are the sources for transitional fossils I listed (ran out of room): (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002).
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
fact 1 - yes they have
fact 2 - it was around 50 million years, and in that period oxygen was becoming abundant.
fact 3 - you dont understand evolution
fact 4- you dont understand evolution
fact 5 - has nothing to do with evolution, its abiogenesis, and the probability is the same for any cell, and because cells exist, things lucked out with your "impossible" situations
fact 6 - you dont understand evolution
fact 5? yes it does
your list of testing god is just plain wrong.
1 star.
elph98 2 years ago
your vids are great. when ppl start making a mockery of what u say and skip[ around the point they dont know what to say thats why all the evolutionist are ganing up on us fight the good fight.brother in christ.
werewolfgirl132 2 years ago
Thanks brother!! It's been quite some time I got a positive comment. Negative comments dont bother me.....
God Bless.
bisbas3232 2 years ago
Keep up the good work!
It's true, for an atheist to believe in Evolution, you would have to believe things FAR more unlikely than the happenings of the Bible.
Keep up the good work!
tj1271 2 years ago
Stopped watching at 1:00. Just bullshit like any other creationist video.
EmperorLjas 2 years ago
It's factual, please disprove it or at least watch the whole thing before posting a worthless comment.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Even if this video had disproved evolution, (which I never really expected you to accomplish..) you still would need some reason to revert back to a belief system of thousands of years ago, that is basically saying "we don't know what it is, so it must be something supernatural!"
You can't assume it is god just because of low probabilities for life. The "proof" for god is so intrinsically man-made, it doesn't even make sense anyone ever believed in them!
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with "it must be God" the fact is, the evidence point to a intelligent design.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Show me the evidence. I've never seen evidence to this effect.
The evidence I've seen makes intelligent design extremely unlikely..
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
This is not a argument which is correct, its a argument that evolutionists claim they are the ones who are correct but have no evidence, no facts to their claims, theory=speculation is not a fact unless its somewhat observed. Intelligent design although more simple in terms of Science is a bit complicated. I can see intelligent design all around me from DNA to our planetary system to the Universe, its quite complex, its what I call order not randomness.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Nice dodge, but you proved only statements, when I was looking for references to studies or webpages, or in fact anything.
For the most part of ID has been discredited as pseudoscientific. Even though ID does seem to fit well to our surroundings and our common day senses, but the same phenomena can be explained far better by the scientific discoveries of recent times. Not by the god-did-it argument (sorry for involving god in this, if you don't believe in it. I simply mean god as a designer).
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe that any real Scientist can call ID pseudoscience, they simply say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", I can observe my surroundings and find order and intelligent construction but unfortunately we live in a era were any mention of God is illogical since its more logical to believe in arguments that have no backing, modern Science has proven nil in terms of our creation and/or purpose, even in nature everything has a purpose.
mackjeez 2 years ago
Except evolution can explain how order can arrive by purely natural means over a period of time, while ID claims that order cannot arrive "by accident" (which is a straw man argument) and simply says that a god did it. Notice how evolution can actually explain HOW apparent design and order can be brought about by purely natural means while ID does not. It's all about explanatory power and ID does not have any. Evolutionary theory has no supporting evidence while ID and a belief in a god do?!?!
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Further, there are many things in nature that do not exhibit intelligent design. Is your god an underachiever? What evidence supports ID? Show me any evidence that supports the idea that a god designed something and that that same something cannot possibly come about by purely natural means and I'll definitely give it a shot. I know that there are natural explanations for pretty much everything you attribute to intelligent design because I have read them while you have not. Do some research.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
You want an example?
How about the simplest form of all. A living cell. Can u explain how it came about by natural "random" processes??
bisbas3232 2 years ago
There are several possible explanations of how the first living cell arose, but this is abiogenesis and not evolution. Do you maybe want to do some actual research and see if you can find out on your own? Do you really want me to spoon feed you?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
oh yeah, sure....its not Evolution !!! Very convenient for you to separate it.
I ve read the theories and they are very entertaining. No spoonfeeding here, thanks, keep this pseudoscience crap to yourself.
bisbas3232 2 years ago
Well the distinction happens to be necessary because evolutionary theory (it's major mechanisms, at least) doesn't really apply until billions of years after the first forms of life arose. Evolution is in the biological sciences because it can be observed and tested. The statement that evolution (change over time) has occurred in the past and continues to occur is an absolute FACT, while evolutionary theory tries to explain HOW the fact of evolution happens and the underlying mechanisms.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
There you go again, observed and tested. When was evolution successfully tested and proved? When was evolution ever observed?
mackjeez 2 years ago
It's similar to how we look at gravity. We know that evolution happens just as we know that gravity happens, while each has a theory that attempts to explain HOW it happens. Evolution and gravity are both facts and are explained by their respective theories. Pseudoscience? lol, you are quite lost, little one. Are you aware that more than 95% of biologists accept evolution? What do you know that these experts, who have dedicated their lives to their particular fields, don't know?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Stop comparing the theory of relativity with the theory of evolution, though Einsteins theory is still a theory. His theory states that time and space are mutually dependent and the contraction of space and the dilatation of time originate with motion as real physical processes, there are quite a few scientists that refute his theory.Theory's come and go, they are not fact they are just speculations.
mackjeez 2 years ago
I really suggest you visit notjustatheory(dot)org so you can understand what the term 'theory' means in science, because you are confusing it with the definition from common usage.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory. Evo is the same
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Correction: it's notjustatheory(dot)com, not org.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
FACT:
I just wasted 30 minutes looking for just one fact offered by any atheist post that would simply state why creation CANNOT be true.
So here we go!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any atheist who posts beyond this point simply needs to do this.
Just type the word "fact" and follow it with one!
Add commentary afterward, but make your fact stand alone for consideration.
Either leave a fact, or SHUT UP and fall to your knees.
dand12dfs 2 years ago
have you posted any comment cearly stating that evolution cannot be true?
Besides the always effective: "SHUT UP and fall to your knees."
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
he didn't need to state why evolution can't be true. You just watched a 10 minute video about why it can't be true...
tj1271 2 years ago
You just watched a 10 minute video about why it can't be true... which provided no evidence towards that effect.
Watch the video response to this. Putting aside its nosy remarks towards creationists - totally unnecessary and beside the point - the video actually has the science behind it.
eshnajizzle 2 years ago
Don't you just love it when creationists make fools of themselves?
Schadenfreude is not particularly honourable. But there is something inevitably hilarious when someone carefully digs a great big hole, lays a banana skin down beside it then takes a run up, skids on the banana skin, flies in the air & crashes down on his back right in the deepest part of the hole.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Another ignorant rant from a Christian who doesn't even know what science is, let alone evolution. The only thing this video communicates is that we really ought to find a way to stop so many people from having their minds raped by that nasty industry.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
This is silly. Can't you come up with something new? All of these ridiculous arguments have been debunked time and time again.
Leehofooks 2 years ago 2
And what were the conclusions of those discussions?
irocivan 2 years ago
What discussions?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
This is just the same old feeble BULLSHIT arguments for creationism repackaged into a video w/ cool music.
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
Sounds like all of you are just butt-hurt because you're on the losing side of science. Sucks to be you. Hail Satan!
scourfish 2 years ago
I managed to stick aound until your second "fact."
This is silliness.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago 2
You made it farther than I did hairy.. I mean it's not like you haven't seen this dumb shit a thousand times.. I go straight to the comment section, that's where the real funny is.. a non stop knee slapping Parade of Delusion.. how do people this obviously damaged even function in Society?
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
"how do people this obviously damaged even function in Society? "
Hmmm...I'm thinking this is a trick question. They're not functioning at all!
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
They play on the fact that there are gaps in th theory of evolution and therefor, to a certain degree you must have faith,. Of course " faith "has different meanings. We trust indeed in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the appropriate fields. There will always be gaps in evolution,like in every other scientific theory.
Philos2006 2 years ago
You better refine your researching skills because not only do you not provide any links to support your rediculous claims, most of your claims just prove how little you know about any science.
To be brief: Why do Theists, namely Christians, assume Athiesm and Evolution are forms of religion? THEY ARE NOT RELIGIONS, you obviously have them confused with the cult of scientology. Evolution & Athiesm worships no deity, rituals, traditions etc. Evolution is a process, Atheism is non theist.
IISharperII 2 years ago 2
I think they group atheism as a religion, for they feel that science takes a great deal of faith to accept. I mean, lets be honest when faced with heaping piles of evidence it takes a large amount of faith to realise we are all part of a common ancestor.
knightoftheroundvaan 2 years ago
I think in summary the reply video is just further evidence of a fanatical fundamemtal belief in Science. You WANT science to able to explain our universe, (it doesnt however...read about the origin of life or the creation of matter among other things) and when the so-called "skeptic" is presented with evidence that contradicts what he WANTS to believe, he will cling to his "religion" in a most unscientifc fashion.
I have actually found it fascinating to observe.
Blessings.
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
Well, it's tuesday and I'm rather tired from my shift so I'll sum this up with one of your thoughts,from a previous discussion we have had.
This is why you are a salesman, who's sole occupation is to bullshit people, and not a scientist. have a nice day.
knightoftheroundvaan 2 years ago
Well, see this is what you don't understand about Salesmen...
Good salesmen ALWAYS tell the truth. They deliver more than was promised, ahead of schedule and under budget.
Only a poor excuse for a salesman bullshits people, the kind who sells stereos or used cars.
The people who sell 747's to the Saudis and Health Insurance to your school district would never last if they weren't telling the truth.
btw- I am a consultant, I was a salesman when I worked for someone else.
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
Wow, you obviously have no idea what your talking about. The video response destroys your whole argument. You should retake a few biology courses.
knightoftheroundvaan 2 years ago
I just watched the response video and I truly beg to differ.
I think perhaps it is YOU and shanedk who need to spend a bit more time in Bio 101.
The dinosaur tracks and the human tracks, I will concede that is absurd...AND I will concede that I dont know much about heterozygotes, but my guess is that their natural procliviity toward selecting the "right tie" for the "right suit" is typically less than that of a homozygote. :-)
Cont-
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
However on some of the more salient points the reply video is feckless at best.
Cambrian- The "sudden" appearance does not pertain to a length of time, it pertains to the fact that those fossils "show up" in complete form, without the expected transitions. That is what we mean by "sudden" and that contradicts old man Darwin.
Origin- Yes we all know that origin is not part of Darwin's theory...but it is the same discussion...we say life was created, you say it wasn't.
cont-
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
Lack of transitons- Yes you may be able to scrape up a very few fossils that could be argued to be transitions, or argued not to be. That still contradicts evolution, Darwin himself said we should be literally stumbling all over transitionals in all sorts of stages, but we aren't .
Mutation and Natural Selection- Yes they have been observed but NEVER has the mutation added new info.
Probability- Mathematics is what it is and cant be changed.
2nd Law of TD- You debunked it? lol
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
Nice job on this. Atheists WANT to believe in evolution, and even when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes their position, they refuse to accept it.
Often people who dont want to accept God do so because they feel guilty about something they have done or the way they are living and IF there is a God then they have to be accountable.
If they refuse to accept God then they can continue to rebel and not feel that they have to be accountable.
1ChristianSoldier 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
~Romans 1: 20-21~