Expelled - Creationism disproved

[libertatus]

(sigh)

[TheJunato]

Toe-mate- toe, toh-mah-toh which way do you prefer to say it.

[SIrWIGGLEsRy]

Uggghh.. Such a weak argument.. They like to say its small developments over time, however there would be nothing coaxing the process along like the development of the human eye in the fetus where there is a DNA plan set out guiding it along. What Creations are trying to say is how does breeding produce something so complex and purposeful with nothing to lead it along?

[danielt1980]

well this video has proven the reason of why the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics.

( Sarcasm )

[GrayShark09]

Voteboting is a modern version of the inquisition, religious people are trying to stop the ideas that are dangerous for their religion, think about this: never god himself tries to stop the ,,infidels" only people are trying to stop people, religion is only a human idea.

[MrTmapp]

All of these "eyes" exist in "modern organisms" that are alive Today, they never evolved and changed or Mussels would have fully fledged Eyes. What a ridiculous example.

[dooivid]

@MrTmapp the point of this video is that every transition from a simple eye to our complex eye is a functional step visible in living species. Mussels get along just fine without complex eyes, which is why they're alive and well. you need to revise your text books on the subject.

[TheRationalist76]

@MrTmapp Not true. If it is not necessary or in the benefit of the Mussels to gain fully fledged eyes then it would not occur. The point of natural selection is that a trait that will allow for a species or organism to stay alive is what will stick. If variation occurs over a long period of time and that variation is helping the species stay alive it will further and, in the case of the eye, become fully fledged.

[bokros]

Isn't it lucky how each one of these random mutations has to do with light sensitivity and focus. it's a good thing we didn't randomly have a tooth appear in the middle of our eye. Of course all of the random species that had teeth show up in their eye or some other random detrimental mutation simply died out. I'm sure glad evolution put everything where it would need to be for functionality........

[bokros]

It's also lucky how the skull happened to form an eye socket to hold our eye in place without blocking vision. That would have sucked if part of our skull started to grow into our eye. I guess we don't need vision to survive though. So maybe it wouldn't be too bad

[luscioussoul]

This is nothing but Dogma , If Intelligent design is even wrong , Why are they REJECT SO HATEFULLY , That they would fire proffessors for only mentioning it and discrediting them , It sounds like heresy .

And what if science shows the presence of God , What does that has to do with religion , It has nothing to do with belief/dogma , Not one human in our history is capable of creating/designing even dead matter , We can only modify readily available matter & it's also in our holographic percepti

[luscioussoul]

What evidence ?

First of all these are separate species , There's not a one connection between them with any form of evidence whether it's fossils or anything .

Secondly , The example of a human foetus "Growth" has nothing to do with evolution as Haeckel embryos has turned out to be fake and every species is completely different from the other at the most initial stage of embryology .

Finally , Where is the hell is natural selection/mutation , Who designs & forms these accurate designs ?!

[PrestonTocco]

Ok I had enough of all these fools ideas....

Where's the observable science to back this up?

Oh yeah....nowhere

[FireSign27]

If you want to map the evolution of an eye in regards to survival of the fittest - use it or lose it - the evolution theory alone, it would take FAR longer for an efficient eye to develop since the chances of 2 mates, with close enough bio-makeup(in terms of the next step to evolving an eye), of mating at every generation is very low. You also have to consider that the organism to carry out the next step of the evolution of the eye is pretty low too.

[JarradIRONEAGLE]

That's a non sequitur argument if I ever heard one.

If the gene for the photo-sensitive pigment is present in the first molusc, it's expression will already be spatially determined by the upstream and downstream regions of the DNA (where it's located in the DNA and what genetic elements are acting on it). It would therefore be hereditary. So, regardless of the mate, the trait would be passed on. Over time populations with eyes will develop.

[FireSign27]

Well yes, the gene will pass on, and yes your right, the mollusc wont need to mate with another who is at around the same stage of the evolutionary mutuation of the eye as the first mollusc.. The gene will still be passed down but lay dormant.. This just helps my case though.. I was basing my case on the mollusc mating with a mollusc of the same evolutionary stage to slowly form an eye over generations.. If you consider that the genes may lay dormant at every generation, ID seems more logical.

[JarradIRONEAGLE]

Not true. Given that this is a single copy of the gene, it's likelihood of expression is pretty much a certainty. Even IF it were not to be expressed, given population behaviours, the gene will eventually be expressed. Dormant sections of DNA take on more mutations, so even if it lay dormant temporarily, it will lead to further evolution of the gene, and therefore the organism.

[FireSign27]

How would a brain detect that a group of cells are light-sensitive, and how would it know it can use the cells by building an occipital lobe and linking it to the skin cells by an optical nerve in order to be able to view it's surroundings.

[RazielKain]

It wouldn't have to at the beginning

Your brain makes up what the nerves in your eyes signals you

It could feel light hitting the patch of light sensitiv cells as a touch at first

[JarradIRONEAGLE]

The eye and photo-sensitive receptors have been around since before brains in photo-taxic bacteria. The eye is by no means efficient. It's actually quite a poorly constructed object subject to many failings. The eye is essentially an epithelial like tissue with photo-detective proteins. As the tissues evolved "eyes" became attached to nerve ganglia, and one of these nerve bundles eventually slowly evolved into the modern brain.

[FireSign27]

No, this argument really is crappy. You start off with a row of light sensitive row of cells.. The mollusk wont be able to use the light sensitive cells at all! The Mollusk wont even be aware of the cells.

Just because the mollusk develops light-sensitive cells doesnt mean theyre brains are able to process the input.

BTW i dont beleive in creationism. I beleive in Evolution, and also Intelient Design. Things like the eye just could not have evolved without a higher power.

[RazielKain]

mollusks have a central nervous system which could figure out how to interpret the light or signals the cells give him and animals with a visual cortex of some form have the upper hand etc etc press go and you get -> evolution of the eye

[FireSign27]

I know the Eye evolved, thats pretty clear atm lol. Im just saying that, more than Survival of the Fittest would have been needed to provoke an eye evolving.

[FireSign27]

What i mean by, the brain wouldnt be able to process input from the light sensitive cells was that, the only way the brains of a creature who had a primitivley early stage of an eye could have seen through it, was if their brain contained an equivalent to our Occipital Lobe. How does a row of light sensitive cells alone trigger whole new parts of the brain to be created? Evolution can only say through the generation the lobe formed from scratch, through survival. That seems a bit flat to me.

[RazielKain]

How do you feel taste or touch? A couple of nerves are connected to your brain and your brain learned to interprate them

Light sensetiv cells could have started of es normal cells with nerves and the animal "felt" the light hitting them and over time animals who developed some kind of Occipital Lobe got favored and it developed to the ability to construct an image out of them what we know as "Seeing"

Keep in mind: nerves only give impulses - the brain puts the image together

[FireSign27]

@RazielKain, its more complex than you make it sound. If a creature evolves a patch of light-sensitive cells, it's brain would have absolutely no idea, and if the creature mates with another who also has a light-sens patch in the same area, their offspring 'may' have the same patch of light-sens tissue. But there will be absolutely no way of a creature forming an optical nerve from the tissue, to an Occipital Lobe, out of the blue. SO many coincidenes would have to occur for an Eye to evolve.

[reformCopyright]

Evolution has been going on for millions of years, a time scale very hard to grasp for us humans, so there have been countless opportunities for coincidences to occur.

[FireSign27]

Your absolutely right. I agree with what you said. Evolution HAS been happening for millions of years, no doubt.

But Evolution alone?.. What im saying is that evolution is just too shallow to create a huge variety of incredibly complex life forms the world have today...

The coincidences of Evolution to have created this complex world just seem a little off to me.. I dont want to label anything complex as a coincidence.. Its not enough.

[Naimpo]

Totaly agree :D

[rwmaynard219]

All I can say is that this argument is ultra crappy!!!! This proves nothing for evolution.

[donnomar]

You are asking for a proof? What prove do you have that your religion is true other that the words in your bible? So you prefer to believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes. if you believe in fairy tales where people is eaten by a giant fish, you could read the bible, I find pinoccio a bit more entertaining

[baxizach]

everyone thats a human: 5star and favorite!

[pubuman]

Why is this video rated so lowly?

[djarm67]

Creationist votebots

[pubuman]

GAH!!! bastards!

[waderyu]

@djarm67 ..this hasm got to be the stupidest video I have seen "disproving" creationism..she starts by saying " First you get cells that are light sensitive" like it happens all the time...wait an eye is forming on th back of my hand as i type wow you guys are Right .......NOT...what stupidity...got to hate those light sensitive cells appearing for no reason with receptors attached ..amazing how this just happens for no reason everywhere .. stupid stupid stupid stupid ..can you sense sarcasm

[Chiefpokeaho]

@waderyu why is this logic so hard for evo ppl to understand??? there is no reason for any given cell to just "change"

[thestone09]

Ha this is a joke

[tzephon]

Eugenie Scott's explanation looks like it skips steps. For example, going from the "pinhole camera" to the "primitive lens" shows multiple adaptations which her explanation does not account for.

[Mithcoriel]

How do they know the evolution of mollusk eyes so well? I figured those wouldn't exactly leave very good fossils? Or are they comparing different species of living specimen?

[RDissonant]

Yup, living ones are basically the same as their ancestors, while some evolved to the next step. So basically the entire evolution is still alive, in this case.

[Chiefpokeaho]

@RDissonant But why do they change?

[robbylafont]

those are examples from living mollusk....that show the transition (or evolution) from a very simple eye to a more complex one...in just one type of animal

[djarm67]

Deriving phylogenic hierarchies based on single genetic markers (especially 18S rRNA) will provide many issues.

Ideally, you would utilise the entire genetic structure and all it's markers to provide an accurate genetic nested hierarchy.

Alternatively, one of the more robust sequences such as cytochrome c.

[djarm67]

However, any "single" marker method, will create a flawed phylogeny somewhere. It's the combination of all markers which will provide the clearest indication.

[forevergrasping]

If you hold the presupposition and assumption that God can have absolutely no part in the origin of the earth, then you will find lots of evidences that supports your assumption, making it an absolute concrete reality to you. But if you start from the presupposition that God created, then you also can find tons of evidence that will solidify this belief. Evolutions can 'disprove' all creationist evidence, but creationist can 'disprove' all of theirs. facts don't cut it, both require faith

[ianjamieson]

Science doesn't work like that at all. You don't start anything with a view of finding evidence for a particular belief. You gather evidence and analyse it, and from the data gathered you find the answer. The whole trying to fit evidence to match a belief is a creationist method, and that's why it's easily debunked and generally laughed at.

[forevergrasping]

I am not saying all evolution is not scientific, science does observe birds evolving longer beaks and that kind of thing. The problem is they never observed an Ape evolving into a man, or one creature into another creature, the missing links are still missing and if it was true there would be millions of them. That is why it is called a theory. Therefore, y'all are doing the same thing, finding 'evidence' to fit your theory.

[ianjamieson]

Wow! You really have been absolutely brainwashed with the most stupid creationist arguments, that have been proven to be wrong time and time again. Why do you keep repeating them?

1. Ape to man has been observed through the fossil record.

2. There are loads and loads of missing links.

3. Gravity is a FACT, it has a theory. Evolution is a FACT, it has a theory too.

Learn what a scientific theory is and stop spewing creationist nonsense. Maybe get an education!!!

[forevergrasping]

Like all the missing links that showed up on the front page of National Geographic that they later had to print an article about in the far back of a later addition that confesses it was a farce, that it was actually something a man made and that they did not research it first. Ouch.

[ianjamieson]

Again your spewing gabage. I guess your talking about nebraska man, which was debunked by scientists. Hmmmm! Honestly, your brain is mush. There is no god or gods. Also, there's no such things as ghosts or the supernatural. Since your now in the same category as nutcases.

[forevergrasping]

So tell me something about yourself. What are you doing with your life? Its not a bad thing that you are so passionate about truth, it sounds like you believe in absolute truth and reality. I guess we can agree there.

You are on one side of the wall and I am on the other, it is red on your side and green on mine. So you are seeing red and it makes sense to you, and I see green and we're shouting over the wall what is truth. there's ultimate reality, but we see it differently, from other angles.

[ianjamieson]

"it sounds like you believe in absolute truth and reality"

Now that statement is true. I believe in TRUTH and REALITY. Not some ancient goat herder story which tried to explain life in the most primitive way at the time. I'm sorry, but having an imaginary friend at your age and believing stories that are in the same league as the easter bunny or santa clause, then trying to quote silly creationist arguments to try and disprove a fact, just makes you completely delusional and psychotic.

[ianjamieson]

Oh, and i'm the director of a web design and development agency.

[forevergrasping]

Cool, I do web-design too and I'm a team organizer in New Orleans, primarily making it possible for groups of people to volunteer and gut houses for the people effected by Katrina, Gustav and Ike

[ianjamieson]

So now your talking about National Geographic? Who published a picture of the so called nebraska man. National Geographic is a magazine and not a peer reviewed publication. Sorry to confuse you, but magazines and the articles, images or conclusions they might jump to have nothing to do with the scientific process. You really need to stay away from discovery institute. Lies, lies, quote mining, more lies. All because evolution disproves the bibles story of creation. Sad really!

[djarm67]

The best evidence that man evolved from an ape ancestor is this, "we are still apes". lol

Your comments show that you do not quite understand how nested hierarchies work in phylogeny. You are most likely getting misinformed by young earth creationist cult websites.

[forevergrasping]

Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as...

[forevergrasping]

...originally thought. Inaccuracies may occur in molecular phylogenies for a variety of reasons. Prior to analysis, the sequences of corresponding genes from each animal must be placed in register (aligned) with each other so that homologous sites within each sequence can be compared. However, sequence divergences may be sufficiently large that unambiguous alignments cannot be achieved, and different alignments may lead to different inferred relationships...

[forevergrasping]

...Additionally, the data are often sufficiently noisy that there may be a lack of strong statistical support for important groupings. 1. Maley, Laura E. and Charles R. Marshall. 1998. The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics. Science Vol. 279 Issue 5350, p.505-506

[ianjamieson]

Way to paste an article from the discovery institute!

[djarm67]

Science cannot comment on the existence or non-existence of God via the scientific method of methodological naturalism. This means that even if God is truth, it cannot supress it as it is outside of it's scope of testability. Do not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

[mooney137]

God is real, you're just supressing the truth.

[dechha1981]

To say the eye is "Too complex to have evolved" is like saying that a really tall tree is "Too big to have grown". That's what happens when things grow, they get bigger!

[realisoph]

Well put! + I'd also guess that things grow in complexity, as long as we consider them "alive".

[RogueTerenasEU]

This doesn't disprove Creationism.

Epic fail.

[littlepurpleprincess]

It isnt supposed to, it disproves a flawed theory. However, your retardedness DOES help disprove creationism, so thank you.

[tallerideas]

I believe the public is being decieved on many levels plz wtch these youtube vids to see what I mean.

Monopoly Men Part 1, NEW WORLD ORDER ILLUMINATI MIND CONTROL WITH MEDIA AND TV, Your Mind is Controlled, If You're an American you should see THIS! for real, Refutation of the Spontaneous Generation of the First Cell

Dictators have always loved evolution..

[ianjamieson]

Your mind is controlled by religion, so you don't have to think freely!

[tallerideas]

Can you tell me any one thing about evolution that's true?

[djarm67]

It happens! All of the available evidence supports it. Can you be more specific?

[tallerideas]

What happens? Did your cat have kittens that were part dog. LOL We all not that could never happen, right?. LOL. Oops, er, I guess you guys really believe it could happen...

[ianjamieson]

A cat can't have kittens that were part dog. Your comments just support how very little you know about the subject.

[tallerideas]

My comment was a joke. LOL Maybe a bad one, but still a joke....

[ianjamieson]

oooh. lol!

[tallerideas]

Time + imagination = almost anything you want, so long as God isn't in it.... Shhhh don't say the G word....

[Kieran27]

Correction: Don't say the Christian G word. After all, ID proponents in the US only push the creationsim idea of the judea/christian god.

The idea of entertaining a creation story and creation god from the hindu faith would be be considered rather insulting to US based ID proponents. But if they truly want to present differing points of view, shouldn't they want to include ALL religions in the science class?

[tallerideas]

No you wouldn't want all views. For the Hindus there is no one simple account of creation. Also their stories tend to be in the realm of simple fantasy on the hearing of them. Only the judea/christian gives one account that has a solid structure that is feasible compared to other religions. And I'm not from the US, neither is my bible

[Kieran27]

Ah, my apologies. I did not know your current place of residence.

On a related note, may I ask which version (of the several available) your Bible is? And I should like to point out the bible itself has two conflicting stories of creation in it.

As for other creation stories with no evidence to support them, do any of them (judea/christian accounts included) really belong in a science class where evidence is demanded?

[tallerideas]

I like the kjv, but thnks to the net i can view pssages in about a dozen translations.

You say it has two conflicting stories of creation in it. I will simply say, that's not true. I have not seen anything that can not be hormonized with some thought and study. I think people overlook that Genesis was written with a near middle east gener.Though the story goes into another short retelling of the creation this is I believe simply for the purposes of going into another story and pov.

[tallerideas]

A science class where evidence is demanded? Evolution is just a theory! If only the public new the fatalflawes of evolution. Cont

[tallerideas]

For the last 200 years or so, perhaps the greatest source of arguments against the knowledge of God has been naturalism; the dogma that nature is all there is. We have in our epic of time bought in to a position on the basis of "science" which is more tantamount to brainwashing. Which is to say, if you adduce all of the information on one side of the ledger and you repress all the information on the other side of the ledger, that, by definition, is not education.

[tallerideas]

Richard Dawkins When he's asked about the origin of life I have never seen anyone who supposedly is an expert on the subject more tongue-tied. He simply doesn't know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, which, of course, must mean that life did come from some sort of intelligent design. Of course he doesn't recognize that he actually spoke in favor of intelligent design while disparaging it.

[Kieran27]

I'm afraid I have not seen the specific quote from Dawkins, but shall endeavor to find it. However, the discussion we were having concerned evolutionary theory, which does not cover the origins of life. Evolutionary theory only covers how life changes, not how it began.

Abiogenesis is the field that covers the origins of life.

[tallerideas]

U cn fnd Dawkins in the hot seat wth his quote in a movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Actually, you brought up the bible, which set my train of thought, as it doesn't cover evolution.LOL Yes, it's called abiogenesis but I believe evolution if such a solid trthful philosophy, shoud be able to incompass the very beggining also. If nature started life and did it without a mind, why shldn't evolutionist be able to explain it with one? I tink Tis a cop-out cause tah theory has 0 evidence.

[ianjamieson]

If ET seeded the earth, that still wouldn't prove intelligent design, as they would have to have came from somewhere too. It's still very much in-line with evolution.

Evolution is a FACT just like gravity is a FACT.

And just so you know, Atheist countries have less death, divorces, crime and abortion than very religious countries like america.

What does that tell you?

[tallerideas]

Very few Amaricans are biblical christians. It's the number one distributor of porno & violence. So plz spare me the statistics...

I just had lunch three days ago with a biologist who's been published in three scientific magazines. I asked him, do

you believe in evolution, he says, yes, I say you know it's just a theory, his response "yes it's just a theory" So, please tell me one thing that, can't be argued against, that makes it a fact... Please don't skirt around the question, be specific.

[ianjamieson]

Your getting confused what a theory is. Evolution is a fact, and there is also the theory of evolution.

Just like gravity is a fact, but there is the theory of gravity. The theory can change with the more we learn and add to that theory.

Once thing that can't be argued against? The fossil record. The thousands of species buried in our rocks that show us what lived before and how it evolved through time.

[tallerideas]

You must be talking about microevolution! Yes this is a fact.

As fer chimps turning into humans, now that would be a theory. It sorely lacks fossil evidence..

[ianjamieson]

Microevolution is a word created by creationists. Macroevolution is just microevolution through millions of years.

"It sorely lacks fossil evidence"

You obviously have your eyes close or are choosing to ignore the massive amounts of fossils showing transitions between one species to another.

Have you got one single piece of evidence for a creator?

[tallerideas]

Hi, ianjamieson.

Qoute; "You obviously have your eyes close or are choosing to ignore the massive amounts of fossils showing transitions between one species to another" I could accuse you of the same thing. Well the art work is simply great, it has nothing to back it up! The Fossil evidence for chimps turning to humans or having a common ancestor is so lacking it's more tantamount to fantasy, than theory.(cont.)

[tallerideas]

Fossils show that life did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect "design." All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains that There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations (Con.

[tallerideas]

are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.

I consider myself knowledgeable in propaganda and disinformation. This has been played out in evolution time after time in tv, mags and radio. So we have every right to be critical, and should be.

[tallerideas]

consider what Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould declared "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. (Gould)" He later contradicts himself and claims that fossils are a good argument for evolution. So which is correct? (con.

[tallerideas]

easy! dig into the evidense that goes beyond the gambit of dross agitprop and you'll see Gould's first statment is very much the correct one.

Many evos have addmit there dilemma. Youtube "Transitional Fossils? Evolutionists Say No!"

Have you got one single piece of evidence for a creator? I believe Einstein did a great job explaining the evidence for a creator, as many great thinkers have. I'll just stick to evolution for now thnks.

[ianjamieson]

"The Fossil evidence for chimps turning to humans or having a common ancestor is so lacking it's more tantamount to fantasy, than theory."

As i said..again

"You obviously have your eyes close or are choosing to ignore the massive amounts of fossils showing transitions between one species to another"

[tallerideas]

massive amounts of fossils? Let's go through what you would believe are the more recent fossils, chimp to human.let's start with Australopithecus ramidus. Big claims were made for ramidus, but now that over a decade has passed these claims have since fallen apart. The time line is in question, where they even came from is in question and what they are is in question! By evos that is. One claim that we evolved from them was based on their enamel and molers. "Cont"

[tallerideas]

Both claims were considered foolish. All other hominids, including modern humans, have relatively thick enamel, the thin enamel of ramidus teeth and the moler is what you'd expect from a fossil chimp. Was ramidu bipedal? Bipedality is essential if ramidus is to be considered a hominid and the 'missing link. However, since it's admited that bipedality has not been demonstrated, a refutation is hardly necessary. cont.

[tallerideas]

Proving ramidus is a missing link wld never hold up in a court of law, end of story. 'Lucy' Most experts now agree that Lucy was only an unusual chimp. Piltdown man was a FRAUD. Nebraska Man, a man built from a tooth of a pig. Neanderthals, 100% full fledged humans. Peking Man, there's not even any bones for this. Java man, Orce Man, still unidentified, onandonitgoes. There is nothing that could show conclusively in a court of law a missing link of any fragments of bones of any finds thus far.

[tallerideas]

If evo was true we would find real evidence, not fossil finds in which the imagination is put on paper, without the hard proof. Found a couple vids for ya; BBC actualy allowed a documentary shooting down evo, WOW; "RICHARD DAWKINS & EVOLUTION SMACKED IN THE FACE BY SCIENCE" "Evidence & Proof - God Does Exist!!! EXPOSED TRUTH (1 of 6) enjoy!

[ianjamieson]

Your claims are just creationist garbage. Piltdown man and nebraska man were all debunked by scientists themselves. And for the fossils, there are loads - you can see the skull(brain)increase in size as time goes on too. But if you want to stick to your "faith" that a magical man in the sky done it, then your a fool. It's funny how the more educated are less likely to believe in god eh?

[ajtaggs]

Of course you dont have to do much research to proove the more educated people are less likely to believe in god, it says it right in the bible. That is why eating the apple from the tree of wisdom is bad, it basically says, "don't learn to much, just believe"

[Kieran27]

Evolutionary theory is indeed a theory, but I think you're misinterpreting the definition of theory. According to the dictionary:

Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

The theory of evolution is an explanation for how life changes over time. As for the fatal flaws of evolution, could you cite specific examples please?

[tallerideas]

There's many fatalflaws, The first and second law of thermal dynamics has been well established, it alone disproves evolution. Question; If the theory is sound Give me proof that mutations can add useful genetic information to a DNA molecule.

[ianjamieson]

The law of thermal dynamic does not disprove evolution. How many times does the scientific community have to prove this to you? Another crap creationist argument that holds absolutely no water. No wonder people laugh at creationists.

[forevergrasping]

There is no way anyone can prove creation to you, just like there is no way that evolutionist could convince me that it is true. All of evolutionist 'facts' have been 'disproved' too, it just matter on which angle you look at things. You are just as stuck in your assumptions and presuppostions, as we are. At least I can acknowledge it. You come out as dogmatic, if truth is relative, then how can you be absolutely sure you are right?

[ianjamieson]

All of evolutionist 'facts' have been 'disproved".

Now that is the biggest creationist lie ever told. You should actually understand and read up on things instead of posting such nonsense.

[forevergrasping]

I am seeing people that are saying ALL creationist facts have been 'disproved'. Facts are worthless and mean nothing unless they fit with your presuppositions and assumptions. Therefore, it is possible to "disprove" all the facts of either view because we are looking from a difference view point.

[forevergrasping]

Hey, take for example the age of the earth, there is lots of scientific evidence for a young earth, but there is also lots of evidence a old old earth. Evolution have to attack and explain away all evidence that does not fit there view, no matter how rock solid the facts are, they do not fit, so they are discarded. But we creationist can acknowledge both, Because God would create things with the appearance of time.

[ianjamieson]

So give me evidence for a young earth!

[forevergrasping]

Well, to you it will not be evidence because it does not fit your presuppositions, so it is silly for me to continue. You have things like there being very little moon dust. science shows the earth moving away from the sun, go back billions of years and the earth would have been touching it (no wonder the dinosaur died). The moon is moving away from the earth. The second law of second law of thermodynamics is a big one. Human foot prints in dinosaur prints. There more, but no space

[ianjamieson]

You have got to be joking!!! Do you know how silly you sound? Stop going to bible school and visiting stupid YEC websites. Nothing they say is backed by evidence, and their so called scientist says are either made-up, miss-quoted or quote mining. Your braincells are dying!!!

I can't believe you're even using these arguments, you might as well give me the "banana is the atheist nightmare"!

Wake up!!!

[forevergrasping]

No these are not from creationist scientist, they are pieces of science, that creationist take as evidence, but once again you prove my point, there is no such thing as facts or evidence unless it fits with evolutionist presuppositions. We are both probably wrong about about half of everything we believe, at least I know that. You believe things because people in authority say so. have you observed fish growing legs and lungs? You believe this because you trust people. thats faith bro.

[ianjamieson]

Wrong again! There are *FOSSILS* with fish growing legs. The fish with no legs are in an older fossil layer than the fish that start to develop fins with bones. The more forward in time you get with the fossils, the legs become more prominent, and over time they become land dwellers. It's all there, in the rock. However, if you think any gaps means there's a god, then your clearly delusional. Unless you can ctually find evidence for god? Can you?

[forevergrasping]

Have you held in your hand or personally found one of these fossils? Lying in the science community in order to prove a theory is no problem to those without a moral standard. You either heard about this, or seen drawings, or you have looked at pictures of highly debated fossils. whoopie We notice how there are trees growing through all the layers and the layers are not perfect, in that there are a few higher forms mixed with the lower. Looking like a catastrophic event caused it.

[ianjamieson]

Yeh I have, at the Natural History Museum. I've also found some in Dover. Good spot to find them. As for your trees argument, another creationist quote making you look stupid. Trees commonly remain upright during multiple river floods year after year. Some trees are tolerant of immersion in water, and

will survive floods commonly. Even if trees are killed, the tree does

not rot away or fall over as promptly as is commonly thought. Trees

often survive upright, after death, for up to a century..

[forevergrasping]

Could it be these fossils are of a fish that went extinct? does it not take evolutionist presuppositions to interpret it this way?

[ianjamieson]

Not when it shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and in the expected order.

[forevergrasping]

That is interesting. We still have a different way to see it. Take this quote for example:

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one...

[djarm67]

Metamorphosis is an interesting area of biology. The Axolotl for example reaches sexual maturity whilst still in the nymph stage and does not normally reach the adult salamander stage. However, if you inject the nymph with thyroxine (thyroid hormone) or iodine which promotes thyroxine, the axolotl will develop into it's adult stage. This clearly shows that it is simply gene expression in relation to the thyroid gland which results in this metamorphosis stage.

[waderyu]

@forevergrasping ..so how does that prove evolution? they do not come out half elephants..the action is metamorphosis not evolution ...are people dense here???..i can see evolution from stupid to "stupider" lol

[ianjamieson]

Wrong. Evolution is supported by *EVIDENCE*. Creationism is supported by *NOTHING*. There is a huge difference between so called creationist arguments and what actually goes on in the real world. You can't just assume something exists, you need physical evidence for it.

[Chiefpokeaho]

@ianjamieson Wow man, some ppl just dont belive that cells change like this for no reason. I dont belive in the old testament but plz tell me how a cell in an organism knows how to change to make its self better? This is nonsense... A cell doesnt know why it should change in either direction right?

[sabertooth1980]

@Chiefpokeaho What is more beneficial to the organism? Being able to tell when a shadow is passing by or not? There isn't any "goal" in evolution, it is merely the trait of those who surviving thriving. The cells don't need to know anything. And evolution doesn't happen over the course of on generation. You were paying attention to the "scores of generations" part right?

[LesPaul2006]

@Chiefpokeaho Natural selection. Read about it.

[Kieran27]

It sounds like you do not follow the Bible literally. May I ask if you're an old Earth creationist, or a young Earth creationist?

[tallerideas]

I believe everything in the bible is true. I've been studying the bible now for bout 15 yrs and am in awe of it.

There's know way that some 40 authors put that together over a great span of time without divine help.

I believe the bible explains the way things are correctly, and that only 6 -10,000 yrs are needed.

[ianjamieson]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahaha. You are a complete idiot. It has to be said! lol, this is so funny!

[ianjamieson]

"Only the judea/christian gives one account that has a solid structure that is feasible"

So errr, A big magical sky man made people out of mud 6000 years ago where all the animals were vegetarian and a talking snake made eve eat and apple. Yes, that is sooooooo feasible.

[forevergrasping]

Today if we leave things to chance, and taking the second law of thermodynamics into account and so on. The likeliness of evolution is about as likely as a nuke hitting new york and somehow that blast forms are complex working space ship. Y'all say since it is a possibility it HAD To happen, because the alternative is unthinkable. I am sorry, I do not have enough faith to believe everything is the universe evolved. And you do not have enough sense to recognize that you are a man of great faith

[ianjamieson]

Well, again, that just shows your complete misinformed creationist garbage. The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. It never has, and never will. A nuclear bomb creating a spaceship? Don't be so stupid. That's not the way things work at all.

[Terrencje]

"Would that make Ken Ham a transitional form?"

Yes thats correct, see his facial features :D

[djarm67]

Would that make Ken Ham a transitional form?

[jakieemma]

Monkeys evolved from creationists.