@DonExodus2 fyi first you have to define "evolution" and second evolution depends on the big bang and abiogenesis to exist. and since science has proven that both are failed theories then that means that "macro evolution" can not happen since the basis of it's theory is depended on both the big bang and abiogenesis. you are trying to explain something on step 3 when both step 1 and 2 have been proven failed!
You have to already have a selection before there can be any selection.
The function of hydrogen working as intended inside of us alone is more than enough evidence that we and the entire universe made of hydrogen and its derivatives has a Maker that is greater than all of the matter in the universe made by Him.
@Meatbag211 I just showed how the function of hydrogen means that the Maker of the function of hydrogen working inside of us is greater than the entire universe consisting primarily of hydrogen.
He is all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time and space (He is eternal).
@transtlantic The essential functions that hydrogen has in life forms utilizing nano, atomic and quantum functions show there is a Maker of the entire universe that consists primarily of hydrogen.
It's wholly dishonest and extremely inaccurate to say all elements are merely "derivatives" of hydrogen, especially because matter can be broken down far below the atomic level.
Life adapted to use specific compounds; there's nothing to suggest that only the compounds we see in life forms on Earth can be used for life. You're touching on the Anthropic Principle.
@TheZooCrew One of the functions of hydrogen is to make ATP so that we can exist. Hydrogen ions are the fuel that is used to manufacture for us the main fuel that we live on. All matter is essentially the same thing with different atomic weights and it all decays back into hydrogen which is what most of the universe is in the first place. Since hydrogen functions as directed to inside of us it shows us that the entire universe was made with the potential for the elements to obey orders.
@TheZooCrew You should also note that most of the most common elements are essential working parts that we consist of entirely. We consist entirely of ordered proteins.
@TheZooCrew You are the one who can't know that the conditions of the earth were like. You are imagining things. If the molecules are self replicating, that is an indication that it is by design in a laboratory. You are assuming that the earth could replicate your laboratory conditions ...and never at any time was the earth without oxygen.
"You are the one who can't know that the conditions of the earth were like"
Yes, we can. Atmospheric conditions leave traces in geology. It doesn't matter much, anyway...Urey-Miller experiments have been successful under a very large number of conditions.
"If the molecules are self replicating, that is an indication that it is by design in a laboratory."
@TheZooCrew There's evidence that oxygen was always around. The fact that the elements have function is evidence of design. Your "experiment" shows that amino acids form. It does not show that amino acids order themselves. That's not been proven.
We already know most of the most common elements are working machine parts inside of us after being ordered. That's not even something that is in question. There's a lot more evidence of Creation and evidence contrary to evolution.
@TheZooCrew urey-millers experiement was a failure since it produced 80% tar which would destroy any amino acids, further more they got the wrong atmosphere conditions since we have geology showing that indeed the earth had oxygen back then which means that their experiement was using the wrong elements & thus caused it to be a failure,that and they also removed the tar aka intervened to make their experiment work,that sounds like intelligent design the intervention on their part,not natural
@TheZooCrew it's not a lie go research lol they rpoduced tar, which would kill amino acids. shame that destroys your whole argument using them but they tampered with the experiment to get the result they wanted. bottom line.
luv how poor lil atheists like yourself try and hide behind the " troll" bs when shown facts. sucks when your failed belief is so easily disproven, that the only thing you have to fall back on are ad hominems lol sucks to be you!
@TheZooCrew oh really? then why isnt it front page news today with the technology we have today?? thats right cause it doesnt work, the advancement in science in the past 50 years has shown that the miller experiement CAN NOT happen hence why science has proven that the big bang model and abiogeneis are IMPOSSIBLE. shit can not come into existence naturally from nothing. thats called SCIENTIFIC PROOF!! you should go learn what science is lil boy.
"why isnt it front page news today with the technology we have today??"
Because most people won't understand what it means. News exists to sell itself.
"science has proven that the big bang model and abiogeneis are IMPOSSIBLE."
Citation?
"shit can not come into existence naturally from nothing."
This isn't what the Big Bang postulates. You know this is a straw man, of course, but you clearly have no problem with lying. I think you need professional help.
@TheZooCrew Consequently, evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. ...
@TheZooCrew However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements,
1) Truth in science is known for deliberate dishonesty and advocating ID despite no evidence. They are the UK version of the Discovery Institute.
2) The Urey-Miller experiments have been replicated in a ton of proposed prebiotic-Earth atmospheric conditions, as shown in 40 articles in the peer-reviewed journal "Science."
3) Abiogenesis does not affect evolution in the least because evolution is readily observable.
@TheZooCrew 1:) typical atheist failed answer since truth in science proves with evidence and all atheists are left with is trying to bad mouth them lol thank you for the laugh.
2:) if the miller experiement has been performed 40 times then they would be using oxygen in the experiement since we have oxidise rock which means oxygen was in the atmosphere which means it would have destroyed the said experiment! ty for the laugh.
3:) abiogeneis is the foundation of macro evolution aka random changes
Way to not cite anything besides an organization that's purely political. 99.98% of scientists accept evolution, yet TiS acts like there's a controversy. Totally dishonest.
You clearly don't know how chirality actually works. Try taking a chemistry course.
You could also try reading the actual peer-reviewed literature.
Then again, you're clearly either too lazy or too stubborn to pursue a legitimate education (preferring propaganda and dogma), so I don't know why I even bother.
@TheZooCrew 100% scientists accept micro evolution aka adaptation, only scientists aka atheists believe in macro evolution, so please dont clump adaptation to macro evolution, you have to learn to define youself lil one lol i have two master's degrees lil one, one in physics and the other in math, i know how chemistry works you obviously dont lol
@TheZooCrew i have shown nothing?lol i have shown that miller's experiment was a fake, and failed. i showed that you are blind and ignorant following aronra lol and last but not least ive shown you know very lil about science with the failed come backs and retorts of "I didn't plagiarize that, nor did I take credit for it. It's a modified bit of one of AronRa's videos."aka you took what aronra said and put it into your own word aka PLAGERISM lol you never cited him as your source! you're done
@gregrutz "There is no 'small' evoluton and 'big' evolution. It is all the same process, Evolution of Species." there you are caught in a lie. there is indeed small and "big" there is adaptation WITHIN the species aka a rabbit turning white in winter, that adaptation is NOT going to evolve it into a dog. then you have the macro evolution that states that after alot of small changes within the species it changes the GENUS of the species. hence why single cell turned to fish that turned to
@TheZooCrew you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example.
miller experiment produced 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid and 2% amino acids which were both right hand and left handed. and only left handed amino acids make up life and one right handed amino acid would neutrelize it. aka miller FAIL
@MrDathon1577 Scienitist have the math to go back to the first .000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang. You say you know some math, go look it up.
Abiogenesis is not impossible, it is just chemisty. Go get an education lil boy.
@gregrutz so you are openly agreeing that science has proven that indeed the universe in finite. which means it had to have a beginning which means that one of two things either happened, first the big bang aka something coming from nothing randomly or something created from nothing by a designer. the fact that science has proven that nothing happens with out cause hence you get cause and affect, to put that knowledge towards the big bang would mean nothing would be the cause and matter/energy
@gregrutz the affect. this is in complete contradiction to what science knows and can prove. that is all things move from an ordered state to a disordered state this is called the law of entropy. and this law alone destroys the big bang theory.
now we look at abiogenesis and you state it is simple " chemistry" well lil one if it was simple chemistry we in the scinece community would have merely taken what miller/urey did and create our own life in a test tube since our technology is far more
@gregrutz advanced then it was back in the 50's but that's right we dont here anything about this in the news, or in peer reviewed papers and why? cause it can not happen. and why, cause miller/urey created death in a bottle to which they manipulated to get the results they wanted aka they cheated. further more if it is just simple chemistry that life can arise from non living things we would see thing all around us but yep you guessed it we dont. what you are believing in is called fairy tales
@MrDathon1577 Miller-Urey proved that complex amino acids can happen in nature without an ID, they happen naturally.. Amino acids are found on meteorites. They are common in nature.
We do see life all around us, do you ever go outside?
@gregrutz miller proved that with intelligent design and manipulation and also using the wrong chemical make up you can produce tar and acid which is death to amino acids, he also proved that he can produce right handed amino acids that neutralise the left handed amino acids that is the only ones that produce life. so bottom line he produced death in his lab.
we see life all around us, sure do you see rain water falling on to rocks, pooling and creating amino acids? no we dont.
@MrDathon1577 ''right handed amino acids that neutralise the left handed amino acids''
They are mirror images of each other, they don't neutralise each other. Life uses the left handed ones, why do creationists make such a big deal about it.
Only kent hovind thinks we came from a rock, nice strawman. Rocks are not Organic.
"Tar" as described in certain reports of the experiment was called such due to its consistency, not chemical makeup. The "tar" itself was composed of amino acids, which is stated in these very same reports. The most common amino acids produced by this experiment have been shown to form nucleotides in the presence of ammonia, which was more common in the prebiotic Earth.
Your implication that this particular "tar" is the same used to repair roads is extremely dishonest.
@TheZooCrew truth in science"Firstly, consider the gaseous mixture. This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth. You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet...
Truth in Science complains about textbooks not presenting "alternatives" to evolution. This is dishonest.
There are NO alternative explanations for ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, or any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades.
@TheZooCrew 3:) plus time = new life. FAIL. science has proven that to be WRONG! ty for the laugh.
"Truth in Science complains about textbooks not presenting "alternatives" to evolution. This is dishonest." lol no it isnt it's called standing up for the truth. learn the word dishonest" Behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way,Intended to mislead or cheat" truth in science stating that the science books are teaching the wrong shit is called being HONEST lol
"truth in science stating that the science books are teaching the wrong shit is called being HONEST"
No, it's not. They present no actual evidence; they merely criticize for the sake of criticism. Tell me...what alternatives are there for the discoveries I listed?
@TheZooCrew if you are gong to plagerise rational wiki's Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master then id suggest not copy/paste it and take credit for it, start thinking on your own and stop plagerising and following blindly. thats called being ignorant lol
I didn't plagiarize that, nor did I take credit for it. It's a modified bit of one of AronRa's videos. It fits all the strongest evidence for evolution in a small space, which is why I have it in the cooler.
@TheZooCrew so you can not think for yourself, you merely copy what AronRa's says lol you follow blindly ty for proving my point, and ty for the laugh lol
I'm not following blindly. I'm an engineering student; I know that I can do all of the experiments myself and record the data and the result will be the same. There's no blindness. The peer review process prevents blind faith from entering the scientific world.
@gregrutz Most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. It is not just hydrogen. The function hydrogen shows us the entire universe has the same Maker that we have.
Abiogenesis is based on the same bad information that evolution is based on. Neither one of them happen.
@gregrutz You are wrong, life came for the ordering of most of the most common elements that are ordered working parts inside of us. Nothing ever happens regarding life forms without a preexisting written word ordering the elements what to do.
The function that hydrogen has inside of us means the entire universe, made primarily of hydrogen, has a Maker.
@transtlantic Without calling me a pussy or a tard, can I ask you an honest question? Where did hydrogen come from? Did it just always exist in space?
@gregrutz Yes, there are pumps, motors and turning shafts inside of us utilizing hydrogen ions to fabricate ATP molecules so we can live. They to video of the turning shafts and won the Nobel prize as a result.
Most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. It is what we consist entirely of.
First off it is science that links them together,this is why they call it the EVOLUTION of the universe and the EVOLUTION of life.I think you should read the work of your founding profit his name is CHARLES DARWIN.Ok now that you know these things are in fact critical to the atheist view on a big cosmic joke,witch you already knew.This is deception at its worst,any reasonable person knows this is a model to defeat accountability.Hey atheism get some new profits yours are not doing their jobs.
Well you are right as i am a builder i dont have to type that much.I think you are mistaken thats all,here is how.Ok in order to get rid of God you must have a single plausible and undeniable fact,not a guess or a thought in some scientist mind im talking proof.These things are linked (the claim there is no God).So i think your argument is flawed in the sense that you or any other evo cant come up with a complete model with no holes in it. It stated a long time ago and that's all you know.
"Ok in order to get rid of God you must have a single plausible and undeniable fact,not a guess or a thought in some scientist mind im talking proof."
This is so absurd that I have a hard time deciding where to start.
1) It's fallacious to begin with the assumption of the existence of God.
2) Science makes no comment on the supernatural.
3) It's a false dichotomy to assert that God and evolution cannot both exist.
2)science can tell you what a law is but there currently no understandings of why the laws of for instance gravity,you know it happens but not why.
The bible makes it plain and simple a duck has always been a duck no one Has seen otherwise.
Lots of supernatural things happen each day supernatural is gravity it is angular momentum it is light,all these things are simply unexplainable you know how to use them but you dont know why they are.
@TheZooCrew Ok youre saying there is a perfectly undeniable factual and complete understanding of why gravity does what it does,why light seems to do what it does even though there is no constant.They slowed it down to 1 mile a second and then stopped it,explain that? As far as my education goes i dont need any advice I am a great builder and many seek my expertise i need no further education.Its you people that need the truth evolution is a lie and you are sucking the tit of ignorance.
@TheZooCrew Why is it absurd?I began the argument in defense of my known truths you said there be no God long before i attacked the claim that there is not one.(1) science can not explain all living things and why gravity is present does this make it supernatural? How about this little tid-bit LET THERE BE LIGHT and what do ya know all things are held together by what? a photon whats a photon? light. How could an ancient person know such things?(3) The bible says otherwise.
@clawedification "So i think your argument is flawed in the sense that you or any other evo cant come up with a complete model with no holes in it."
You're claiming that evolution has holes, when you believe there was a creator that created everything that was perfect but people ate fruit so the creator cursed everyone, killed most, then cursed again before sending himself to sacrifice himself to himself so he could forgive us. Yeah, your God theory has holes.
Yeah, I mean why base your life on mans garbage? I have seen many people come to an understanding of the bible because they decided to read it without looking for parts that seem to confuse,(simple minds are often drawn to the conclusion that there are mistakes in the bible) I have yet to see anyone get a fullness out of monkeys becoming people.It has no use to know these things that is how I feel it has holes.Many things can not be understood by bias people or the blind at heart.
@clawedification "It has no use to know these things that is how I feel it has holes." Evolution is used in classification of new diseases, genetics, and agriculture. Why do you think that evolution has to explain the meaning of life? Do you expect that from the theory of gravity?
"decided to read it without looking for parts that seem to confuse"
the parts that I talked about were the entire story arch of the Bible. The entire thing makes no sense.
NO its really not think about a heart surgeon, do you think while he is doing a bypass he says to himself thank the sciences for evolution?Many scientist are creationist and still understand the complex machines we and life seems to be.That is an outright lie. If you really have read the bible you would know that Satan wants to be God and you know that he lies and says that man will be as God,this is what you are saying.Micro evolution does occur but apes can not be our ancestors.
@Meatbag211 They are still what they are this is in no way proof of evolution,its simply the same thing as a donkey and horse mating and the offspring is sterile.there is a rational way to explain all of this without thinking things change into other things no one has ever seen this and where are all the millions of transitions? I can tell you that these transitions only appear in the minds of people who want no responsability for there actions,I laugh at this
@clawedification Couldn't find anything to explain ring species on answers in genesis could you? Terrible shame that it let you down. It's like they can't explain why some parts of a species can breed and some cant. It's almost like they are transitioning.
Once again creationism goes down, offering no explanatory power.
Evolutionist/atheist/Darwinists spent a century searching for transitional forms they called the "missing link." Then, instead of simply admitting they were wrong, they pulled the old "bait and switch" and just re-invented the paradigm. Now, we are "all" transitional forms....which is just another way of admitting their is no evidence. Pathetic.
Arguing with atheists is like fighting in combat with an enemy who throws grenades at you but forgets to pull out the pin. Yeah, occasionally , one my hit you in the head and knock you loopy for awhile, but when you wake up, you just pull the pin and throw it back!
I said you were uninformed, ill-prepared, ignorant of the subject matter, and standing on public display in view of those who are not.
None of those properties speaks of your intelligence or lack thereof.
But since you bring it up, yes, you are ALSO dumb. That's not an ad-hominem by the way, since your argument is wrong on its own demerits. It's just an additional tangentially-related fact.
Hey DonExodus you really make a lot of wonderful video's that have actually changed the way I view the world. Of course, I'm sure you've seen the video's by ZinniaJones - seemingly with your voice "comming out" etc - to the point many people might not think it was a joke, I really think you could sue the crap out of that bastard and actually get a lot of money - and then have time to make even more videos and continue to change the world for the better.
"abiogenesis" is just a pseudo-scientific term made up by atheists who don't have the balls to deal with the question of the obvious and logical origin of the universe. Pathetic.
@TheZooCrew I notice you didn't refute my point, nor did you venture a theory on matter's origin, but resorted to--gasp!--your own ad hominem attack. LOL
Well, it usually "takes" me to the conclusion that it's not known whether the universe even HAS an origin. "Pondering" further will do me no good because I'm not an expert in theoretical physics and I don't pretend to be. That, and I don't really see a purpose in sitting there thinking about stuff when I could be making people's lives better.
-
Doesn't the Bible contain admonishments against judging and lying? Yet both of these seem to be common traits among creationists.
Because everyone knows REAL MEN are defined by their beliefs in things that have no evidence as well as their crude dismissal of those who dare question their unfounded resolutions. It sure takes balls to deny everything and wallow in one's own self-righteousness.
@TheZooCrew Real men think. You are terrified to even speculate about the origin of the universe bc you know the end of it very well. So, you "wallow" in your own little comfort zone. Pathetic.
@TheZooCrew LOL, yes, good policy: Don't ever think cuz you might get it wrong! you would make a fabulous detective: "Hmmm, a dead body with a knife in it's back. I dunno how the knife got there, so...case closed."
In the case of the Big Bang, there's no evidence whatsoever that the "knife" has ever not been in the back of the dead body. This has nothing to do with "thinking." This has to do with evidence and the lack thereof.
I'm not an atheist, but I DO fail to understand why it's such a wonder that some people can choose to not believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.
@TheZooCrew What's mind boggling to me is the insanity of refusing to accept an extant universe as evidence. LOL. But, if "Duh, I dunno" helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out.
This is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church is a laughable institution. Rather than admit error and self-reconcile, creationists would rather remain willfully ignorant and arrogant, as evidenced by Galileo.
@TheZooCrew I know nothing about the catholic church and don't care. I notice you STILL have refused to deal with the question of the universe's origin, but keep changing the subject.
It's unclear whether the universe even had an origin. I said this before and you just decided to ignore it. Ignoring things seems to be your specialty.
@TheZooCrew OK, let's logically examine the possibility that the universe has no origin: That would mean that matter is eternal, self-existing, and perpetual. It has no beginning, no end, and is everlasting. Those sound like traits of a God, not a bunch of rocks suspended in space. So, I say the universe was created by God, you are saying that the universe IS GOD. Which is more logical?
You managed to combine a false dichotomy, a violation of the philosophy of science, a very poor strawman, and an argument from personal incredulity all into one paragraph. Ray Comfort would be proud.
@TheZooCrew And you STILL are not able to refute my point, but throw up meaningless lingo you picked up in your philosophy class. Score! Again, do you have any cogent points to make?
Cogent points? There's no evidence to suggest that the universe had an origin.
Science makes no comment on the supernatural. To do so would be a violation of the philosophy of science.
The fact that you think my breakdown of your "argument" is "meaningless lingo" and still think you actually have any sort of point tells me you have absolutely no background in neither physics nor logic.
@TheZooCrew So, you are saying that you are not capable of thinking outside the naturalist box? Why do you limit you view of life to only that which is empirical? Are you really that shallow? Are you really that brainwashed? No offense, but atheists are not the brightest light in the Jumbo-tron. Geez
"Why do you limit you view of life to only that which is empirical?"
Why do you believe in ideas that have no evidence? Would you feel better if I believed in the Invisible Pink Unicorn that circles Earth and deflects coronal mass ejections?
How can you so arrogantly defend your belief in something that has never been shown to be anything more than a figment of the imagination?
@leatherneck2044 "That would mean that matter is eternal, self-existing, and perpetual. It has no beginning, no end, and is everlasting. Those sound like traits of a God,'
As nobody has ever defined what 'god' is, your comment makes no sense!
When someone can define god there can then be some debate about if it exists - until then gods are simply guesswork.
When confronted with the undeniable existence of the universe and the question of it's origin, idiot atheists always say, "The big bang did it." But, didn't what went 'bang' exist prior to the 'bang?" So, the BB didn't create anything, Einstein.
Abiogenesis, cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, macro evolution, are subjects that bioligists dont like to refer to as evolution, i would say the way the planets are today is not the way they was in the beginning, so they have evolved into there current state. abiogenesis is evolution too, starting from stardust and evolving to simple chemicals.
...but all the subjects you listed aren't referred to as evolution. Evolution refers only to biology. The others have their own scientific names. There is a reason for this.
Yeah...and what they are is "not evolution." Biologists don't refer to particle physics, cosmology, or abiogenesis as evolution because they are NOT evolution. The mechanisms are entirely different. Evolution is defined scientifically as "change in allelic frequencies in populations over time." Notice how this doesn't apply to any of the other things you listed.
@TheZooCrew It doesnt matter what there refered to as. All that matters is what they are. The universe was once a full stop (singularity) through rapid expansion and the birth of universal space, time, and matter, the universe has turned into a trillion complex galaxies, planets, stars, comets etc..etc..thats defineely change over time.
This point is only valid in words but not in practice since most of the evolutionists are atheists, so why make it? Its obvious that evolutionists themselves do not make a difference between evolution and abiogenesis in application since one implies another, otherwise we wouldn't have the term primordial soup. But I would love to hear the abiogenesis theory. god called Chance intervened?
The big bang and abiogenesis both "plug into" evolution. They make sense, and they link together to give e pretty good idea of how the universe, life, and the variety of life we see arose. However, part of the strength is these theories is that they can disconnect from each other and stand on their own. If any one theory is shown to be incorrect, remaining theories will still be able to accommodate new theories.
to 3:10 a theory in science can be a well-substained explanation about the natural world or For example, in her widely used Dictionary of Modern Biology, Norah Rudin defined a theory as: “similar to a hypothesis but usually wider in scope. Explanatory theories for sets of phenomena are developed by observation and experimentation” (1997, p. 367).
I'm sorry but playing with the word theory doesnt change of what the theory of evolution is. That all life comes from a single ancestor. NOT SCIENCE.
I can't believe that Creationists in the comments are still trying to link abiogenesis and evolution when the tiotle of the video is "Evolution is not Abiogenesis, or The Big Bang "
I've worked out their game plan. Abiogenesis isn't such a threat to Christians because even if it could happen by itself that doesn't preclude Adam & Eve. But Evolution is a much greater threat because it proves Genesis is wrong. Evolution has been worked out to the point of proof. Abiogenesis hasn't yet. So they've latched onto something that hasn't been sorted out in Abiogenesis & then transferred the problem to Evolution hoping people won't notice the switch. Rather cunning for a Creationist.
@Manganese5 Its not that they can't, its that they WONT. You have to remember that alot of these people have been indoctrinated since childhood to the point that when they encounter these types of questions, they dont approach them with the thought that their beliefs might be wrong lingering in the back of their minds. All they've been taught to believe is infallible. So providing evidence to these people is akin to banging your head against a concrete wall, all you'll end up with is a headache.
@HEC01 You do not understand evolution. Do you know what genetic drift, natural selection, mutation, species mean? If you don't you are a fool to disregard evolution. People and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor which is not around any more because selection pressure from the environment favoured the traits possessed by modern humans and monkeys.
@Manganese5 Yes, I know about natural selection, a.k.a survival of the fittest, mutations and species are. But natural selection doesnt explain how species came to be.I read science too. Also, about apes and humans, apes show a distint origin and humans another. Gyula Gyenis, wrote in 2002:"The clasification of hominid fossils and their place in the course of evolution has always been a theme of constant debate."
@HEC01 The bible is a collection of primitive ideas written by people thousands of years ago to explain the world and life because they did not know how else to explain things. They didn't have the technology we have today to help us understand the world around us. They didn't even have electricity and would not have had the internet. Yes some of the things in it are probably right and good but some other things are pure superstition and myths.
@Manganese5 I'm sorry but I must do this..........*rolls on the floor and laughs* *still laughing* My god. This show more bias than a racist. Crazy dude, if you want to learn about Jesus Christ, go read a bible, if you want to read science, read a textbook. Who cares if they didnt have electricity in that time? Is that a good reason to reject the bible? *laughs*
@HEC01 No of course that is not why I am rejecting the bible. Now I am rolling on the floor laughing at your stupidity. The point is they didn't know any thing about science so they made up myths to explain how things worked.
Because technology, scientists and super geniuses e.g. Einstein are needed to make most scientific discoveries and the technology or the scientists or the geniuses weren't exactly existent in bible times. Most people couldn't even read and write back then.
@Manganese5 And science doesnt have myths and fake shit as you people claim that the bible has? While it is true that there are sceptics about the bible and creation(religion in general), atheistic evolution has ALSO lost adherents and is not more innocent. Anthony flew for example. About the bible, Who cares if they didnt know about science like us, who cares if they were not inteligent like us, or knew about technology? The bible is not a science book. Again, go read a textbook .
@Manganese5 *sighs* The difference between science and bible myths is that science can be proven but the the bible cannot. All I am saying is, it's more likely that people made up the bible because they didn't know how to explain the world which was perfectly acceptable for them to do so at the time
What I don't like is people nowdays who only listen to bible and accept no science because it conflicts with the bible.
@Manganese5 I'm sorry but evolution doesnt glorify anything for god. Maybe a few of you do but most people arent so precise as to explain things without aiming a deity. There are atheists that say: "Hey, everything is the product of blind evolutive forces instead of having been created by a deity, the chapter 1 of genesis is a total bogus." This type of thinking doesnt serve anything for God so I dont know what you are saying that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Contradiction.
@HEC01 You shouldn't call evolution atheistic because it is possible to believe in evolution and God. You don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God.
I don't care if evolution glorifies anything for God. God and evolution are separate.
God could have created the big bang and the laws of physics in some way which we don't understand and maybe we never will. God could have also been responsible for the evolutionary forces i.e. they were not random.
@Manganese5 I'm sorry, that evolution shouldnt be called atheistic? Why are there scientists that aim to make God unnecesary and rely on natural causes through evolution? why are there scientists, professors or whatever trying to disprove God with such religious fever? True that you dont have to believe in the bible to believe in God but still if you dont believe in God, you believe in chance.
Another point, that God was responsible for evolutionary forces and not random not a biblical teaching
@HEC01 Evolution does not disprove God. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Sure a lot of people that accept evolution as a scientific fact are atheists doesn't mean all are. Not all scientists try to disprove god. In fact more believe in God than not. About 60%of scientists do believe in god.
No I think some things are due to chance and some things could be caused by god. I think god may have some influence over the forces in this world and the universe.
@Manganese5 The theory of evolution says that all life came from a simple first form, without the intervention of a supernatural or inteligent direction. Its history does remove an active role of a deity.
@atheistram Maybe just maybe... If there is no god then we might find out what caused our existence through science some many years in the future or possibly in the not too distant future. If there is a god we probably won't know until we die unless some kind of Jesus comes back again but I don't really believe that will happen. If some kind of being (i wouldn't call it a god) exists that takes no part in our world or cares or once existed but now doesn't we will probably never know.
love the video man
xtremetom180 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
MrJonkelp 1 week ago
good vid, great music. what exactly is it?
MidnightSt 4 weeks ago
lol you have no idea how many times i've repeated this during debates. Thanks for posting this.
Casshyr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Zoo,
why do you waste your time with these knuckleheads?
BlitzinLB27 6 months ago
@DonExodus2 fyi first you have to define "evolution" and second evolution depends on the big bang and abiogenesis to exist. and since science has proven that both are failed theories then that means that "macro evolution" can not happen since the basis of it's theory is depended on both the big bang and abiogenesis. you are trying to explain something on step 3 when both step 1 and 2 have been proven failed!
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
Yes, abiogenesis is the same thing as evolution.
You have to already have a selection before there can be any selection.
The function of hydrogen working as intended inside of us alone is more than enough evidence that we and the entire universe made of hydrogen and its derivatives has a Maker that is greater than all of the matter in the universe made by Him.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon How is hydrogen proof of anything more than hydrogen? explain the steps from there is hydrogen, therefore god.
Meatbag211 7 months ago
@Meatbag211 No mechanical functions can exist without having a Maker and hydrogen and derivatives are the only essential working parts inside of us.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon What is the function of hydrogen? How do you know something has a designed function verses nondesigned?
Meatbag211 6 months ago
@Meatbag211 I just showed how the function of hydrogen means that the Maker of the function of hydrogen working inside of us is greater than the entire universe consisting primarily of hydrogen.
He is all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time and space (He is eternal).
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
what is your epistemological method that you use in order to determine that something was designed by god?
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic The essential functions that hydrogen has in life forms utilizing nano, atomic and quantum functions show there is a Maker of the entire universe that consists primarily of hydrogen.
Tell that to anyone who understands anything.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
what is your epistemological method that you use in order to determine that something was designed by god?
are you afraid of this question?
transtlantic 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
What is the function of hydrogen?
It's wholly dishonest and extremely inaccurate to say all elements are merely "derivatives" of hydrogen, especially because matter can be broken down far below the atomic level.
Life adapted to use specific compounds; there's nothing to suggest that only the compounds we see in life forms on Earth can be used for life. You're touching on the Anthropic Principle.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew One of the functions of hydrogen is to make ATP so that we can exist. Hydrogen ions are the fuel that is used to manufacture for us the main fuel that we live on. All matter is essentially the same thing with different atomic weights and it all decays back into hydrogen which is what most of the universe is in the first place. Since hydrogen functions as directed to inside of us it shows us that the entire universe was made with the potential for the elements to obey orders.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
"All matter is essentially the same thing with different atomic weights and it all decays back into hydrogen"
This isn't even remotely true.
"One of the functions of hydrogen is to make ATP so that we can exist. "
All this shows is that life adapted to utilize available resources.
"the entire universe was made with the potential for the elements to obey orders."
"Obey orders?" There's no "orders." It's all chemistry. The existence of forces isn't proof of design.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew You should also note that most of the most common elements are essential working parts that we consist of entirely. We consist entirely of ordered proteins.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
"We consist entirely of ordered proteins."
We've observed simple self-replicating systems all the way up to RNA form all on their own in prebiotic-Earth conditions.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew You are imagining things. Those are designed ideal conditions the evidence of which never existed in the first place.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
"Those are designed ideal conditions"
Tautology. There's no way to test this.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew You are the one who can't know that the conditions of the earth were like. You are imagining things. If the molecules are self replicating, that is an indication that it is by design in a laboratory. You are assuming that the earth could replicate your laboratory conditions ...and never at any time was the earth without oxygen.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
"You are the one who can't know that the conditions of the earth were like"
Yes, we can. Atmospheric conditions leave traces in geology. It doesn't matter much, anyway...Urey-Miller experiments have been successful under a very large number of conditions.
"If the molecules are self replicating, that is an indication that it is by design in a laboratory."
No, it's not.
"never at any time was the earth without oxygen."
Why do you seem so certain of this?
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew There's evidence that oxygen was always around. The fact that the elements have function is evidence of design. Your "experiment" shows that amino acids form. It does not show that amino acids order themselves. That's not been proven.
We already know most of the most common elements are working machine parts inside of us after being ordered. That's not even something that is in question. There's a lot more evidence of Creation and evidence contrary to evolution.
watch?v=yAL-jRO6hjE
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew urey-millers experiement was a failure since it produced 80% tar which would destroy any amino acids, further more they got the wrong atmosphere conditions since we have geology showing that indeed the earth had oxygen back then which means that their experiement was using the wrong elements & thus caused it to be a failure,that and they also removed the tar aka intervened to make their experiment work,that sounds like intelligent design the intervention on their part,not natural
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
Dishonesty is not an argument. It's rather callous to accuse scientists of cheating when all of their work has passed peer review to this day.
Troll harder. Or stop lying. Either way works.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew it's not a lie go research lol they rpoduced tar, which would kill amino acids. shame that destroys your whole argument using them but they tampered with the experiment to get the result they wanted. bottom line.
luv how poor lil atheists like yourself try and hide behind the " troll" bs when shown facts. sucks when your failed belief is so easily disproven, that the only thing you have to fall back on are ad hominems lol sucks to be you!
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
...and the scientific community doesn't agree with you why, exactly?
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew oh really? then why isnt it front page news today with the technology we have today?? thats right cause it doesnt work, the advancement in science in the past 50 years has shown that the miller experiement CAN NOT happen hence why science has proven that the big bang model and abiogeneis are IMPOSSIBLE. shit can not come into existence naturally from nothing. thats called SCIENTIFIC PROOF!! you should go learn what science is lil boy.
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
"why isnt it front page news today with the technology we have today??"
Because most people won't understand what it means. News exists to sell itself.
"science has proven that the big bang model and abiogeneis are IMPOSSIBLE."
Citation?
"shit can not come into existence naturally from nothing."
This isn't what the Big Bang postulates. You know this is a straw man, of course, but you clearly have no problem with lying. I think you need professional help.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew Consequently, evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. ...
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements,
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
1) Truth in science is known for deliberate dishonesty and advocating ID despite no evidence. They are the UK version of the Discovery Institute.
2) The Urey-Miller experiments have been replicated in a ton of proposed prebiotic-Earth atmospheric conditions, as shown in 40 articles in the peer-reviewed journal "Science."
3) Abiogenesis does not affect evolution in the least because evolution is readily observable.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew 1:) typical atheist failed answer since truth in science proves with evidence and all atheists are left with is trying to bad mouth them lol thank you for the laugh.
2:) if the miller experiement has been performed 40 times then they would be using oxygen in the experiement since we have oxidise rock which means oxygen was in the atmosphere which means it would have destroyed the said experiment! ty for the laugh.
3:) abiogeneis is the foundation of macro evolution aka random changes
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
Way to not cite anything besides an organization that's purely political. 99.98% of scientists accept evolution, yet TiS acts like there's a controversy. Totally dishonest.
You clearly don't know how chirality actually works. Try taking a chemistry course.
You could also try reading the actual peer-reviewed literature.
Then again, you're clearly either too lazy or too stubborn to pursue a legitimate education (preferring propaganda and dogma), so I don't know why I even bother.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew 100% scientists accept micro evolution aka adaptation, only scientists aka atheists believe in macro evolution, so please dont clump adaptation to macro evolution, you have to learn to define youself lil one lol i have two master's degrees lil one, one in physics and the other in math, i know how chemistry works you obviously dont lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
I'm done. If all you're going to do is lie, there's no point in discussing anything.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew typical atheist shown proof, and turns tail and runs lol you have to learn to define what evolution is lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
You have shown nothing; cited nothing.
Evolution has been defined and has been proven. There are no alternative explanations.
I might use some of AronRa's words, but I find things out for myself. Are you capable of anything besides projection of your own faults?
Don't bother answering. It will be more lies, judgments, and nonsense.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew i have shown nothing?lol i have shown that miller's experiment was a fake, and failed. i showed that you are blind and ignorant following aronra lol and last but not least ive shown you know very lil about science with the failed come backs and retorts of "I didn't plagiarize that, nor did I take credit for it. It's a modified bit of one of AronRa's videos."aka you took what aronra said and put it into your own word aka PLAGERISM lol you never cited him as your source! you're done
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 Do you think you understand Biology better than AronRa or a biologist like Don? LOL
Go do some math. Plagerism? LOL
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz amphibians that turned to lizards that turned to mammals in a nut shell, this CHANGE is the CHANGE of the GENUS.
go do some math lil one i got a master's in mathematics i have done my math lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 Most scientists accept God, All of them accept Evolution.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 There is no 'small' evoluton and 'big' evolution. It is all the same process, Evolution of Species.
Math and Physics? No wonder you don't understand Biology.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz "There is no 'small' evoluton and 'big' evolution. It is all the same process, Evolution of Species." there you are caught in a lie. there is indeed small and "big" there is adaptation WITHIN the species aka a rabbit turning white in winter, that adaptation is NOT going to evolve it into a dog. then you have the macro evolution that states that after alot of small changes within the species it changes the GENUS of the species. hence why single cell turned to fish that turned to
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example.
miller experiment produced 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid and 2% amino acids which were both right hand and left handed. and only left handed amino acids make up life and one right handed amino acid would neutrelize it. aka miller FAIL
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 Scienitist have the math to go back to the first .000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang. You say you know some math, go look it up.
Abiogenesis is not impossible, it is just chemisty. Go get an education lil boy.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz so you are openly agreeing that science has proven that indeed the universe in finite. which means it had to have a beginning which means that one of two things either happened, first the big bang aka something coming from nothing randomly or something created from nothing by a designer. the fact that science has proven that nothing happens with out cause hence you get cause and affect, to put that knowledge towards the big bang would mean nothing would be the cause and matter/energy
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 Yes, the Flying Spagetti Monster made the BIG BANG/universe. YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST. WERE YOU THERE !!!
gregrutz 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 ''something created from nothing by a designer...''
Where did the designer come from? Who made Her?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz the affect. this is in complete contradiction to what science knows and can prove. that is all things move from an ordered state to a disordered state this is called the law of entropy. and this law alone destroys the big bang theory.
now we look at abiogenesis and you state it is simple " chemistry" well lil one if it was simple chemistry we in the scinece community would have merely taken what miller/urey did and create our own life in a test tube since our technology is far more
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 ''all things move from an ordered state to a disordered state'' Except LIFE>
What happened to you from age 2-12. Did you grow and become more organized? LIFE.
The second law applies to a closed system, you are not a closed system, you take in energy from the sun as it gets more disorganized.
The big bang was an expansion of space-time and a cooling, just like thermodynamics demands.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz advanced then it was back in the 50's but that's right we dont here anything about this in the news, or in peer reviewed papers and why? cause it can not happen. and why, cause miller/urey created death in a bottle to which they manipulated to get the results they wanted aka they cheated. further more if it is just simple chemistry that life can arise from non living things we would see thing all around us but yep you guessed it we dont. what you are believing in is called fairy tales
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 Miller-Urey proved that complex amino acids can happen in nature without an ID, they happen naturally.. Amino acids are found on meteorites. They are common in nature.
We do see life all around us, do you ever go outside?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz miller proved that with intelligent design and manipulation and also using the wrong chemical make up you can produce tar and acid which is death to amino acids, he also proved that he can produce right handed amino acids that neutralise the left handed amino acids that is the only ones that produce life. so bottom line he produced death in his lab.
we see life all around us, sure do you see rain water falling on to rocks, pooling and creating amino acids? no we dont.
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577 ''right handed amino acids that neutralise the left handed amino acids''
They are mirror images of each other, they don't neutralise each other. Life uses the left handed ones, why do creationists make such a big deal about it.
Only kent hovind thinks we came from a rock, nice strawman. Rocks are not Organic.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
"Tar" as described in certain reports of the experiment was called such due to its consistency, not chemical makeup. The "tar" itself was composed of amino acids, which is stated in these very same reports. The most common amino acids produced by this experiment have been shown to form nucleotides in the presence of ammonia, which was more common in the prebiotic Earth.
Your implication that this particular "tar" is the same used to repair roads is extremely dishonest.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew truth in science"Firstly, consider the gaseous mixture. This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth. You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet...
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
Truth in Science complains about textbooks not presenting "alternatives" to evolution. This is dishonest.
There are NO alternative explanations for ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, or any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew 3:) plus time = new life. FAIL. science has proven that to be WRONG! ty for the laugh.
"Truth in Science complains about textbooks not presenting "alternatives" to evolution. This is dishonest." lol no it isnt it's called standing up for the truth. learn the word dishonest" Behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way,Intended to mislead or cheat" truth in science stating that the science books are teaching the wrong shit is called being HONEST lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
"truth in science stating that the science books are teaching the wrong shit is called being HONEST"
No, it's not. They present no actual evidence; they merely criticize for the sake of criticism. Tell me...what alternatives are there for the discoveries I listed?
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew if you are gong to plagerise rational wiki's Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master then id suggest not copy/paste it and take credit for it, start thinking on your own and stop plagerising and following blindly. thats called being ignorant lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
I didn't plagiarize that, nor did I take credit for it. It's a modified bit of one of AronRa's videos. It fits all the strongest evidence for evolution in a small space, which is why I have it in the cooler.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew so you can not think for yourself, you merely copy what AronRa's says lol you follow blindly ty for proving my point, and ty for the laugh lol
MrDathon1577 6 months ago
@MrDathon1577
I'm not following blindly. I'm an engineering student; I know that I can do all of the experiments myself and record the data and the result will be the same. There's no blindness. The peer review process prevents blind faith from entering the scientific world.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@JungleJargon No, Abiogenesis is how life started. Evolution is how life got more diversified.
Hydrogen is one of 92+ kinds of atoms in the universe, it is just the simplist and most common.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz Most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. It is not just hydrogen. The function hydrogen shows us the entire universe has the same Maker that we have.
Abiogenesis is based on the same bad information that evolution is based on. Neither one of them happen.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon No, most of the elements are heavy metals and are not good for us.
Hydrogen does not have a ''function'' , it is just an atom and does not prove a designer.
There was no life on earth and then there was lots, proof they both happened. [same logic you used]
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz No, you did not check to see which elements are the most common and which of those are essential working parts inside of us.
The function of hydrogen makes it possible for us to live along with each and every other one of the essential elements working inside of us.
Life forms all came from preexisting orders. No life is ever the result of having no orders.
That is science. That is logical.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon The function of hydrogen makes it..... AHHHH??? What is the function of hydrogen?
The most common atom in the univers is Hydrogen.
We would not be here if it was not for the unique properties of CARBON.
Life did not come from orders, it came from what we are made of, Carbon Compounds and Water.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz You are wrong, life came for the ordering of most of the most common elements that are ordered working parts inside of us. Nothing ever happens regarding life forms without a preexisting written word ordering the elements what to do.
The function that hydrogen has inside of us means the entire universe, made primarily of hydrogen, has a Maker.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon I have ask you 5 times, What function?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz The function that hydrogen has inside of us and most of the most common elements each require having a Maker.
Hydrogen powers motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP so that we can live.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Hydrogen is proof that there is no maker. just try mention one single physics textbook mentioning a maker! just one!
there's none! because...makers do not exist. simple.
Water can also fall and power watermills, doesn't mean water was made to do it. it's all physics. never design, you ignorant pussy.
tell people here: do you think it rains whenever god sees fit?
now you run like a cowardly little pussy.
fuck off, you tard.
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic Without calling me a pussy or a tard, can I ask you an honest question? Where did hydrogen come from? Did it just always exist in space?
iEatBoneDust 4 months ago
@iEatBoneDust
without being just another retarded cretard, can I ask you an honest question?
Is there any isolated quarck?
the answer to my question answers yours.
Have a nice reading. Plus...this video has nothing to do with the origin of hydrogen. that's just retarded cretarded ontological hogwash.
transtlantic 4 months ago
@JungleJargon How old are you? 5? We don't have any free hydrogen in us, it is all part of water. And there are no turning shafts in Chemistry.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz Yes, there are pumps, motors and turning shafts inside of us utilizing hydrogen ions to fabricate ATP molecules so we can live. They to video of the turning shafts and won the Nobel prize as a result.
Most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. It is what we consist entirely of.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
First off it is science that links them together,this is why they call it the EVOLUTION of the universe and the EVOLUTION of life.I think you should read the work of your founding profit his name is CHARLES DARWIN.Ok now that you know these things are in fact critical to the atheist view on a big cosmic joke,witch you already knew.This is deception at its worst,any reasonable person knows this is a model to defeat accountability.Hey atheism get some new profits yours are not doing their jobs.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification
"First off it is science that links them together,this is why they call it the EVOLUTION of the universe and the EVOLUTION of life."
This is just a baldfaced lie, nothing more. No actual scientist links evolutionary biology to any other field of study.
"This is deception at its worst,any reasonable person knows this is a model to defeat accountability."
If by "reasonable" you mean "in desperate need of a therapist and English skills."
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
Well you are right as i am a builder i dont have to type that much.I think you are mistaken thats all,here is how.Ok in order to get rid of God you must have a single plausible and undeniable fact,not a guess or a thought in some scientist mind im talking proof.These things are linked (the claim there is no God).So i think your argument is flawed in the sense that you or any other evo cant come up with a complete model with no holes in it. It stated a long time ago and that's all you know.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification
"Ok in order to get rid of God you must have a single plausible and undeniable fact,not a guess or a thought in some scientist mind im talking proof."
This is so absurd that I have a hard time deciding where to start.
1) It's fallacious to begin with the assumption of the existence of God.
2) Science makes no comment on the supernatural.
3) It's a false dichotomy to assert that God and evolution cannot both exist.
Thirdly,
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
1) God is not an idea to me its a reality.
2)science can tell you what a law is but there currently no understandings of why the laws of for instance gravity,you know it happens but not why.
The bible makes it plain and simple a duck has always been a duck no one Has seen otherwise.
Lots of supernatural things happen each day supernatural is gravity it is angular momentum it is light,all these things are simply unexplainable you know how to use them but you dont know why they are.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification
"God is not an idea to me its a reality."
It's not an objectively verifiable fact, ergo it cannot be logically used as an argument.
"science can tell you what a law is but there currently no understandings of why the laws"
Wrong. This is why we have the theory. Laws explain "what," theories explain "why."
"all these things are simply unexplainable you know how to use them but you dont know why they are."
Go back to high school, where you learn that this is nonsense.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew Ok youre saying there is a perfectly undeniable factual and complete understanding of why gravity does what it does,why light seems to do what it does even though there is no constant.They slowed it down to 1 mile a second and then stopped it,explain that? As far as my education goes i dont need any advice I am a great builder and many seek my expertise i need no further education.Its you people that need the truth evolution is a lie and you are sucking the tit of ignorance.
clawedification 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew Why is it absurd?I began the argument in defense of my known truths you said there be no God long before i attacked the claim that there is not one.(1) science can not explain all living things and why gravity is present does this make it supernatural? How about this little tid-bit LET THERE BE LIGHT and what do ya know all things are held together by what? a photon whats a photon? light. How could an ancient person know such things?(3) The bible says otherwise.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification "So i think your argument is flawed in the sense that you or any other evo cant come up with a complete model with no holes in it."
You're claiming that evolution has holes, when you believe there was a creator that created everything that was perfect but people ate fruit so the creator cursed everyone, killed most, then cursed again before sending himself to sacrifice himself to himself so he could forgive us. Yeah, your God theory has holes.
Meatbag211 7 months ago
Yeah, I mean why base your life on mans garbage? I have seen many people come to an understanding of the bible because they decided to read it without looking for parts that seem to confuse,(simple minds are often drawn to the conclusion that there are mistakes in the bible) I have yet to see anyone get a fullness out of monkeys becoming people.It has no use to know these things that is how I feel it has holes.Many things can not be understood by bias people or the blind at heart.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification "It has no use to know these things that is how I feel it has holes." Evolution is used in classification of new diseases, genetics, and agriculture. Why do you think that evolution has to explain the meaning of life? Do you expect that from the theory of gravity?
"decided to read it without looking for parts that seem to confuse"
the parts that I talked about were the entire story arch of the Bible. The entire thing makes no sense.
Meatbag211 7 months ago
NO its really not think about a heart surgeon, do you think while he is doing a bypass he says to himself thank the sciences for evolution?Many scientist are creationist and still understand the complex machines we and life seems to be.That is an outright lie. If you really have read the bible you would know that Satan wants to be God and you know that he lies and says that man will be as God,this is what you are saying.Micro evolution does occur but apes can not be our ancestors.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification "Micro evolution does occur but apes can not be our ancestors."
Please explain ring species.
"Satan wants to be God and you know that he lies and says that man will be as God"
Are you saying that I know God exists and is all powerful?
Meatbag211 7 months ago
(1)48 million differences in ape and man,change even one of these things and it dies.
(2)Loosing information is not evolution it just doesn't hold up in a normal populous,hence the change ends up killing the organism.
(3)If you read the bible you know thats what it says, man can not change these things to a point of diseases and infection being wiped out.
(4) pretty much a clear case of denial is in order here but thats ok ignorance can be fixed.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification Explain ring species please.
Meatbag211 7 months ago
@Meatbag211 They are still what they are this is in no way proof of evolution,its simply the same thing as a donkey and horse mating and the offspring is sterile.there is a rational way to explain all of this without thinking things change into other things no one has ever seen this and where are all the millions of transitions? I can tell you that these transitions only appear in the minds of people who want no responsability for there actions,I laugh at this
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification Couldn't find anything to explain ring species on answers in genesis could you? Terrible shame that it let you down. It's like they can't explain why some parts of a species can breed and some cant. It's almost like they are transitioning.
Once again creationism goes down, offering no explanatory power.
Meatbag211 7 months ago
Evolutionist/atheist/Darwinists spent a century searching for transitional forms they called the "missing link." Then, instead of simply admitting they were wrong, they pulled the old "bait and switch" and just re-invented the paradigm. Now, we are "all" transitional forms....which is just another way of admitting their is no evidence. Pathetic.
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
Arguing with atheists is like fighting in combat with an enemy who throws grenades at you but forgets to pull out the pin. Yeah, occasionally , one my hit you in the head and knock you loopy for awhile, but when you wake up, you just pull the pin and throw it back!
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Arguing with atheists is more like having to stand up in front of the class and give a report on a book you haven't read.
rkyeun 8 months ago
@rkyeun oH, no, it's the "you're dumb" argument! Polemic weapon of choice for atheists and six-year-olds. Thanks for the laugh.
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
@leatherneck2044
I said you were uninformed, ill-prepared, ignorant of the subject matter, and standing on public display in view of those who are not.
None of those properties speaks of your intelligence or lack thereof.
But since you bring it up, yes, you are ALSO dumb. That's not an ad-hominem by the way, since your argument is wrong on its own demerits. It's just an additional tangentially-related fact.
rkyeun 8 months ago
@rkyeun You are making this too easy. Do you have any specific retorts to my specific points? I bet not.
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Would it matter to you if I did? Why don't you pick one.
rkyeun 8 months ago
Hey DonExodus you really make a lot of wonderful video's that have actually changed the way I view the world. Of course, I'm sure you've seen the video's by ZinniaJones - seemingly with your voice "comming out" etc - to the point many people might not think it was a joke, I really think you could sue the crap out of that bastard and actually get a lot of money - and then have time to make even more videos and continue to change the world for the better.
goodspelr 9 months ago
"abiogenesis" is just a pseudo-scientific term made up by atheists who don't have the balls to deal with the question of the obvious and logical origin of the universe. Pathetic.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
A creationist who doesn't understand physics and uses pointless ad hominem attacks. Surprise, surprise.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew I notice you didn't refute my point, nor did you venture a theory on matter's origin, but resorted to--gasp!--your own ad hominem attack. LOL
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
An insult is not an ad hominem attack.
I don't have to venture a theory on matter's "origin" nor refute your point. DonExodus2 and several others here have already done that.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew At least you're honest about your limitations. That's refreshing.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
"Limitations" is a rather inaccurate word to use here. I simply don't see the point in reinventing the wheel.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew No, you are a coward who is afraid to ponder the universe's origin bc you know very well where that will take you. Sad.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Well, it usually "takes" me to the conclusion that it's not known whether the universe even HAS an origin. "Pondering" further will do me no good because I'm not an expert in theoretical physics and I don't pretend to be. That, and I don't really see a purpose in sitting there thinking about stuff when I could be making people's lives better.
-
Doesn't the Bible contain admonishments against judging and lying? Yet both of these seem to be common traits among creationists.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew God, you're a pussy. If you ever grow a pair and decide to really seek God, I promise He won't bite.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Because everyone knows REAL MEN are defined by their beliefs in things that have no evidence as well as their crude dismissal of those who dare question their unfounded resolutions. It sure takes balls to deny everything and wallow in one's own self-righteousness.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew Real men think. You are terrified to even speculate about the origin of the universe bc you know the end of it very well. So, you "wallow" in your own little comfort zone. Pathetic.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
So you'd rather speculate pointlessly and get everything wrong? What is this "end" you keep talking about?
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew LOL, yes, good policy: Don't ever think cuz you might get it wrong! you would make a fabulous detective: "Hmmm, a dead body with a knife in it's back. I dunno how the knife got there, so...case closed."
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
In the case of the Big Bang, there's no evidence whatsoever that the "knife" has ever not been in the back of the dead body. This has nothing to do with "thinking." This has to do with evidence and the lack thereof.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew Ahhh, atheist denial is the 9th wonder of the world.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Creationist bizzaro universe is the 10th.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
I'm not an atheist, but I DO fail to understand why it's such a wonder that some people can choose to not believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew What's mind boggling to me is the insanity of refusing to accept an extant universe as evidence. LOL. But, if "Duh, I dunno" helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Argument from personal incredulity. Typical.
This is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church is a laughable institution. Rather than admit error and self-reconcile, creationists would rather remain willfully ignorant and arrogant, as evidenced by Galileo.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew I know nothing about the catholic church and don't care. I notice you STILL have refused to deal with the question of the universe's origin, but keep changing the subject.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Like you actually have an answer.
It's unclear whether the universe even had an origin. I said this before and you just decided to ignore it. Ignoring things seems to be your specialty.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew OK, let's logically examine the possibility that the universe has no origin: That would mean that matter is eternal, self-existing, and perpetual. It has no beginning, no end, and is everlasting. Those sound like traits of a God, not a bunch of rocks suspended in space. So, I say the universe was created by God, you are saying that the universe IS GOD. Which is more logical?
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
You managed to combine a false dichotomy, a violation of the philosophy of science, a very poor strawman, and an argument from personal incredulity all into one paragraph. Ray Comfort would be proud.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew And you STILL are not able to refute my point, but throw up meaningless lingo you picked up in your philosophy class. Score! Again, do you have any cogent points to make?
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
Cogent points? There's no evidence to suggest that the universe had an origin.
Science makes no comment on the supernatural. To do so would be a violation of the philosophy of science.
The fact that you think my breakdown of your "argument" is "meaningless lingo" and still think you actually have any sort of point tells me you have absolutely no background in neither physics nor logic.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew So, you are saying that you are not capable of thinking outside the naturalist box? Why do you limit you view of life to only that which is empirical? Are you really that shallow? Are you really that brainwashed? No offense, but atheists are not the brightest light in the Jumbo-tron. Geez
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@leatherneck2044
"Why do you limit you view of life to only that which is empirical?"
Why do you believe in ideas that have no evidence? Would you feel better if I believed in the Invisible Pink Unicorn that circles Earth and deflects coronal mass ejections?
How can you so arrogantly defend your belief in something that has never been shown to be anything more than a figment of the imagination?
TheZooCrew 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@leatherneck2044 "That would mean that matter is eternal, self-existing, and perpetual. It has no beginning, no end, and is everlasting. Those sound like traits of a God,'
As nobody has ever defined what 'god' is, your comment makes no sense!
When someone can define god there can then be some debate about if it exists - until then gods are simply guesswork.
mtbee9 8 months ago
Comment removed
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
When confronted with the undeniable existence of the universe and the question of it's origin, idiot atheists always say, "The big bang did it." But, didn't what went 'bang' exist prior to the 'bang?" So, the BB didn't create anything, Einstein.
leatherneck2044 9 months ago
Abiogenesis, cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, macro evolution, are subjects that bioligists dont like to refer to as evolution, i would say the way the planets are today is not the way they was in the beginning, so they have evolved into there current state. abiogenesis is evolution too, starting from stardust and evolving to simple chemicals.
hendrixboy100 10 months ago
@hendrixboy100
...but all the subjects you listed aren't referred to as evolution. Evolution refers only to biology. The others have their own scientific names. There is a reason for this.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew Call em what you like, doesnt change what they are.
hendrixboy100 9 months ago
@hendrixboy100
Yeah...and what they are is "not evolution." Biologists don't refer to particle physics, cosmology, or abiogenesis as evolution because they are NOT evolution. The mechanisms are entirely different. Evolution is defined scientifically as "change in allelic frequencies in populations over time." Notice how this doesn't apply to any of the other things you listed.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew It doesnt matter what there refered to as. All that matters is what they are. The universe was once a full stop (singularity) through rapid expansion and the birth of universal space, time, and matter, the universe has turned into a trillion complex galaxies, planets, stars, comets etc..etc..thats defineely change over time.
hendrixboy100 9 months ago
Comment removed
tSp289 10 months ago
NO ?
alabader741 1 year ago
No.
Ivin3690 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question, man should evolve also into another kind, why since human being is on earth have not evolve?
camelot28 1 year ago
Comment removed
camelot28 1 year ago
This point is only valid in words but not in practice since most of the evolutionists are atheists, so why make it? Its obvious that evolutionists themselves do not make a difference between evolution and abiogenesis in application since one implies another, otherwise we wouldn't have the term primordial soup. But I would love to hear the abiogenesis theory. god called Chance intervened?
citomalica 1 year ago
The big bang and abiogenesis both "plug into" evolution. They make sense, and they link together to give e pretty good idea of how the universe, life, and the variety of life we see arose. However, part of the strength is these theories is that they can disconnect from each other and stand on their own. If any one theory is shown to be incorrect, remaining theories will still be able to accommodate new theories.
STFUNOWlol 1 year ago
to 3:10 a theory in science can be a well-substained explanation about the natural world or For example, in her widely used Dictionary of Modern Biology, Norah Rudin defined a theory as: “similar to a hypothesis but usually wider in scope. Explanatory theories for sets of phenomena are developed by observation and experimentation” (1997, p. 367).
I'm sorry but playing with the word theory doesnt change of what the theory of evolution is. That all life comes from a single ancestor. NOT SCIENCE.
HEC01 1 year ago
I can't believe that Creationists in the comments are still trying to link abiogenesis and evolution when the tiotle of the video is "Evolution is not Abiogenesis, or The Big Bang "
Oddessuss 1 year ago
I've worked out their game plan. Abiogenesis isn't such a threat to Christians because even if it could happen by itself that doesn't preclude Adam & Eve. But Evolution is a much greater threat because it proves Genesis is wrong. Evolution has been worked out to the point of proof. Abiogenesis hasn't yet. So they've latched onto something that hasn't been sorted out in Abiogenesis & then transferred the problem to Evolution hoping people won't notice the switch. Rather cunning for a Creationist.
warren52nz 1 year ago 8
This is one of the best examples of a Creationist confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.
watch?v=wmpGUPz5TZU
When I pointed out his mistake, he banned me... Boo Hoo.
I see he's disabled comments now (ratings were already disabled of course)
Why is it the Creationists hide after spouting their bullshit?
(cont)
warren52nz 1 year ago
I can't believe people accept myths like noah's and arc but they can't accept evolution.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 Its not that they can't, its that they WONT. You have to remember that alot of these people have been indoctrinated since childhood to the point that when they encounter these types of questions, they dont approach them with the thought that their beliefs might be wrong lingering in the back of their minds. All they've been taught to believe is infallible. So providing evidence to these people is akin to banging your head against a concrete wall, all you'll end up with is a headache.
Nucl3arTeacup 1 year ago
@Manganese5 And I cant believe how people accept the myth that how we came from monkeys. Double standard
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 You do not understand evolution. Do you know what genetic drift, natural selection, mutation, species mean? If you don't you are a fool to disregard evolution. People and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor which is not around any more because selection pressure from the environment favoured the traits possessed by modern humans and monkeys.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 Yes, I know about natural selection, a.k.a survival of the fittest, mutations and species are. But natural selection doesnt explain how species came to be.I read science too. Also, about apes and humans, apes show a distint origin and humans another. Gyula Gyenis, wrote in 2002:"The clasification of hominid fossils and their place in the course of evolution has always been a theme of constant debate."
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 The bible is a collection of primitive ideas written by people thousands of years ago to explain the world and life because they did not know how else to explain things. They didn't have the technology we have today to help us understand the world around us. They didn't even have electricity and would not have had the internet. Yes some of the things in it are probably right and good but some other things are pure superstition and myths.
Sorry pops you are still living in cave days.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 I'm sorry but I must do this..........*rolls on the floor and laughs* *still laughing* My god. This show more bias than a racist. Crazy dude, if you want to learn about Jesus Christ, go read a bible, if you want to read science, read a textbook. Who cares if they didnt have electricity in that time? Is that a good reason to reject the bible? *laughs*
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 No of course that is not why I am rejecting the bible. Now I am rolling on the floor laughing at your stupidity. The point is they didn't know any thing about science so they made up myths to explain how things worked.
Because technology, scientists and super geniuses e.g. Einstein are needed to make most scientific discoveries and the technology or the scientists or the geniuses weren't exactly existent in bible times. Most people couldn't even read and write back then.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 And science doesnt have myths and fake shit as you people claim that the bible has? While it is true that there are sceptics about the bible and creation(religion in general), atheistic evolution has ALSO lost adherents and is not more innocent. Anthony flew for example. About the bible, Who cares if they didnt know about science like us, who cares if they were not inteligent like us, or knew about technology? The bible is not a science book. Again, go read a textbook .
HEC01 1 year ago
@Manganese5 *sighs* The difference between science and bible myths is that science can be proven but the the bible cannot. All I am saying is, it's more likely that people made up the bible because they didn't know how to explain the world which was perfectly acceptable for them to do so at the time
What I don't like is people nowdays who only listen to bible and accept no science because it conflicts with the bible.
Also evolution has NOTHING to do with atheism.
I believe in god and evolution.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 I'm sorry but evolution doesnt glorify anything for god. Maybe a few of you do but most people arent so precise as to explain things without aiming a deity. There are atheists that say: "Hey, everything is the product of blind evolutive forces instead of having been created by a deity, the chapter 1 of genesis is a total bogus." This type of thinking doesnt serve anything for God so I dont know what you are saying that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Contradiction.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 You shouldn't call evolution atheistic because it is possible to believe in evolution and God. You don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God.
I don't care if evolution glorifies anything for God. God and evolution are separate.
God could have created the big bang and the laws of physics in some way which we don't understand and maybe we never will. God could have also been responsible for the evolutionary forces i.e. they were not random.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 I'm sorry, that evolution shouldnt be called atheistic? Why are there scientists that aim to make God unnecesary and rely on natural causes through evolution? why are there scientists, professors or whatever trying to disprove God with such religious fever? True that you dont have to believe in the bible to believe in God but still if you dont believe in God, you believe in chance.
Another point, that God was responsible for evolutionary forces and not random not a biblical teaching
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 Evolution does not disprove God. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Sure a lot of people that accept evolution as a scientific fact are atheists doesn't mean all are. Not all scientists try to disprove god. In fact more believe in God than not. About 60%of scientists do believe in god.
No I think some things are due to chance and some things could be caused by god. I think god may have some influence over the forces in this world and the universe.
Manganese5 1 year ago
@Manganese5 The theory of evolution says that all life came from a simple first form, without the intervention of a supernatural or inteligent direction. Its history does remove an active role of a deity.
HEC01 1 year ago
@Manganese5 You're saying "could." Thing is we'll never know if there's a God or not.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Maybe just maybe... If there is no god then we might find out what caused our existence through science some many years in the future or possibly in the not too distant future. If there is a god we probably won't know until we die unless some kind of Jesus comes back again but I don't really believe that will happen. If some kind of being (i wouldn't call it a god) exists that takes no part in our world or cares or once existed but now doesn't we will probably never know.
Manganese5