theory's about science are written , tested and verified then sent for peer review .... religion has proven exactly nothin and requires u to ignore proven things for it to make sense, i mean 100 years ago there was almost no communication and the mayority of our species couldnt even write back then religion had imense power. its alot harder now to try to convince someone with an education that religion makes sense. poor mogley52
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
@Mogley52 Oh mogley, you so funny, i thought you'd giving up posting your cut/paste nonsense rants a long time ago, or have you not done enough to make creationists look like jibbering retards already?
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Why is the symbol of Jesus a Cross. I think Jesus would be kinda PISSED we decided to use what he was KILLED on as a symbol for him. Kinda disrespectful.
That's great. The deity thought it'd be great fun to put huge amounts of tiny tiny torture devices holding up your whole body. I guess if I thought that, I'd be just as excited as Louis
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Read my other response, im only answering this and your claim of no evidence of evolution, about this crap of "natural laws ability to bring the universe into existence from 'nothing' " it's like what are you trying to say, that has to be a "law" to explain the big bang (being the big bang where everything was together and expanded) the origin of big bang is a mistery because there's no way that allow us to gather info from the event, how is there evidence for intelligence
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 "Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it. "
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
@Mogley52 the genetic code showing we are 98% the same of another ape isn't evidence? ppl born with tales from the gens we share with monkeys, etc. The fucking pile of other humans that walked in 2 feet like homo erectus etc.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
Why the fuck would God put crosses anyway? "Hmm, in a few thousand years my son will be nailed to a cross. (Along with a lot of other people, because, you know, that's just what they do in that time.) Wouldn't it be fun to start hiding that shape all over the place right now?"
Louis Giglio is a moron. How did this guy manage to graduate from high school--if, in fact, he did? Who has orgasms over the shape of a molecule? Nobody but him, just because he saw one that is kinda-sorta cross-shaped. What if laminin was shaped like a pentagram? You can bet he would not have given a sermon about that! Notice how most of his audience was less than enthused, probably because even they could see how stupid he was being.
@ElveeKaye If he loves that squiggle so much, he'd be in rapture over the skid mark on my toilet that miraculously became a perfect cross after flushing.
true story..... going to ask the Vatican to authenticate it
This buffoon is NOT representative of the majority of believers. PROOF has nothing to do with FAITH. Faith is it's own evidence and any person who says they believe should know what I am talking about. Don't look for scientific proof of God. Faith is a purely anecdotal experience.
@petertrast What's more likely, that your being a fool? or that a supernatural all powerful all knowing creator had human authors write his scripture that explained to you that you would sound like a fool but you weren't?
Come on mate? Really?
That must be a stretch even for yourself? Oh and by the way that quote could be applied to a guy saying 4+4 = 9 but it wouldn't make him right.
@mrgejwaites My first post was a partial paraphrase of a verse. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The writer was explaining that you cannot PROVE faith, proof is the opposite of faith. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". He is calling on the part of us that responded as children do "the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these"
@petertrast Yes I inferred that it was a quote by the quote marks my friend. You still did not answer my question, I have read the bible I do not need random quotes regurgitated at me to mask your clear avoidance of my question.
Faith is evidence for things not seen? Do you realise how ridiculous that is, so kids have evidence for the existence of santa because they have faith he exists? Come on?
Proof is the opposite of faith I agree, believing something out of faith is absurd.
@mrgejwaites I am merely quoting the Bible. These are not "random" quotes. They are important passages. I can't help if your eyes are blind. If you really had any desire to know the truth, you would consider the possibility of what I am saying and ask the questions down in your heart. But since you despise the truth and the light that it shines on who and what you are, there is nothing left to say to you. Best to you. -- shakes dust from feet --
@petertrast They are important in your opinion, most of the world does not agree with you. My eyes are not blind, if I didn't consider the possibility that religion could be true would I participate in debates about it?
You have no truth to show? No evidence? Nothing.
I love the truth hence why I love science, it actually gives me it through evidence observation and logic, not through assertion and demands of blind faith.
I hope you see that assertion does not define truth. Good luck.
@mrgejwaites I agree. Assertion does not define truth, but it is the primary evidence of evolution, because I have yet to see the tests, observations and predictions that scientific theory require. All I see now are comparisons of anatomical structures that give the same amount of support to intelligent design. I have seen the "evidence" and sifted through it for 30 years looking for signs that it might actually be true. What I saw is a religious fervor worthy of inquisitors...
@petertrast Just because you haven't had the initiative to find education in evolution does not therefore mean that it is based on assertion, to even suggest that is kind of funny.
/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU
I'm not going to paste every video there is, suffice to say I found those with one search. To be honest though you'd be better off seeking an actual course on the subject if you sought to really learn something.
I hope your religious shackles don't prevent you from it.
@mrgejwaites Better check yourself for shackles. I am not afraid to explore any possibility. I question everything I am taught or told. Do you? Or do you, like 90% of public school students, simply swallow what your "educators" say, instead of relying on true scientific method? It's funny how atheists in particular assume that having "faith" precludes adherence to having a scientific approach. Until "science" can produce a 5 sigma for their theories, I remain skeptical. Do you??
@petertrast Essentially your reply is pretty much on par with this: I say you are being foolish, you reply by saying no you are.
The majority of the world is religious I don't know why your acting like your a minority. I defer to experts in different fields of science, the logical thing to do for any lay person.
Faith is believing without evidence, science is discovering through evidence, the methodology of the two are completely opposed.
@petertrast But gravity is still "just a theory". Surely an intelligent person such as yourself wouldn't allow any amount scientific evidence to conflict with with your beliefs. So, get enough prayers in you to counteract the insignificant gravity thing and take the leap. Will God not raise you above the onlookers? Or haven't you enough faith in God?
@fdasherv You channel the direct words of Satan himself when he said the same to Jesus in the wilderness, to which Jesus replied "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".
If God asked me to do it, that would be different. We are not on such intimate speaking terms at this time...
@fdasherv Faith is not the same as telling God what to do. Your reasoning is getting worse with each reply. Perhaps you should consider reducing your THC intake in the evenings...
@petertrast "Faith is not the same as telling God what to do."
I believe I said 'pray', not 'tell'. So you're saying all the prayer on this side of the Rockies will not affect the laws of gravity in your favor, not even once. Why not? Surely it's a mere aside for an all-powerful deity. Yet no suspension of physical laws has ever been recorded, with or without prayer. This is one down-on-His-luck deity. But you have no faith is such things anyway. You're full aware of His impotence.
@petertrast Please go to evolution dot berkely dot edu. It explains evolution in simple, easy-to-understand language, yet is very thorough. I suspect that when you say "evidence," what you really mean is that you read some creationist books and websites containing statements like "why we still got monkeys?"
@ElveeKaye Um nooo... I don't see why we could not have monkeys still if evolution is true. I think microevolution is well established. A fossil record with actual transitions from one species to another wuld be good. But since fossils are so rare, I doubt that can happen. Over the next few thousand years we might record evidence. But I won't care by then :) I see this as a long term science, too long to call it good yet.
@petertrast There is nothing in evolution that demands that speciation be accompanied by the extinction of the parent population. Americans came from Europeans, and yet there are still Europeans. Hmmmm.
@Juxtaroberto Wow. Even if I was an evolutionist, I would say that analogy sucks. "Americans" are a national group of many ethnicities which has nothing to do with speciation. And I never said that splits would require extinction, in fact, I said the opposite. I think even if evolution were true, "better" species would not eliminate the older species. Everything in our discussion is theoretical anyway.
@petertrast THAT'S why it's called an analogy, not a homology. You are unable or unwilling to learn actual evolutionary theory, available in universities worldwide, and then scoff at the simplest analogies presented to you. Of COURSE it's not exactly the same in every respect. If you were actually interested in understand evolutionary biology, you'd take a course, not ask people on the internet. You also apparently know nothing about the fossil record. We have mounds of transitional forms.
@Juxtaroberto Um, actually I have taken MANY courses. All of my textbooks have DRAWINGS of transitional forms, instead of pictures of the ACTUAL fossils found. Why? Because when I visited multiple universities to see the fossils, they were single bones in MANY cases used as the basis for an ENTIRE animal. This is fraudulent at best, criminal at worst. So spare me your "We have MOUNDS of transitional forms". What you actually have is mounds of B.S. Nice try.
@petertrast Nope, wrong. They have artist renditions because most people won't have a clue what they're looking at if you show them a skeleton, no less a fossilized skeleton. Considering the bones have turned to rock, it would take an expert to differentiate them. Not to mention common laymen are NOT anatomists. We have complete fossils, and many of them. Sounds to me like you're talking about Peking man. Try to get up to date.
@petertrast Actually there is quite a few full skulls of different transitional forms floating around.... Either way a lack of fossils is not a case against evolution. I mean if you are willing to ignore dna sequencing and a chromosomal comparison between humans and other primates then sure it might put a dent in it. But otherwise a lack of fossils or only partial fossils does not in any way impact evolutionary theory.
@CtheWolfe "not in any way"... okaayyyyy. DNA sequencing?? LOL, only if the specimens are excellent and only a few tens of thousands year old, both very rare. And that would only be homo sapiens... comparing DNA between species to establish evolution is like sampling automobile materials from a junkyard. It only proves the same materials were used, probably more supportive of design than evolution, or at least AS supportive. Plus the fact that all apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes lol
@petertrast Yes we are speaking of which the selective molecules align to create strings of sequencing that can be matched between close/distant relatives. Automobile materials has nothing to do with biological elements. "Plus the fact that all apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes lol" Yes and our Chromosome #2 is a fused version of their extra pair. It matches perfectly I might add. I thought you were educated on the subject? You did say you took many courses on it.
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
@petertrast "And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related" Not on its own. But when you compare the sequences the DNA molecules arrange into, fossil records etc etc, it is quite obvious as to what has happened. Which is why among the vast majority of biologists (I mean like 99.9%) there is no dispute what so ever about evolution. It is always done by those who do not have the credentials in an attempt to support their theistic belief system.
@petertrast Do you understand that DNA is made up of many many molecules? It is not the specific molecule that gives meaning or trait to something it is the way they sequence together. The order they flow in. So while we have many molecules similar to mice the sequence is quite different. Not to say we do not have many molecules in common with all our primate ancestors. I did this to show it is the arrangement of molecules not just whats in the dna.
@petertrast If an organism is a book. What makes up the book is the way words and sentences are strung together(the sequence in which molecules form to give trait) not just the specific letters. Two books might have exactly the same letter count BUT the meaning (traits) are very different due to the way they are strung together(sequence) TADA So really it does not cloud the issue in the slightest. Hope you understand a little better now.
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
@petertrast I do not see how specific molecule groupings that give traits, match up the closer the relation, when also referenced with the use if phylogeny trees, these matches become very much so more apparent and increase in frequency. Thus it supports a descent from common ancestor, not a new design, nor a common design. Were you unaware that this is what we see? Members of the same phylogeny trees share more dna in common than others?
@petertrast I mean for instance we share more DNA molecules in common with mice than our primate cousins. Yet the sequences they follow are much closer to chimps. A better analogy would be letters and words. We have many letters(molecules) in common with mice, but more words(sequences) in common with our chimp cousins. Combined with their #13 chromosome being part of our fused #2 Chromosome. I would hope you can see the coding is signifying descent from common ancestor...
@petertrast Now as I am sure you can tell with that analogy that as with any book, words are what give the letters meaning. You can have many letters on a page an no meaning, it is only once words occur that you have meaning. So even if you ignore fossils, which apparently you do, the "words" that make up our "book" are very similar to our cousins, and as you get farther away the "words" change and the "book" has less in common. But when you combine both the evidence is staggering.
@blehblehbleh90 Um, yeah...I'm gonna have to disagree with you. When a species or breed or race has changes that result in different looks or physical tendencies, etc, the speciation remains and that animal (or person) still has the ability to procreate. Dominant and recessive genes are influenced by the presence of each in the gametes during reproduction. But the species remain regardless of the apparent changes. This is adaptation or variance or microevolution. Big difference.
@petertrast You're not just disagreeing with me, but with biology. You just making stuff up isn't helping you look credible on this topic. You seem to be using a whole slew of words you don't seem to understand. Weird.
@LeonhardEuler1 That is one of the weakest collections I have seen. Australopithicus? Really? There are SO many problems and controversies, there is no room to cover them here. Suffice it to say Leakey and company did alot of tap dancing and imagining to get "Lucy". And that is the best one... very weak "science". Well documented yes, based on poor science. Extremely poor.
@oaajbs Lucy. One knee joint found 2 kilometers or more away, buried 70 meters deeper. Also, A. afarensis had long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates, unlike the very human model in the St Louis zoo. The footprints found by Leakey were indistinguishible from human -- and 3 million years old supposedly. British anatomist Solly Lord Zuckerman concluded that australopithecines do not belong in the human family. Skull 1470, dated 41 times by potassium-argon and rejected ..
@petertrast This claim is completely false and I would ask you supply your sources. Talk origins discusses this falsehood is great detail and cites there sources.
@oaajbs Dr. Johansen did not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. "Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind" 1981 pp 159-163. No links because it is NOT on the web (and it would not fit here). You have to buy and READ the book like I did, in CONTEXT of the material. He "logically" ASSUMED they were the same species because of the wash where the bones were located. I have read the subsequent "detraction" on Talk Origins but never heard a direct quote from him to contradict his own book.
@oaajbs (cont) rejected 41 times by Leakey because it wasn't a match for the data she WANTED. The skull had an extremely large brain capacity, about 825cc, right on the edge of modern which also does not fit the original 2.9 million year estimate, more like 100,000. This is the tip of the iceberg. Read up on Skull 1470 for more detail. Leakey was unethical, proven many times by her failure to use the data as it came, choosing to slant it to her purpose and ignore some data all together.
@LeonhardEuler1 That is one of the weakest collections I have seen. Australopithicus? Really? There are SO many problems and controversies, there is no room to cover them here. Suffice it to say Leakey and company did alot of tap dancing and imagining to get "Lucy". And that is the best one... very weak "science". Well documented yes, based on poor science. Extremely poor.
@petertrast No problem there. I do not look for scientific proof of God any more than I look for scientific proof of fairies, elves, unicorns, and fire-breathing dragons.
...is in the perfect shape of a medieval torture device invented by the Romans. Proof.
Eat a dick creationists. Your arguments for god are so weak that they would embarrass any god that existed.
Not only that, but "crosses" used for crucifixion were varied in shape from a simple pole to a T shape. How does this or anyone else know the exact form factor of the "cross" used to nail up Yeshua? Any one have the answer to that, I'd like to know?
@allisilly92 1. If you did your basketball trick millions of times over millions of years it would go in the basket quite a bit. 2. The reason you can't see how this is anything other than id is because you are stupid. I'm not trying to insult you, but just pointing out the truth. You can't think logically or intelligently. you have no common sense or reason. you are morally and mentally retarded. Sorry toots! Stick to watching Jersey shore.
@Mogley52 stop spamming the comments section of Potholer's video's half of your points are just hilarious and belong in this series the rest are covered in several of Potholer's videos and everything else is just your baseless opinion.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 "Only evolution within kinds is genetically posible" Then why have scientists been able to create speciation in bacterial, fly and slug populations. Why would species not survive if their vital structures were still evolving, natural selection eliminates animals incapable to survive and reproduce in their environment.
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
INFORMATION ARGUMENT NOT DESTROYED: The chemicals exist in all species to make new genetic information but that doesn't mean random rearrangement of those chemicals by the environment will produce new genetic information anymore than randomly rearranging the letters in a love story novel will change it into a book on astronomy, and if the book were living the process of such random rearrangement would kill it! Read my popular Internet article, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Well then how did it all get here in your opinion? Cuz last time I checked you don't get things out of nothingness. You don't get order out of chaos. My bedroom doesn't clean itself. Also if what y'all are saying is true then why did it stop with us?
These comments are so sad...regardless of whether it looks like a cross, you people are missing the point, I simply don't understand how anyone could not see intelligent design in all of this! How could tiny details like this that are so necessary possibly be random chance??? It's like closing your eyes, spinning around with a basketball in your hand, throwing it and it some how miraculously goes in. Really, someone kindly explain how random chance makes more sense than intelligent design?!
@allisilly92 becuase things are not random chance. Please look up evolution as a whole. Natural slection and random mutation. Then you will maybe understand a bit better.
ID does not make any sense, as evolution has showed consistently results. ID just says "God did it" Which does not explain anything at all.
@allisilly92 There is a gigantic space between A all powerful being designing everything from the smallest partical and beyond to... everything is completely random. The fact that we even have Physics or are able to predict and calculate things shows there isn't complete randomness to life and the universe. The weather on earth seems random at times, but it isn't. There is a reason for why everything happens and science is the pursuit of discovering what those reasons are.
@allisilly92 How intelligent is your designer when he allowed for things like cancer, leukemia, leprosy, bronchitis, influenza, small pox, polio, the black plague, and hundreds of other diseases and disorders? That doesn't seem very smart, to me, but maybe I'm just missing the part where deliberately building a machine that is designed to fail in a thousand possible ways, is somehow a sign of intelligence by the one who built it.
The Bibblit is nothing more than a religious re-writing of history to assimilate many religions and gods into a single belief and a single, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that can beat up the other gods. The Creationist god is man made for the purpose of controlling the masses with fear and lies to keep them stupid and dependent on their captors...I means religious leaders for guidance. The blind leading the blind.
holy shit ;)
GLANL 12 hours ago
Religion is toxic. Knowledge is power. Dog's bottom, hilarious. Peace
EattherichBuddy 2 days ago
theory's about science are written , tested and verified then sent for peer review .... religion has proven exactly nothin and requires u to ignore proven things for it to make sense, i mean 100 years ago there was almost no communication and the mayority of our species couldnt even write back then religion had imense power. its alot harder now to try to convince someone with an education that religion makes sense. poor mogley52
berndvanhoof 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 5 days ago
@Mogley52 Oh mogley, you so funny, i thought you'd giving up posting your cut/paste nonsense rants a long time ago, or have you not done enough to make creationists look like jibbering retards already?
iseezapie 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 5 days ago
Why is the symbol of Jesus a Cross. I think Jesus would be kinda PISSED we decided to use what he was KILLED on as a symbol for him. Kinda disrespectful.
Darkeklaw 5 days ago
That's great. The deity thought it'd be great fun to put huge amounts of tiny tiny torture devices holding up your whole body. I guess if I thought that, I'd be just as excited as Louis
MrBkerth 5 days ago
i love ur vids keep up the good work
MegaBarneyboy1 6 days ago
Laminin looks like a one legged man rockin' out to some heavy ass tunes!
chrism4n14 6 days ago
Theist are the biggest roadblock to human advancement...
Hornadayfan 6 days ago 2
He probably made his wife if he has one shave her pussy hairs into the shape of a cross!
gateman42 1 week ago
@gateman42 LOL! A crucifixion-cross pussy?! Count me in!
NowKillYourself 1 week ago
it looks more like a sleepy 2D jelly stick man with 1 leg trying to keep it's balance.
taylan637 1 week ago
so basically biology for crusifiction..... YOUR BODY HATES JESUS!
doombybbr 1 week ago
Hey Potholer, didn't you read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus was a renowned contortionist?
AmericanAviator 1 week ago 2
Jesus is evil!
his lord Jesus Christ is an evil troll.
wellsbranchdude 1 week ago
Sadly, laminin could even recombine itself into a swastika. What would THAT mean??
ntr10me 1 week ago
I always thought Jesus was an arsehole! Hahaha
InsanoGerbil 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 Read my other response, im only answering this and your claim of no evidence of evolution, about this crap of "natural laws ability to bring the universe into existence from 'nothing' " it's like what are you trying to say, that has to be a "law" to explain the big bang (being the big bang where everything was together and expanded) the origin of big bang is a mistery because there's no way that allow us to gather info from the event, how is there evidence for intelligence
crazy3d 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 I see you are still cuntpasting nonsense off your website in violation of youtubes terms of service.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it. "
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 the genetic code showing we are 98% the same of another ape isn't evidence? ppl born with tales from the gens we share with monkeys, etc. The fucking pile of other humans that walked in 2 feet like homo erectus etc.
crazy3d 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site. The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation).
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
classic graphic to illustrate your point. Potholer54 fan club member.
guwest2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
romans were crusifying people BEFORE the jesus epidemic.
breasthound 2 weeks ago
Pothole you are wasted as a scientist , you should be a comedian on prime time. The moment I saw the dogs ass I laughed myself senseless............
philster611 2 weeks ago
what more proof do you need? case closed ;p
KeptNow 2 weeks ago
@ 1;10
Oh for fucks sake.
14ByTheSword 2 weeks ago
@ 1:10
Oh for fucks sake.
14ByTheSword 2 weeks ago
@1:10
Oh for fucks sake.
14ByTheSword 2 weeks ago
@1:10 Oh for fucks sake.
14ByTheSword 2 weeks ago
laminins look like stick men
jewellx80 2 weeks ago
i fucking hate that damn dramatic piano music churches always use to get you to want to cry. fuck them.
thousandlegger 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i face palmed so hard i gave myself a concussion
SirScaredalot 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
i face palmed so hard i gave myself a concussion
SirScaredalot 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
Why the fuck would God put crosses anyway? "Hmm, in a few thousand years my son will be nailed to a cross. (Along with a lot of other people, because, you know, that's just what they do in that time.) Wouldn't it be fun to start hiding that shape all over the place right now?"
GuacamoleKun 3 weeks ago
I need to bow down and pray to my dogs arse now, be back later
jasonliz000 3 weeks ago
Louis Giglio is a moron. How did this guy manage to graduate from high school--if, in fact, he did? Who has orgasms over the shape of a molecule? Nobody but him, just because he saw one that is kinda-sorta cross-shaped. What if laminin was shaped like a pentagram? You can bet he would not have given a sermon about that! Notice how most of his audience was less than enthused, probably because even they could see how stupid he was being.
ElveeKaye 3 weeks ago
@ElveeKaye If he loves that squiggle so much, he'd be in rapture over the skid mark on my toilet that miraculously became a perfect cross after flushing.
true story..... going to ask the Vatican to authenticate it
jasonliz000 3 weeks ago
I see a squiggle...
WarMasterX6 3 weeks ago
@potholer54 what is the entomology of your handle? do you work for the public works dept?
CommitToFocus 3 weeks ago
This buffoon is NOT representative of the majority of believers. PROOF has nothing to do with FAITH. Faith is it's own evidence and any person who says they believe should know what I am talking about. Don't look for scientific proof of God. Faith is a purely anecdotal experience.
petertrast 1 month ago
@petertrast Faith is it's own evidence? Now that's just stupid.
mrgejwaites 4 weeks ago
@mrgejwaites "...that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom"
Word.
petertrast 4 weeks ago
@petertrast What's more likely, that your being a fool? or that a supernatural all powerful all knowing creator had human authors write his scripture that explained to you that you would sound like a fool but you weren't?
Come on mate? Really?
That must be a stretch even for yourself? Oh and by the way that quote could be applied to a guy saying 4+4 = 9 but it wouldn't make him right.
mrgejwaites 4 weeks ago
@mrgejwaites My first post was a partial paraphrase of a verse. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The writer was explaining that you cannot PROVE faith, proof is the opposite of faith. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". He is calling on the part of us that responded as children do "the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these"
petertrast 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
mrgejwaites 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@petertrast Yes I inferred that it was a quote by the quote marks my friend. You still did not answer my question, I have read the bible I do not need random quotes regurgitated at me to mask your clear avoidance of my question.
Faith is evidence for things not seen? Do you realise how ridiculous that is, so kids have evidence for the existence of santa because they have faith he exists? Come on?
Proof is the opposite of faith I agree, believing something out of faith is absurd.
mrgejwaites 4 weeks ago
@mrgejwaites I am merely quoting the Bible. These are not "random" quotes. They are important passages. I can't help if your eyes are blind. If you really had any desire to know the truth, you would consider the possibility of what I am saying and ask the questions down in your heart. But since you despise the truth and the light that it shines on who and what you are, there is nothing left to say to you. Best to you. -- shakes dust from feet --
petertrast 4 weeks ago
@petertrast They are important in your opinion, most of the world does not agree with you. My eyes are not blind, if I didn't consider the possibility that religion could be true would I participate in debates about it?
You have no truth to show? No evidence? Nothing.
I love the truth hence why I love science, it actually gives me it through evidence observation and logic, not through assertion and demands of blind faith.
I hope you see that assertion does not define truth. Good luck.
mrgejwaites 4 weeks ago
@mrgejwaites I agree. Assertion does not define truth, but it is the primary evidence of evolution, because I have yet to see the tests, observations and predictions that scientific theory require. All I see now are comparisons of anatomical structures that give the same amount of support to intelligent design. I have seen the "evidence" and sifted through it for 30 years looking for signs that it might actually be true. What I saw is a religious fervor worthy of inquisitors...
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast Just because you haven't had the initiative to find education in evolution does not therefore mean that it is based on assertion, to even suggest that is kind of funny.
/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU
I'm not going to paste every video there is, suffice to say I found those with one search. To be honest though you'd be better off seeking an actual course on the subject if you sought to really learn something.
I hope your religious shackles don't prevent you from it.
mrgejwaites 3 weeks ago
@mrgejwaites Better check yourself for shackles. I am not afraid to explore any possibility. I question everything I am taught or told. Do you? Or do you, like 90% of public school students, simply swallow what your "educators" say, instead of relying on true scientific method? It's funny how atheists in particular assume that having "faith" precludes adherence to having a scientific approach. Until "science" can produce a 5 sigma for their theories, I remain skeptical. Do you??
petertrast 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mrgejwaites 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@petertrast Essentially your reply is pretty much on par with this: I say you are being foolish, you reply by saying no you are.
The majority of the world is religious I don't know why your acting like your a minority. I defer to experts in different fields of science, the logical thing to do for any lay person.
Faith is believing without evidence, science is discovering through evidence, the methodology of the two are completely opposed.
What evidence do you have for your religion?
mrgejwaites 3 weeks ago
@petertrast "I question everything I am taught or told."
Why don't you question gravity and jump off a building. Let us know how that works out for you.
fdasherv 3 weeks ago
@fdasherv LOL. Weak. The effect of gravity is observable. And I tested it many times in my youth, unfortunately.
However, the process of macro-evolution has never been observed.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast But gravity is still "just a theory". Surely an intelligent person such as yourself wouldn't allow any amount scientific evidence to conflict with with your beliefs. So, get enough prayers in you to counteract the insignificant gravity thing and take the leap. Will God not raise you above the onlookers? Or haven't you enough faith in God?
fdasherv 3 weeks ago
@fdasherv You channel the direct words of Satan himself when he said the same to Jesus in the wilderness, to which Jesus replied "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".
If God asked me to do it, that would be different. We are not on such intimate speaking terms at this time...
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast I see. So you have no faith in God. It's just as well. He's proven Himself impotent and unworthy of prayer. Better luck next time.
fdasherv 3 weeks ago
@fdasherv Faith is not the same as telling God what to do. Your reasoning is getting worse with each reply. Perhaps you should consider reducing your THC intake in the evenings...
petertrast 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@petertrast "Faith is not the same as telling God what to do."
I believe I said 'pray', not 'tell'. So you're saying all the prayer on this side of the Rockies will not affect the laws of gravity in your favor, not even once. Why not? Surely it's a mere aside for an all-powerful deity. Yet no suspension of physical laws has ever been recorded, with or without prayer. This is one down-on-His-luck deity. But you have no faith is such things anyway. You're full aware of His impotence.
fdasherv 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@petertrast
Do you sometimes pray to your god in order to ask it to do something for somebody?
XGralgrathor 3 weeks ago
@petertrast False. It has been directly observed- you just choose to ignore it.
LeonhardEuler1 3 weeks ago
@petertrast Please go to evolution dot berkely dot edu. It explains evolution in simple, easy-to-understand language, yet is very thorough. I suspect that when you say "evidence," what you really mean is that you read some creationist books and websites containing statements like "why we still got monkeys?"
ElveeKaye 3 weeks ago
@ElveeKaye Um nooo... I don't see why we could not have monkeys still if evolution is true. I think microevolution is well established. A fossil record with actual transitions from one species to another wuld be good. But since fossils are so rare, I doubt that can happen. Over the next few thousand years we might record evidence. But I won't care by then :) I see this as a long term science, too long to call it good yet.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast There is nothing in evolution that demands that speciation be accompanied by the extinction of the parent population. Americans came from Europeans, and yet there are still Europeans. Hmmmm.
Juxtaroberto 3 weeks ago
@Juxtaroberto Wow. Even if I was an evolutionist, I would say that analogy sucks. "Americans" are a national group of many ethnicities which has nothing to do with speciation. And I never said that splits would require extinction, in fact, I said the opposite. I think even if evolution were true, "better" species would not eliminate the older species. Everything in our discussion is theoretical anyway.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast THAT'S why it's called an analogy, not a homology. You are unable or unwilling to learn actual evolutionary theory, available in universities worldwide, and then scoff at the simplest analogies presented to you. Of COURSE it's not exactly the same in every respect. If you were actually interested in understand evolutionary biology, you'd take a course, not ask people on the internet. You also apparently know nothing about the fossil record. We have mounds of transitional forms.
Juxtaroberto 2 weeks ago
@Juxtaroberto Um, actually I have taken MANY courses. All of my textbooks have DRAWINGS of transitional forms, instead of pictures of the ACTUAL fossils found. Why? Because when I visited multiple universities to see the fossils, they were single bones in MANY cases used as the basis for an ENTIRE animal. This is fraudulent at best, criminal at worst. So spare me your "We have MOUNDS of transitional forms". What you actually have is mounds of B.S. Nice try.
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@petertrast Nope, wrong. They have artist renditions because most people won't have a clue what they're looking at if you show them a skeleton, no less a fossilized skeleton. Considering the bones have turned to rock, it would take an expert to differentiate them. Not to mention common laymen are NOT anatomists. We have complete fossils, and many of them. Sounds to me like you're talking about Peking man. Try to get up to date.
Juxtaroberto 2 weeks ago
@petertrast Actually there is quite a few full skulls of different transitional forms floating around.... Either way a lack of fossils is not a case against evolution. I mean if you are willing to ignore dna sequencing and a chromosomal comparison between humans and other primates then sure it might put a dent in it. But otherwise a lack of fossils or only partial fossils does not in any way impact evolutionary theory.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@CtheWolfe "not in any way"... okaayyyyy. DNA sequencing?? LOL, only if the specimens are excellent and only a few tens of thousands year old, both very rare. And that would only be homo sapiens... comparing DNA between species to establish evolution is like sampling automobile materials from a junkyard. It only proves the same materials were used, probably more supportive of design than evolution, or at least AS supportive. Plus the fact that all apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes lol
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@petertrast Yes we are speaking of which the selective molecules align to create strings of sequencing that can be matched between close/distant relatives. Automobile materials has nothing to do with biological elements. "Plus the fact that all apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes lol" Yes and our Chromosome #2 is a fused version of their extra pair. It matches perfectly I might add. I thought you were educated on the subject? You did say you took many courses on it.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@petertrast "And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related" Not on its own. But when you compare the sequences the DNA molecules arrange into, fossil records etc etc, it is quite obvious as to what has happened. Which is why among the vast majority of biologists (I mean like 99.9%) there is no dispute what so ever about evolution. It is always done by those who do not have the credentials in an attempt to support their theistic belief system.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@petertrast Do you understand that DNA is made up of many many molecules? It is not the specific molecule that gives meaning or trait to something it is the way they sequence together. The order they flow in. So while we have many molecules similar to mice the sequence is quite different. Not to say we do not have many molecules in common with all our primate ancestors. I did this to show it is the arrangement of molecules not just whats in the dna.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@petertrast If an organism is a book. What makes up the book is the way words and sentences are strung together(the sequence in which molecules form to give trait) not just the specific letters. Two books might have exactly the same letter count BUT the meaning (traits) are very different due to the way they are strung together(sequence) TADA So really it does not cloud the issue in the slightest. Hope you understand a little better now.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
petertrast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CtheWolfe And that fusing TOTALLY makes it obvious that we are related... plus the facts you mention (yes, surprised me) where we have more DNA molecules in common with mice. There are SO many examples of this. I think it serves to cloud the issue rather than clear it. I give you this. You are the FIRST evolution supporter (EVER) I have responded to that doesn't act like a complete ass. You would think I was saying bad things about their mothers. Your cogent arguments are appreciated
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@petertrast I do not see how specific molecule groupings that give traits, match up the closer the relation, when also referenced with the use if phylogeny trees, these matches become very much so more apparent and increase in frequency. Thus it supports a descent from common ancestor, not a new design, nor a common design. Were you unaware that this is what we see? Members of the same phylogeny trees share more dna in common than others?
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@petertrast I mean for instance we share more DNA molecules in common with mice than our primate cousins. Yet the sequences they follow are much closer to chimps. A better analogy would be letters and words. We have many letters(molecules) in common with mice, but more words(sequences) in common with our chimp cousins. Combined with their #13 chromosome being part of our fused #2 Chromosome. I would hope you can see the coding is signifying descent from common ancestor...
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@petertrast Now as I am sure you can tell with that analogy that as with any book, words are what give the letters meaning. You can have many letters on a page an no meaning, it is only once words occur that you have meaning. So even if you ignore fossils, which apparently you do, the "words" that make up our "book" are very similar to our cousins, and as you get farther away the "words" change and the "book" has less in common. But when you combine both the evidence is staggering.
CtheWolfe 2 weeks ago
@petertrast The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is in the minds of creationists, fyi.
blehblehbleh90 3 weeks ago
@blehblehbleh90 Um, yeah...I'm gonna have to disagree with you. When a species or breed or race has changes that result in different looks or physical tendencies, etc, the speciation remains and that animal (or person) still has the ability to procreate. Dominant and recessive genes are influenced by the presence of each in the gametes during reproduction. But the species remain regardless of the apparent changes. This is adaptation or variance or microevolution. Big difference.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast You're not just disagreeing with me, but with biology. You just making stuff up isn't helping you look credible on this topic. You seem to be using a whole slew of words you don't seem to understand. Weird.
blehblehbleh90 3 weeks ago
@blehblehbleh90 Yeah, I made it up. You got me. It's all greek and I just heard of evolution last week....
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast It honestly sounds like you did.
blehblehbleh90 3 weeks ago
@blehblehbleh90 I did. Good catch.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@blehblehbleh90 "the speciation remains" Enough said- case closed. :)
LeonhardEuler1 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@LeonhardEuler1 It's kind of cute, really.
blehblehbleh90 3 weeks ago
@blehblehbleh90 :D
LeonhardEuler1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blehblehbleh90
You said to Peter.
"The only difference between micro and macroevolution is in the minds of creationists"
So you are saying that you believe there are no limits to biological change?
WildCatsKitten1 3 weeks ago
@petertrast talkorigins (dot) org/indexcc/CC/CC200 (dot) html
Transitions between species are well documented.
LeonhardEuler1 3 weeks ago
@LeonhardEuler1 That is one of the weakest collections I have seen. Australopithicus? Really? There are SO many problems and controversies, there is no room to cover them here. Suffice it to say Leakey and company did alot of tap dancing and imagining to get "Lucy". And that is the best one... very weak "science". Well documented yes, based on poor science. Extremely poor.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast Then we invite you to share these problems and controversies.
oaajbs 2 weeks ago
@oaajbs Lucy. One knee joint found 2 kilometers or more away, buried 70 meters deeper. Also, A. afarensis had long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates, unlike the very human model in the St Louis zoo. The footprints found by Leakey were indistinguishible from human -- and 3 million years old supposedly. British anatomist Solly Lord Zuckerman concluded that australopithecines do not belong in the human family. Skull 1470, dated 41 times by potassium-argon and rejected ..
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@petertrast This claim is completely false and I would ask you supply your sources. Talk origins discusses this falsehood is great detail and cites there sources.
oaajbs 2 weeks ago
@oaajbs Dr. Johansen did not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. "Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind" 1981 pp 159-163. No links because it is NOT on the web (and it would not fit here). You have to buy and READ the book like I did, in CONTEXT of the material. He "logically" ASSUMED they were the same species because of the wash where the bones were located. I have read the subsequent "detraction" on Talk Origins but never heard a direct quote from him to contradict his own book.
petertrast 2 weeks ago
@oaajbs (cont) rejected 41 times by Leakey because it wasn't a match for the data she WANTED. The skull had an extremely large brain capacity, about 825cc, right on the edge of modern which also does not fit the original 2.9 million year estimate, more like 100,000. This is the tip of the iceberg. Read up on Skull 1470 for more detail. Leakey was unethical, proven many times by her failure to use the data as it came, choosing to slant it to her purpose and ignore some data all together.
petertrast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeonhardEuler1 That is one of the weakest collections I have seen. Australopithicus? Really? There are SO many problems and controversies, there is no room to cover them here. Suffice it to say Leakey and company did alot of tap dancing and imagining to get "Lucy". And that is the best one... very weak "science". Well documented yes, based on poor science. Extremely poor.
petertrast 3 weeks ago
@petertrast No problem there. I do not look for scientific proof of God any more than I look for scientific proof of fairies, elves, unicorns, and fire-breathing dragons.
ElveeKaye 3 weeks ago
Praise the Dog!
AmplifiedNonsense 1 month ago 8
Oh, damn, my coffee came out my nose when you showed the dog's backside! What a wonderful example to show Christians!
carmium 1 month ago
Wasn't the cross shaped icon in the bible something that came from the pagan Romans?
cloudstone123 1 month ago 4
After watching this guy I tried to buy some laminin from my local drug dealer. It looks like that shit is good.
MastermindX 1 month ago
...is in the perfect shape of a medieval torture device invented by the Romans. Proof.
Eat a dick creationists. Your arguments for god are so weak that they would embarrass any god that existed.
Not only that, but "crosses" used for crucifixion were varied in shape from a simple pole to a T shape. How does this or anyone else know the exact form factor of the "cross" used to nail up Yeshua? Any one have the answer to that, I'd like to know?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
My God that laminin guy was embarrassing, I could barely watch him talk. Do people actually believe the shit he was saying :p
Minkki82 1 month ago
@allisilly92 1. If you did your basketball trick millions of times over millions of years it would go in the basket quite a bit. 2. The reason you can't see how this is anything other than id is because you are stupid. I'm not trying to insult you, but just pointing out the truth. You can't think logically or intelligently. you have no common sense or reason. you are morally and mentally retarded. Sorry toots! Stick to watching Jersey shore.
paramattic70 1 month ago 2
I hear his next climatic epiphany is Dog spelled backwards is God
philosophicalreason 1 month ago 20
@philosophicalreason WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
MastermindX 1 month ago
@philosophicalreason
LMAO.
ShmoothBall 3 weeks ago
@Mogley52 stop spamming the comments section of Potholer's video's half of your points are just hilarious and belong in this series the rest are covered in several of Potholer's videos and everything else is just your baseless opinion.
mancno1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52 "Only evolution within kinds is genetically posible" Then why have scientists been able to create speciation in bacterial, fly and slug populations. Why would species not survive if their vital structures were still evolving, natural selection eliminates animals incapable to survive and reproduce in their environment.
mancno1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INFORMATION ARGUMENT NOT DESTROYED: The chemicals exist in all species to make new genetic information but that doesn't mean random rearrangement of those chemicals by the environment will produce new genetic information anymore than randomly rearranging the letters in a love story novel will change it into a book on astronomy, and if the book were living the process of such random rearrangement would kill it! Read my popular Internet article, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Mogley52 1 month ago
Pastor Gigolo? Can't some of our more musical youtubers make something of that?
18booma 2 months ago
I think muscle fibers look like the flying spaghetti monster's noodely appendeages. It's a sign!
I'm a Christian, by the way.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
Well then how did it all get here in your opinion? Cuz last time I checked you don't get things out of nothingness. You don't get order out of chaos. My bedroom doesn't clean itself. Also if what y'all are saying is true then why did it stop with us?
allisilly92 2 months ago
@allisilly92 Really? You do have nothingness in your possession? Go fast to any science lab and give them half of it, so they can study it.
Oh, wait, how can you do that? Nothingness can't have any properties, including volume... How can you give them half of it?
Or maybe it is "nothingness" located under your skull... I agree, nothing came out of it.
upisoft2 1 month ago
IT'S IN THE SHAPE OF A FIRST CENTURY ROMAN EXECUTION METHOD
OH LAWDY LAWD
jaejara 2 months ago
These comments are so sad...regardless of whether it looks like a cross, you people are missing the point, I simply don't understand how anyone could not see intelligent design in all of this! How could tiny details like this that are so necessary possibly be random chance??? It's like closing your eyes, spinning around with a basketball in your hand, throwing it and it some how miraculously goes in. Really, someone kindly explain how random chance makes more sense than intelligent design?!
allisilly92 2 months ago
@allisilly92 becuase things are not random chance. Please look up evolution as a whole. Natural slection and random mutation. Then you will maybe understand a bit better.
ID does not make any sense, as evolution has showed consistently results. ID just says "God did it" Which does not explain anything at all.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
@allisilly92 Also the point is indeed, that the gene looks like a cross. Creationist use this gene to say, look its god signature.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
@allisilly92
PuzzleBox83 2 months ago
@allisilly92 There is a gigantic space between A all powerful being designing everything from the smallest partical and beyond to... everything is completely random. The fact that we even have Physics or are able to predict and calculate things shows there isn't complete randomness to life and the universe. The weather on earth seems random at times, but it isn't. There is a reason for why everything happens and science is the pursuit of discovering what those reasons are.
PuzzleBox83 2 months ago
@allisilly92 How intelligent is your designer when he allowed for things like cancer, leukemia, leprosy, bronchitis, influenza, small pox, polio, the black plague, and hundreds of other diseases and disorders? That doesn't seem very smart, to me, but maybe I'm just missing the part where deliberately building a machine that is designed to fail in a thousand possible ways, is somehow a sign of intelligence by the one who built it.
ElveeKaye 3 weeks ago
The Bibblit is nothing more than a religious re-writing of history to assimilate many religions and gods into a single belief and a single, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that can beat up the other gods. The Creationist god is man made for the purpose of controlling the masses with fear and lies to keep them stupid and dependent on their captors...I means religious leaders for guidance. The blind leading the blind.
TheCrimsonification 2 months ago
Worshiping a piece of wood made by Romans. Silly.
FoxNewzLies 2 months ago
That picture proves that Jesus was in fact a holey man and he was an asshole.
Dawnofthehead 2 months ago 9
Was that David Cassidy tweaking his nipples?
jemborg 3 months ago