Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a theory...teach the controversy! Our kids need to know how to please our Flying Spaghetti Lord and learn the ways as written in his Holy Cookbook. RAMEN!
What came before the Big Bang which created the universe? How did an explosion start from nothing? Keep going back, how did that start, then how did that start. On the flip side you can say how did God come about who created God? If you say he just is, then with that argument you can say evolution just is. You see there could never be a beginning therefore there is no end.
i can prove evolution to be true: if you religious people believe humans did not come from an ape like ancestry, why don't you take a look at yourselves in the mirror, cuz all you religious fanatics still look like the un-evolved ape like humans.
do realise what would've happened if dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans? WE'D ALL BE DEAD. Proving that dinosaurs are gods favourite species. God doesn't love you or he 'used his wrath'. Stupid fucking christians!! christian parents have the nerve to say the boogeyman doesn't exist to their children. there's an equal amount of evidence for both. NONE
@RadarGuidedVermin I chalk that up to the raw emotions you are feeling. Admitting that your father raped you when you were a child and confessing to impregnating both of your homely and morbidly obese daughters is a lot to work through. So far you’ve done an amazing job. You have just one more task to accomplish. You need to do the honorable thing here. Are you ready for it?
@BlameRepublicans Our angry little hamster is now running at a full sprint. Round and round goes the wheel, accompanied by an audible squeak. Sadly, our angry little hamster has failed to advance even a single inch from where he embarked on his futile journey. He is an abysmal failure, and he knows it.
So you are passing the hurt on to your daughters....man, Radar - please - stop having sex with your daughters. Seek help. I know your father raped you both orally and anally (not in that order) but you don't have to do the same to your kids. I wish to help you heal. Tell me about your wife. Has she managed to control her chronic morbid obesity yet? Does she still shit in the bath tub b/c she can't fit on the toilet? Do you still use a snow shovel to clean it out? I want to know more.
LOL I think you meant to say "I knew you wouldn't disappoint me." But that's cool. There was only ONE PERFECT person to have ever walked the earth, and he's busy in the White house at the moment. ;)
@RadarGuidedVermin Interesting - you turn to insulting me to avoid feeling the pain of the memories of abuse you suffered. I think we're getting close to the source of your emotional instability. I predict your response will be more insults in an attempt to cover up the fact that your father raped you as a child.
Are the two dumbfucks still arguing? Anyway, sometimes I think it would be good if all humans were killed because they're pathetic, first they believed in God for many thousand years and then some people (scientists) with low self-esteem and thoughts about themselves and the rest of humanity want to place humans in the same category as animals and even try to make it a fact that f.ex neandertals are a different species of humans.
@TheMeteorStrike We are animals. What else would we be ? Low self-esteem about humanity ? We are morally the most corrupt and disgusting animals on the planet. You ever see a shark rape another shark ? Or a crocodile have sex with a baby ? We are capable of the worst acts of morality in the animal kingdom. If you want to place Humans on a pedestal you must be extremely ignorant and narcissistic; you are delusional.
Google "Doubt cast on Noah’s ark found in Turkey". This dude was on the team and became aware of the hoax and parted company.
BTW, why is the search always on Mt Ararat? The Bible didn't say Mt Ararat and no one knows which peak in the Ararat area was the supposed resting place of the ark. Ararat was named a long time later.
The ark gets "found" in Turkey every few years. About once a decade. I have seen front page headlines and news items several times since I was a kid. Turkey has a thriving Ark finding industry exploiting creationist gullibility.
Most "discoveries" have been geological formations, none have been an ark. Nor will any prove to be. But it is an industry and it does rake in millions.
@ozowen For some reason you have moved off subject. Let's get back to the physical evidence for the Flood, which you say doesn't exist. I'm still waiting for you to give me a rational explanation for the lack of erosion in the stratigraphic record.
Your contrived explanation, also known as ad hoc or just-so story is pure fantasy. How could you rationally believe that 100s of millions of years o erosion andf sediment deposition would actually erase almost all evidence of erosion in the strata!!!
Once again, I am saying that one reason for there being no evidence for the Noachim Flood is the fact that across the various strata there is in fact frequent evidences for floods. If all these layers are in fact the result of the Noachim Flood during which most species died and there were massive tectonic and geological shifts- but where the entire world was submerged- then there can be no discreet flood layers.
In that context the explanation for your claims cannot be a single flood. To answer your questions I will need to consult with real geologists, not those who insist that there was a single Flood. They are wrong by default. The Grand Canyon is a single area. The Grand Canyon has been under the ocean several times. It lost silt layers and similar at those times. ie the processes of being submerged then coming out of the ocean.
LOL! Now I know you have no interest in this discussion. Once again, how can there be distinct flood layers amidst a major, all consuming flood?
Let me help you with the answer; there cannot be such layers. You pointed to flood layers as proof- but they wreck the Noachim Flood claim entirely. Your refusal to address the claim is standard YEC practice. Snipe at the small targets because you HAVE ALREADY LOST THE BATTLE.
• @ozowen You talk as though you know so much about geology, you really don't need to consult a "real" geologist. You make these blanket statements such as “…how can there be distinct flood layers amidst a major, all consuming flood? Let me help you with the answer; there cannot be such layers.”
I really do want you to consult with a geologist. It will save me the trouble of having to explain so much to you. You lack knowledge.
"It will save me the trouble of having to explain so much to you. You lack knowledge" LOL
In other words- you have no response to this. You have been throwing cut'n'pastes from your favourite YECS site around as if they are meaningful. The Grand Canyon arguments have been debunked for yonks. You threw a raft of them at me and then did your "tap tap tap... waiting " as if this was some sort of argument. Your whole premise collapsed at a single question. Hydro-strata as distinct ....
... layers within layers you claim as parts of a major hydrostrata are not possible.
While we are at it- you failed to respond to the response to your challenges re the Bible and had nothing to say re Pre Cambrian fossils.
Why?
You have no case- YECS "science" consists of a raft of diverse "this could be explained as..." but they are NOT put together, there is no consistent and compiled YECS theory. it is all attack with an iota of "this might be ..."
@ozowen Yes, there can be such differentiated layers. Each stratum represents a different source with a different current flowing from the source area. The flow of Flood waters was not the result of a quiet, slowly filling bathtub. You would know that if you have carefully studied Genesis 7. What was the first thing that happened to initiate the Flood? Hint: it wasn’t rain.
There was a supposed major cataclysm that created mountain, tectonic shifts that would have made the recent tsunami look like nothing. The flood lasted for a year. Distinct layering is not only unlikely, it is impossible. Especially layering that conveniently put animals into distinct layers, placed heavy strata above lighter ones and cleverly deceived us by leaving varve layers in places where later varves were in no way distinct.....
Amazingly the Egyptians, Chinese and some Indian dynasties missed the Flood entirely. Strange huh?
So, to sum up- the Flood left flood and non-flood layers so as to deceive us. Varves were somehow done in ways that later annual varves were also likely to deceive. Dynasties missed the flood that killed them off (?). Tectonic shifts caused a major cataclysm moving miles, hundreds of miles in a short time and an oversized wooden boat survived it....
Hydrostrata layered in the most amazingly deceptive manner convincing u that species evolution was very likely. The animals care was impossible by current capacity in steel ships with refrigeration and food distribution systems. Post Flood, despite being parked on a mountain top in the middle east in desolation, animals like axolotyls, koalas and birds of paradise managed to return to their new homes without leaving traces anywhere nor having food sources....
@ozowen I want to qualify my assertion that there is little erosion in the strata. There is evidence of tremendous erosion at the Great Unconformity as seen in Grand Canyon and elsewhere. Find a geology book and look up what an unconformity is and its graphic representation.
There are many significant erosion surfaces in the geologic record. Sounds like I’m contradicting myself doesn’t it? Unconformities show evidence of erosion and/or uplift of layers before the next layers were deposited.
BTW, I am familiar with the term "unconformity" and I am also familiar with YECS attempts to ignore unconformities when they don't suit the YECS agenda. You seem to think my knowledge is less than it is.
@ozowen Your knowledge is definitely less than you think it is. If you really knew much about geology, you would have brought up the subject of unconformities long before I did since they represent an erosional surface. I kept asking you about the lack of erosional features in the strata. You should have at least brought up disconformities by now, although I think they wouldn’t help your cause much.
I’ll be absorbed in writing an article on radiometric dating the next 8-10 days. C U later.
Perhaps, but perhaps you just went on a rant and I decided I couldn't be bothered with your stuff. That would be an accurate reflection. I did make that comment at the time- you don't appear to have noticed.
"Please do consult with real geologists." Do you know every time I read real geologists I find them annoyed by YECS distortions and avoidances of facts. eg; how did all those sand layers end up under conglomerate layers in the Flood? How did the fossils of creatures that died in the Flood sort so nicely so even bacteria ended up sorted into evolutionary order?
Why aren't there any kangaroos in the Pre Cambrian strata?
@ozowen Why should there be kangaroos in Precambrian stata? The Precambrian has few fossils of multicellular organisms. Can you guess why the call the Cambrian explosion and explosion? There are no sharks, no cockroaches, no bony fish, and no squids in the Precambrian. Kangaroos aren't in the Cambrian because they aren't marine organisms. Organisms that live in the same general locality get buried together.
You say you were associated with YECs, but it seems you missed many explanations.
Your flood didn't happen- as you point out- there are flood layers during the various major strata. That precludes a major flood. Further- the strata have not been laid down as hydro-strata- the geological column knows no major flood. Your questions are redundant and need to be answered in the context of there having been no worldwide flood.
@ozowen "Your flood didn't happen- as you point out- there are flood layers during the various major strata."
You're exactly wrong. The major strata ARE Flood strata. The major strata are best explained by a worldwide catastrophe. You need to read Derek Ager's book. As you now know, he is an evolutionary geologist, now deceased, who explained that the strata are the result of major catastrophic events. I’m waiting for you to give a rational explanation for no erosion. Tap, tap, tap—waiting!!!
1) If the major strata are flood strata (from a single event) then there can be no flood layers within them. You cannot have discreet flood layers within an all encompassing, mountain covering major flood event.
This question totally precedes yours in logic.
I don't need to read Derek Ager's book, although I might do. He is but one voice among many and I understand the evidence is against his claims.
Respond to discrete flood layers within the major Flood.
It's not my flood. It's God's Flood. The Apostle Peter affirmed that the Flood happened. Moses recorded that the Flood happened as revealed to him by God. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? If you do, why do you not believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis or 1 Peter 3.20 and 2 Peter 3:4-6, or Jesus in Matthew 24.37, or Hebrews 11.7. There's other NT references to Noah and God's Flood. Do you pick and choose what's true, Itchy Ears.?
Everyone picks and chooses. Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? The do you believe that God made man before the animals? It says so in the 2nd Chapter of Genesis. Do you pick & choose what is true? Do you believe that there were windows in the dome of the sky?
Do you believe that the world sits solid on foundations?
I don't use the Bible as a science text, you choose to. The consequence is that you have to ignore evidence. It is why YECS is not reliable.
@ozowen Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
That requires a certain knowledge of what the standard for a "right" religeon is. The challenges of the discoveries of science over the past few hundred years also constitute serious challenges. Churches that deny the validity of those discoveries will whither and fade. There is no choice- they are standing on sinking ships, denying there is water around them.
@ozowen Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
If the single Flood didn't happen on a global level (as the evidence insists) then the explanation for your examples, and any others, will not take a global flood into account (that would be illogical)
@ozowen The Flood did happen on a global scale, and no, the evidence does not insist. If it does, you explain how it does. Your conclusion is invalid.
"and any others" tells me you would not accept any evidence for the Flood, not even revelation from God--you have already rejected His witness.
The widespread deposits I mentioned are what one would expect from a global Flood. The only thing that separates the Flood from multiple catastrophes would have to be the nearly total lack of erosion.
I note that you failed to respond to my answer to your assertions re the Bible. Once again, let me help you, YECS is a minor cult operating as a blend between the Seventh Day Adventist movement (from whence it came) and the mainstream church.
Your method of interpretation is suspect. Literalism falls on its own sword- it has no choice.
I'm sure that scientists have a shitty sexlife if they have one at all, if I were to put my penis into a distorted ape's vagina I would feel disgusted, it wouldn't be natural to me, if I have to reproduce for the sake of humanity I will be a sperm donor, I guess sex will were and will never be the same since the mid 1800's or so, now I'm scared to have sex.
What Hitler tried to do was a waste of time just like he was himself, he was a sad and pathetic little man and a waste of sperm, there's no such thing as an aryan master race because humans are filthy, fuck Hitler, Nazis, Neo-Nazis and people who look up to them.
That previous post was in response to a post currently at the top of my youtube thread- but was a year ago. But it was nicely relevant to our current discussion.
Nebraska Man never got any scientific cred. That canard is another Creationist lie. National Geographic is a popular magazine- not a scientific journal.
Thanks for helping with my demonstrating why I think YECS credibility is so low. Lucy is but one of hundreds of her species now uncovered. Piltdown was a fraud and was exposed by the scientific process, relatively quickly in an age without very fast communications. (and the USA rejected it alsmost entirely from the outset)
Re National Geographic- The so called Nebraska Man farce only ever got space in the National Geographic. Every time Creationists bring it up they are repeating Nebraska Man as "proof" of evolutionary hoaxes in science- this is a lie. You noted Nebraska Man- it only got space in National Geographic and in Creationist "literature"
I don't care so much about social training anymore since I won't be active in society, I don't want to and I have no need to participate in a superficial life and world with filthy lifeforms who think they're pure/clean when they dress themselves nice and use perfume, they're still filthy in and out.
I have just read your long rants there mate. You are delusional and need help. See a psychologist or psychiatrist soon. I mean that as kindly as I can. You aren't well.
I dislike americanized/degenerated people who do things like walk like a robot, confront you with a very cold and stiff stare with no emotion or facial expression and standpoint, say "hi" and walk away, those who end a conversation with "I don't care(!)"/"So what"/"Couldn't care less" and those who start a sentence in an discussion about God not existing with "IF THERE WAS A GOD..." and end it with something trying to convince religious people who believe in this or that that God doesn't exist.
I'm fine with internet slang, but acting like retards in school/work would be enough for me to fire them if I was the boss, if Anonymous, WikiLeaks, 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica and stuff like that will dominate the future and make people dumb, dysfunctional and degenerated I will retreat from society and avoid contributing to it in other ways than buying stuff, I won't go to parties with people my age, my job, not go to birthday parties, not send my family members cards during christmas etc.
Another thing that sucks is that humans can feel nihilistic at times (feeling that life is a waste of time, is useless and has no meaning), there are many differences between humans and other lifeforms, but people who can't see them are f.ex people who think that humans are smart monkeys (It's actually apes, monkeys are small ape-like creatures with tails), and they're people who supposedly know much about evolution, well, my ass, most of them are defunct/degenerated/americanized.
Who in the right mind would want to crossbreed with a neandertal or ape anyway, are there really some people out there who would like to do that? It isn't possible with neandertals since they don't exist, but they can do it with apes if they want to waste their sperm on something that won't work. No sane person would ever do that, It's an insult to humanity and the epitome of dehumanization.
All this talk about Darwin (who was a retard for marrying his cousin while he still had the choice of marrying someone outside his family and giving life to inbred filth) and evolution doesn't make me want to contribute to society so much anymore, if evolution is true then humans are filth and should live like their fellow lifeforms on earth, not make futuristic stuff, I don't get why several pornstars enjoy drinking blood and piss and eating shit.
Sometimes I envy retards and severely autistic people because they aren't born with the need and compulsion of choosing between evolutionism, atheism, christianity, islam, satanism etc., it sucks that people who are aware of the world around them, it isn't fair.
Scientists dress so nice, they don't deserve it, if they descend from what appears to be a mix of a chimpanzee and a human they should be filthy and not clean.
Also, if humans were born into a family of neandertals they were taught by the neandertals and would know that they were descendants of them and not God, the humans would tell it to their children, grandchildren etc. and know at least over 10'000 years ago that they descend from neandertals and not God.
It's important to respect other people's opinions, but if some people feel pure or clean if evolution is true and that humans are interested in having sex with a neandertal or chimpanzee then I don't respect their opinions and I don't get why scientists want to discover/find the missing link which doesn't exist, It's dehumanization at It's worst, what do atheists and scientists have against God anyway, It's better to be made in the image of a divine being than being the offspring of filth.
"scientists want to discover/find the missing link which doesn't exist"
Found plenty of em. Your argument about mating is a tad odd and rests on assumptions that mating across species was immoral. Given that if we could be mating across species then we would not have been particularly different from them at the time- a la ring species.
Many scientists are believers- eg: Ken Miller, Francis Collins. (both also evolutionists and very non-creationists)
@mcsciennes I thought I should reply to this. Most of you skeptics are unwilling to check the facts from both sides. If you haven't read my comments why bother telling me about it? It seems you were saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."
So what scientists believe relates to another and is testable, not necessarily has been tested and passed, but just testable is more important than proven fact... So scientists take very little regard for what is known and decide to believe in the unknown which they claim as fact and teach as though it were fact when it itself is not fact. I'm completely lost here. They claim evolution as fact. Well in that case there is no point in it because it's just a "whatever she said".
@Sageangel18000 Another thing. A prediction made by evolutionists is that you would find in the fossil record the transitional phases from one species to another and a sort of "tree of life" that shows us the path of these evolutions. In fact, there are no fossil records for these "missing links" and the fossil record has actually been described as more like grass growing with fossil records for every major animal in existence appearing as if at the same time.
Richard Dawkins says, “What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists.” It embarrasses creationists only because his interpretation is false. Actually, the continued insistence that 93% of our genome is junk should be embarrassing to the evolutionists who say so because much recent evidence shows that junk DNA is surely not junk. The frustration concerning this is that evolutionists will say little to correct their faux pas and continue to browbeat creationists in other ways.
@TigeyPuss1 Oh, thank God! A human with a brain in their skull! I have waited so long for someone to present a logical statement regarding this subject and it's driving me to insanity. God bless you.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
Fuck high-heeled smug middleclass women who wear nice clothes and too much make-up and think they're clean/pure when they take a walk in the city, they're not, they're filth, trash, garbage, they're abominations.
It's ridiculous that filthy life-forms like humans are "the chosen ones/beings/creatures/lifeforms" of God or whatever, humans aren't clean, they're filthy, filthy creatures doesn't deserve to get an afterlife unless It's only their soul who goes to Heaven, Primates/Humans/Apes/Monkeys are the filthiest and the last creatures I'd expect to the viewed as clean by any God except a "God-version" of f.ex the cat (which is purer than a God-version of f.ex humans/apes which is The God).
I'm thinking about killing myself because I don't want to live forever in heaven as a human unless my body and maybe organs are clean/pure if my soul (if I have one) doesn't come there, humans are filthy because they're apes/primates, I don't want to live as a being like that forever, the soul is the only clean/pure thing about humans and maybe animals, everything else about humans is pure filth, the blood, the flesh, the heart, everything.
@bboyloco3 If evolution were a fact, everyone would be able to discern the reality of evolution from germs to Germans, but the evidence for that kind of evolution is scanty at best. Yes, there is much evidence for evolution in the variation within a species, but this should never be construed to include evolution between phyla.
@TigeyPuss1 You can say the same for gravity, we understand gravity much as we understand evolution, and if gravity is a fact then evolution is a fact because it is a fundamental law of the universe which all species on anyplanet has to go through to survive and dominate its planet. And people are saying oh you cant prove evolution because there are still holes in the idea, well gravity still have holes in its ideas such as a graviton has never been found only mathematical made up.
@bboyloco3 When evolutionists talk about evolution, one has to know what they mean by evolution. If you mean life evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, that is false. That kind of evolution has not taken place. Variation with a species, even the development of new genera, occurs all the time. This is because of genetic variability within a gene pool and mutations. Evolutionists use these minor changes as evidence for evolution of germs to Germans. This grand scale evolution is false.
@TigeyPuss1 But no one knows how the first living organism arise, and scientist never said they knew either, there are many ideas of how they came to be, such as amino acids combine with the water from the toxic lakes billions of years go made the first living organism, another idea is amino acids on an Asteroid slammed into earth and human life originated somewhere else and the list goes on, but the thing is scientist aren't giving up we've unlock DNA and proved macro evolution.
@bboyloco3 DNA doesn't prove macro evolution. It proves an intelligent designed. You and I and Witchhunter93 should thrash this topic out together. DNA doesn't support the theory of evolution. That is a hopeful misconception of atheists. DNA strongly supports intelligent design and at the same time refutes the idea that time plus chance can create complex, interrelated biological systems. There is no evidence that random events ever produced integrated, complex, purposeful, integrated systems.
@bboyloco3 That's exactly the problem. Evolutionists claim the KNOW how life evolved. Because I'm a creationist, my professor in bacterial physiology and cytology asked how the first cell wall arose--he tailored the final exam to me. I srewed up somewhere because I got a B+ for the final--maybe I got a little too facitious. He knew I had no faith in the evolutionary paradigm and disgarded evolution.
@TigeyPuss1 Scientist are like detectives, we looks for the evidence and the clues of the crime scene, detectives can pin point the killer with the smallest evidence and the smallest clue, and scientist do the same we find clues and evidence to how things happen and over the centurys the fossil, and DNA, and geological evidence pin points evolution as the suspect, you can deny and deny all you want but the evidence is right there.
@bboyloco3 It looks like some scientists have abandoned the scientific method wherein observations are made of natural phenomena, experiments conducted to reproduce the observations under controlled conditions, and finally repeating the experiments and obtaining the same results. Evolutionists haven’t done this. No one has observed the evolution of amebas to aardvarks. The best they’ve done is observe is variation with species and speciation. That’s a far cry from the claims of evolution.
@TigeyPuss1 The detective at the crime scene never see how the murder happened, but because of the evidence at the crime scene the detective can determine exactly what happen and when it happened, and that is exactly what scientist do we find evidence, fossilized evidence to see what species lived back then, geological evidence to see when they lived backed then, and when you connect the evidence you get a tree of life branching into different organisms: Natural Selection
@TigeyPuss1 The detectives are never at the crime scene while its happening but always after, and scientist are the same, you keep saying evolution isnt true this and but you haven't even looked at the DNA evidence, Fossilized evidence, Geological Evidence. Like small piece of hair or foot print at a crime scene you can tell exactly what happened at the murder with pin point detail. The strongest evidence scientist have for evolution isn't fossils, its DNA.
@bboyloco3 Check out my response to WitchHunter93 on the subject of fossils and DNA. You should allow people to message you. Repeating the same remarks would only fill up this blog with needless repetition.
@bboyloco3 Scientists, like detectives can draw the wrong conclusions from “the smallest evidence… the smallest clue.” How do you know when a paleontologist, or group of paleontologists, has come to the wrong conclusion? How could anyone know when no one has ever witnessed a single-celled organism become an invertebrate simply because we cannot persist long enough to make the observations? Our knowledge of DNA has shown us that chance mutations more often degrade the genome.
@bboyloco3 I worked as a clinical lab scientist for 25 years. The difference between evolutionists’ getting wrong conclusions drawn from scanty data, and medical scientists getting it wrong is that if an evolutionist gets something or all of it wrong, nobody dies or is harmed. There are no obvious consequences for a wrong conclusion in evolution. Unsolved cases show detectives can get it wrong. Paleontologists often find themselves in sharp disagreement with each other. Who’s right, who’s wrong?
@bboyloco3 About 600 PhDs were earned doing studies on Piltdown Man. They and their mentors were all wrong. Another famous example of failure among evolutionary scientists was Nebraska Man. His features, his lifestyle, and many other things were determined from a single tooth of an extinct pig. We can observe variation and speciation within a species, but is it legitimate to extrapolate this knowledge to the evolution of a germ to a German over half a billion years?
@bboyloco3 Many paleontologists thought Ramapithecus was a human ancestor, but they dropped this wrong conclusion. Many paleontologists believed Tiktaalik was a transitional form between fish and amphibians, but then ichnofossils were found millions of years older disqualifying Tiktaalik for the honored position of transitional form. The vaunted peppered moth demonstrated genetic drift aided by natural selection. It didn't show a lizard become a bird, or a scale become a hair.
@bboyloco3 Evolutionists use the scant occurrence of transitional forms in the fossil record as evidence for grand-scale or macro-evolution. Darwin predicted that innumerable transition forms would eventually be found in the fossil record, but that has never happened. The alleged transition forms, such as Tiktaalik and Dimetrodon, don’t meet the requirements. The theory of evolution has never met the basic requirements to be given the status of a theory.
Fossils are not what prove evolution, it's just extra evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory and fact not because of the fossils we've found, but from other things such as the DNA evidence.
Fossilization is rare, we are pretty lucky to have found this many fossils. However, evolution would still be a scientific theory & fact even if no fossils were ever formed
@WitchHunter93 If evolution were a fact, it should be easily testable. Variation within a species cannot be considered as evidence for evolution. We can test gravity, the properties of light, or the effects of a new medicine. We can observe them, but we can’t observe macro-evolution. Evolutionists have been using the fossils as the cornerstone of evolution for the last 150 years. DNA evidence is inimical to evolution, and this is something I will be glad to discuss in more detail.
If you ask Richard Dawkins or pretty much any scientist working in the field of biology they would tell you that evolution in a scientific fact.
We can observe evolution, we can test it. However, the evidence does not depend at all on observing macroevolution directly. If we could, then it would be evidence AGAINST evolution. Macroevolution is only a term biologists when they talk about speciation. It's not a different type of evolution, it's the exact same process step by step.
To be more clear, I meant to say that "macro" and "micro" evolution were just terms that biologists use when talking about evolution going above or below the level of species, but they aren't really different forms of evolution. The only difference is how much time they are given to change.
Were you implying that there is some form of limit that allows microevolution to be possible but not macro?
@WitchHunter93 Now apart from variation within a species and speciation, in what ways do you observe evolution? I'm not talking about genetic drift, such as the trivial changes in the peppered moth, or changes in the beaks of finches. Evolutionists have to account for the evolution of single-celled organisms to an orangutan. From the standpoint of DNA, it's not a possibility. It wouldn't hurt you to read The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells which explains many of the problems.
That's pretty much the only form of evolution we can observe. If we could observe a bird changing into something much different like a pterodactyl-like creature, then that would be evidence against evolution since it says that large changes involve very large amounts of time. Millions of years of time that we do not have
Does that mean that therefore it is impossible? certainly not. We have other ways of seeing if creatures had a common ancestor and they havent found any limitations
@WitchHunter93 This inability for us to observe over millions of years is one reason creationists reject the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. It would be more accurate to entitle this blog "Creationists Say Evolution Is a Hypothesis" because the evolution you just described cannot be observed. Darwin and all evolutionists after him used the fossil record as evidence for germs to Germans. So does paleontologist Kevin Padian, 3rd speaker in above video.
@WitchHunter93 Because it is impossible to observe evolution in deep time, what I call macro-evolution, Darwin's theory cannot qualify as a scientific theory. It must be observable, testable, and repeatable, but no one knows of anyway and of these can be done. Some evolutionists use proxy methods, like the fossils, DNA and morphological similarities, but this have some problems too. We design carburators for various machines, e.g., but that doesn't mean a lawnmower evolved from a automobile.
Observing something directly is not the only way to make something qualify as a scientific theory. Creationists do this thing where they will only accept a specific form of evidence that they know is impossible to reach and try to brush off the evidence with DNA, fossils, ect...
The Big Bang is not observable, testable and repeatable. However, it qualifies as a scientific theory as well due to its own evidence
What you call macro-evolution is not a different evolution. It's the exact same thing as micro-evolution. It is micro-evolution over a much much longer period of time, which allows many small changes to occur. If we can observe and test micro-evolution, and mix it with all the other evidence such as the fossil and DNA evidence, we can strongly conclude that macro-evolution has happened without the need of a direct observer.
@WitchHunter93 Maybe no one today would have that expectation, but look how Darwin handled it in his Chapter 6 Difficulties On Theory. He wrote:” Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? That’s a good question. We should be seeing such a riot in the living world, and I wondered why we didn’t.
@WitchHunter93 A little later, he said: “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” If his theory is true, they must have existed, and you said as much that micro-evolutionary changes add up over time to produced macro-evolution. I know a few good reasons why that can’t happen. This will take us into molecular biology, away from evidence for a worldwide flood--what I was addressing.
@WitchHunter93 Before I go there, Darwin gave the answer to his situation. He said that the reason we don’t find all those intermediate fossils is because he believed in the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Funny little “just so” idea. All those transitional forms and the only time they got fossilized was as fully-formed, stable species. What were the odds that would happen. The vast majority of the fossils represent fully developed organisms, along with a few dubious intermediates.
@WitchHunter93 Evolutionists generally agree that evolution proceeded from a primeval, simple organism and progress by essentially numberless trials of mutations tested by natural selection, preserving good mutations and removing deleterious mutations. I used to think that was reasonable, but finally concluded it was irrational. Evidence for this conclusion came from the studies of those rare breed of scientists called population geneticists.
@WitchHunter93 In 1968 Motoo Kimura published “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level,” sparking a revolution that produced The Neutral Theory of Evolution. He wrote: “Calculating the rate of evolution in terms of nucleotide substitutions seems to give a value so high that many of the mutations involved must be neutral ones.” The genetic code is redundant, more than one codon codes for an amino acid. For instance, the amino acid alanine (Ala) has 4 different codons: GCT, GCC, GCA, and GCG
@WitchHunter93 This may not seem like much of a problem, but over a many generations, the effects of these effectively neutral mutations are additive and become pronounced. That’s because mutations of this sort are not exactly neutral. They are very slightly deleterious and pass under the radar of natural selection. The graph in Kimura’s shows what is the “no selection zone.” Natural selection can’t “sense” these very minor mutations and doesn’t cull them out of the genome.
@WitchHunter93 Although most mutations are only slightly deleterious, their additive effects will kill a species. This prompted A.S. Kondrashov to ask WHY HAVE WE NOT DIED 100 TIMES OVER? (My emphasis). If our species has gone through thousands of generations, our genetic load would have become so great we would have died out a 100 times by now. The genome becomes irreparable by natural selection AND the guided selection of geneticists.
@WitchHunter93 How would natural selection, or a geneticist, correct those many millions of nearly neutral mutations, especially those redundant codons. Which codon was the original for each locus along the DNA molecule? How can it be determined when it effect is so slight that it would take many generations before anyone could decide that GCT was better than GCC in one place and worse in another. Codon usage bias tells us that those four codons are not exactly equal.
@WitchHunter93 Look up Kimball's Biology Pages by John W. Kimball and download his free book. Then you can read about his take on codon usage bias in more detail than I can go into here.
Kondrashov asked why we haven’t died 100 times over, but it would be appropriate to ask why thousands of species haven’t died. We and the chimps allegedly diverged from the same common ancestor. Why aren’t both species dead now along with all the other primates supposedly evolved before us?
@WitchHunter93 The mutation rates are very high among humans. Some investigators have the rate up around 600-1200 mutations/individual. That’s not much in a genome of 3 billion nucleotides, but after a thousand generations, the number becomes significant. How would a geneticist or natural selection backtrack to a genome that was healthier? It would be impossible, and if geneticists tried to straighten it out over a few hundred generations, other myriads of mutations would have crept in.
@WitchHunter93 None of those geneticists would even know if they had “corrected” the mutations they targeted. The effects would be undetectable for generations. Natural selection would be effectively useless to weed out all those mutations.
Because of our high mutation rate, our species couldn’t be much older than a few hundred generations. At 20 yrs/gen, you can see the problem. 100 generations would get us back to the birth of Messiah. 300 generations would land us in the Garden of Eden.
@WitchHunter93 The most fascinating discovery in genetics is the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Decades ago, I was convinced that DNA represented something far more sophisticated and complex than any computer program. I learned some BASIC and even more Assembly and began to wonder if DNA had similar features as GOSUB and ON…GOTO/GOSUB. The DNA sequence in genes is read linearly and copied into mRNA, which is read by the ribosome to make the corresponding protein. Leaving out details.
@WitchHunter93 SNPs, in turns out, don’t have to be included in the gene sequence for making or doing a certain thing. They can be on any chromosome. For instance, there are 6 SNPs (actually more) involved in determining eye color scattered across the genome. For the theory of evolution, one wonders how the specific locations of these SNPs became associated with the gene sequence for eye color. One SNP might be on chromosome 6, another on 20, etc., billions of nucleotides away from the gene.
@WitchHunter93 DNA shows clear evidence of a very high order of intelligent design and no evidence of random mutations honed by natural selection. Evolutionists such as Dawkins and Coyne still push the idea that most of our DNA is junk because it isn’t involved in making the 20,000-25,000 proteins, saying that these non-protein coding sequences are relics of evolutionary progress. However, scientists have been confirming that these non-protein sequences are vital to fetal development.
@WitchHunter93 Most non-protein coding sequences include pseudogenes, but even the pseudogenes have functions recently discovered by scientists. More disturbing is that endogenous retroviruses that are transcribed into DNA and added to our DNA. This added DNA has important functions in the production of blood cells, in regulating human gene expression involved with fat metabolism and cell signaling in the liver and placenta. In placenta, they modify syncytin production.
The transitional fossils that we have found are consistent with what evolution says you should find. But evolution isn't dependent on the fossil record at all.
There's a huge amount of other evidence, the universal genetic code being just one example.
@WitchHunter93 The alleged transition forms are consistent with what the theory says, not because they show minute morphological changes, such as the forelimbs of a lizard becoming wings, but because they show similar morphological features with other similar species. Skinks and lizards are pretty much the same, but which is the ancestral stock)? Creationists affirm speciation of an ancestral species evolving to the numerous living lizard species. Lizards didn't evolve into birds, however.
Nobody would expect to find a fossil for every small step of the process from reptile to bird, but it's not a necessity, because fossilization is a rare event. I've said before that evolution would still be a scientific theory even if no fossils ever formed, but it does help strengthen it as long as it remains consistent with what we should find.
But I'm just curious. Were you saying that there is some form of limitation that allows evolution to only occur at a "micro" level, but doesn't allow it to occur with many "micros" over a much longer period of time?
ie: Something allows only micro-evolution to happen but prevents macro-evolution?
@TigeyPuss1 The Nautiloids transnational fossils: Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus. Insect transitional fossils: Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Melittosphex, Eophyllium. Fish traditional fossils: Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Guiyu. And the list goes on and on, the so called missing link, has been found and overwhelmed with links of one species to another.
@bboyloco3 I didn't no the nautiloids were transnational. Did you get all this from Kathleen Hunt or one of her parrots? Have I got a rude awakening for you.
@bboyloco3 We can make observations of gravity, but we cannot observe evolution beyond the minor variations within a species. When you say evolution is a fact because gravity is a fact, that is a non sequitor. I could just as easily say ghosts are a fact because gravity is a fact. That is a non sequitor tantamount to your gravity/evolution thesis. Evolution suffers from a severe lack of evidence. Witchhunter93 in this blog thinks DNA is positive evidence for evolution. See my replies to witch.
@bboyloco3 To say evolution is a fact because gravity is a fact is a non sequitor. I could just as easily say that ghosts are a fact because gravity is a fact. We don't know if there is life on other planets--never observed. That's an evolutionary fantasy. The theory of evolution is one gigantic hole. No one has ever observed evolution for the simple fact that it occurs so slowly that humans cannot observe its progress through millions of years. We haven't been around that long.
@TigeyPuss1 No scientist has ever said it was a fact, in fact scientist never account any single law as a fact because nothing in the universe is 100% fact, your assume i think evolution is a fact because i dont think its false but i dont think its a fact at all i think is an idea that is supported by tons and tons of evidence which is a theory, not even gravity or electromagnetism is a fact.
@bboyloco3 Ask Richard Dawkins if evolution is a fact. Tell this to Eugenie Scott—evolution is not a fact, when she has stated emphatically that it is on radio and written statements from NCSE, not in the above video, but elsewhere. She and Kevin Padian are evolutionary fundamentalists—very radical people. You have no idea how extreme these two are, especially Eugenie. She’s either nuts or she is a sold-out fanatic. As far as your tons and tons of evidence goes, it’s mostly hyped, bogus…
@bboyloco3 The only evolution we observe is the minor changes that take place within a species. We don't see species becoming an entirely new kind of organism. That is not the macro-evolution that Kevin Padian (the 3rd speaker is the video) teaches. There is no evidence for macro-evolution, microbes to men. The fossil record would provide some sort of documentation for that if it existed, but it does not. No one has ever observed evolution on another planet. No observation = nonsense.
@bboyloco3 We are aware of the evidence, and evolution is not a fact. In fact, whenever their is a debate between a professional creationist and evolutionist, the evolutionist tends to lose the debate.
I am convince that the most important evidence for or against creation and evolution is in the area of genetics, and evolution fails all tests in this area.
@RFIDemocracy i keep telling these people that same point , china is not in the year 2000 they didnt even know about jesus until the last 500 years i think lol
@TigeyPuss1 but how can we write about the roman empire? because people who were in the roman empire wrote about it and we can read and recite that knowledge. who was present in the genesis flood? noah and his family. the chinese civilisation descended from this family, as did every other civilisation on earth. as an aside, there are dozens of ancient civilisations who have documented flood accounts of some kind.coincidence?
@ferrel81 The various flood stories from antiquity came through the descendants of Noah and his family. The generations following Noah distorted the original account of the Genesis Flood as it was told from one generation to another. However, if there was no worldwide Genesis Flood, each society invented their own flood stories. The Chinese got their story either as descendants of Noah or as descendants of story tellers.
There is no evidence for a world wide flood. Flood myths abound wherever civilisations begin- guess why. Civilisations begin near or on flood plains and/ or rivers.
@ozowen, There is plenty of evidence that there was a worldwide flood. Leading evolutionary-minded geologists like Derek Ager described continuous widespread sediments covering several continents in his books, and Trevor Palmer, in Controversy, explained how asteroids and meteors crashed into the ocean generated gigantic waves at least 150 times in geologic history, which W.M. Napier calculated to be about 26,000’ high. How would you distinguish between these impacts and the Flood?
@ozowen, There are more marine sediments on the continents than land sediments. How did that happen? Ocean crust is denser than the more buoyant continental crust, yet marine sediments make up the vast majority of sediments on the highest mountains. Even in Grand Canyon, thousands of feet above sea level, there are thick layers of sediment containing marine fossils. Are we living at a unique “just so” moment in time when the continents are above sea level and the ocean crust is under water?
Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a theory...teach the controversy! Our kids need to know how to please our Flying Spaghetti Lord and learn the ways as written in his Holy Cookbook. RAMEN!
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What came before the Big Bang which created the universe? How did an explosion start from nothing? Keep going back, how did that start, then how did that start. On the flip side you can say how did God come about who created God? If you say he just is, then with that argument you can say evolution just is. You see there could never be a beginning therefore there is no end.
MrMatto1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i can prove evolution to be true: if you religious people believe humans did not come from an ape like ancestry, why don't you take a look at yourselves in the mirror, cuz all you religious fanatics still look like the un-evolved ape like humans.
arzadi11 2 months ago
do realise what would've happened if dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans? WE'D ALL BE DEAD. Proving that dinosaurs are gods favourite species. God doesn't love you or he 'used his wrath'. Stupid fucking christians!! christian parents have the nerve to say the boogeyman doesn't exist to their children. there's an equal amount of evidence for both. NONE
jsmgimp 2 months ago 2
Support NCSE!
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
wow, this comment section is just "TROLL WARS 2 - Rise of the Super Ego"
FreakmundZoid 4 months ago 4
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RadarGuidedVermin I chalk that up to the raw emotions you are feeling. Admitting that your father raped you when you were a child and confessing to impregnating both of your homely and morbidly obese daughters is a lot to work through. So far you’ve done an amazing job. You have just one more task to accomplish. You need to do the honorable thing here. Are you ready for it?
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
@BlameRepublicans Our angry little hamster is now running at a full sprint. Round and round goes the wheel, accompanied by an audible squeak. Sadly, our angry little hamster has failed to advance even a single inch from where he embarked on his futile journey. He is an abysmal failure, and he knows it.
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
lol you seem to be fascinated in hamsters, is your real name Richard Gere by chance?
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Well said - a nice analogy!
masala505 3 weeks ago
So you are passing the hurt on to your daughters....man, Radar - please - stop having sex with your daughters. Seek help. I know your father raped you both orally and anally (not in that order) but you don't have to do the same to your kids. I wish to help you heal. Tell me about your wife. Has she managed to control her chronic morbid obesity yet? Does she still shit in the bath tub b/c she can't fit on the toilet? Do you still use a snow shovel to clean it out? I want to know more.
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
LOL I think you meant to say "I knew you wouldn't disappoint me." But that's cool. There was only ONE PERFECT person to have ever walked the earth, and he's busy in the White house at the moment. ;)
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
Is mommy still alive?
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Comment removed
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Was your mom involved in the abuse?
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
How long did you suffer your father's sexual assaults?
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
One fact, the world is mostly covered with water. Which theory explains that better?
earlysda 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Interesting - you turn to insulting me to avoid feeling the pain of the memories of abuse you suffered. I think we're getting close to the source of your emotional instability. I predict your response will be more insults in an attempt to cover up the fact that your father raped you as a child.
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
Are the two dumbfucks still arguing? Anyway, sometimes I think it would be good if all humans were killed because they're pathetic, first they believed in God for many thousand years and then some people (scientists) with low self-esteem and thoughts about themselves and the rest of humanity want to place humans in the same category as animals and even try to make it a fact that f.ex neandertals are a different species of humans.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
@TheMeteorStrike We are animals. What else would we be ? Low self-esteem about humanity ? We are morally the most corrupt and disgusting animals on the planet. You ever see a shark rape another shark ? Or a crocodile have sex with a baby ? We are capable of the worst acts of morality in the animal kingdom. If you want to place Humans on a pedestal you must be extremely ignorant and narcissistic; you are delusional.
Pomaori 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Google "Doubt cast on Noah’s ark found in Turkey". This dude was on the team and became aware of the hoax and parted company.
BTW, why is the search always on Mt Ararat? The Bible didn't say Mt Ararat and no one knows which peak in the Ararat area was the supposed resting place of the ark. Ararat was named a long time later.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
The ark gets "found" in Turkey every few years. About once a decade. I have seen front page headlines and news items several times since I was a kid. Turkey has a thriving Ark finding industry exploiting creationist gullibility.
Most "discoveries" have been geological formations, none have been an ark. Nor will any prove to be. But it is an industry and it does rake in millions.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
"Piltdown Man had over 600 PhD theses written on it before someone around 1952 finally figured out it was a fake."
Actually nearly the entire USA scientific community rejected Piltdown from the outset.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Better check your facts on this one. Are you confusing Piltdown with Nebraska?
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
No, Piltdown was celebrated in Britain, viewed with suspicion on the continent and near total disdain in the USA.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Nebraska Man got no further than National Geographic- which is a popular magazine. Every time a YECSer brings that sucker up they are playing a spin.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen For some reason you have moved off subject. Let's get back to the physical evidence for the Flood, which you say doesn't exist. I'm still waiting for you to give me a rational explanation for the lack of erosion in the stratigraphic record.
Your contrived explanation, also known as ad hoc or just-so story is pure fantasy. How could you rationally believe that 100s of millions of years o erosion andf sediment deposition would actually erase almost all evidence of erosion in the strata!!!
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Once again, I am saying that one reason for there being no evidence for the Noachim Flood is the fact that across the various strata there is in fact frequent evidences for floods. If all these layers are in fact the result of the Noachim Flood during which most species died and there were massive tectonic and geological shifts- but where the entire world was submerged- then there can be no discreet flood layers.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
In that context the explanation for your claims cannot be a single flood. To answer your questions I will need to consult with real geologists, not those who insist that there was a single Flood. They are wrong by default. The Grand Canyon is a single area. The Grand Canyon has been under the ocean several times. It lost silt layers and similar at those times. ie the processes of being submerged then coming out of the ocean.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Please do consult with real geologists. I'd be glad to work with them. You tend to make blanket statements with no evidence.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
LOL! Now I know you have no interest in this discussion. Once again, how can there be distinct flood layers amidst a major, all consuming flood?
Let me help you with the answer; there cannot be such layers. You pointed to flood layers as proof- but they wreck the Noachim Flood claim entirely. Your refusal to address the claim is standard YEC practice. Snipe at the small targets because you HAVE ALREADY LOST THE BATTLE.
ozowen 5 months ago
• @ozowen You talk as though you know so much about geology, you really don't need to consult a "real" geologist. You make these blanket statements such as “…how can there be distinct flood layers amidst a major, all consuming flood? Let me help you with the answer; there cannot be such layers.”
I really do want you to consult with a geologist. It will save me the trouble of having to explain so much to you. You lack knowledge.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
"It will save me the trouble of having to explain so much to you. You lack knowledge" LOL
In other words- you have no response to this. You have been throwing cut'n'pastes from your favourite YECS site around as if they are meaningful. The Grand Canyon arguments have been debunked for yonks. You threw a raft of them at me and then did your "tap tap tap... waiting " as if this was some sort of argument. Your whole premise collapsed at a single question. Hydro-strata as distinct ....
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
... layers within layers you claim as parts of a major hydrostrata are not possible.
While we are at it- you failed to respond to the response to your challenges re the Bible and had nothing to say re Pre Cambrian fossils.
Why?
You have no case- YECS "science" consists of a raft of diverse "this could be explained as..." but they are NOT put together, there is no consistent and compiled YECS theory. it is all attack with an iota of "this might be ..."
The rest is lies.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Yes, there can be such differentiated layers. Each stratum represents a different source with a different current flowing from the source area. The flow of Flood waters was not the result of a quiet, slowly filling bathtub. You would know that if you have carefully studied Genesis 7. What was the first thing that happened to initiate the Flood? Hint: it wasn’t rain.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
There was a supposed major cataclysm that created mountain, tectonic shifts that would have made the recent tsunami look like nothing. The flood lasted for a year. Distinct layering is not only unlikely, it is impossible. Especially layering that conveniently put animals into distinct layers, placed heavy strata above lighter ones and cleverly deceived us by leaving varve layers in places where later varves were in no way distinct.....
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Amazingly the Egyptians, Chinese and some Indian dynasties missed the Flood entirely. Strange huh?
So, to sum up- the Flood left flood and non-flood layers so as to deceive us. Varves were somehow done in ways that later annual varves were also likely to deceive. Dynasties missed the flood that killed them off (?). Tectonic shifts caused a major cataclysm moving miles, hundreds of miles in a short time and an oversized wooden boat survived it....
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Hydrostrata layered in the most amazingly deceptive manner convincing u that species evolution was very likely. The animals care was impossible by current capacity in steel ships with refrigeration and food distribution systems. Post Flood, despite being parked on a mountain top in the middle east in desolation, animals like axolotyls, koalas and birds of paradise managed to return to their new homes without leaving traces anywhere nor having food sources....
ozowen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TigeyPuss1
"What was the first thing that happened to initiate the Flood? Hint: it wasn’t rain."
What flood?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ozowen I want to qualify my assertion that there is little erosion in the strata. There is evidence of tremendous erosion at the Great Unconformity as seen in Grand Canyon and elsewhere. Find a geology book and look up what an unconformity is and its graphic representation.
There are many significant erosion surfaces in the geologic record. Sounds like I’m contradicting myself doesn’t it? Unconformities show evidence of erosion and/or uplift of layers before the next layers were deposited.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
BTW, I am familiar with the term "unconformity" and I am also familiar with YECS attempts to ignore unconformities when they don't suit the YECS agenda. You seem to think my knowledge is less than it is.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Your knowledge is definitely less than you think it is. If you really knew much about geology, you would have brought up the subject of unconformities long before I did since they represent an erosional surface. I kept asking you about the lack of erosional features in the strata. You should have at least brought up disconformities by now, although I think they wouldn’t help your cause much.
I’ll be absorbed in writing an article on radiometric dating the next 8-10 days. C U later.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Perhaps, but perhaps you just went on a rant and I decided I couldn't be bothered with your stuff. That would be an accurate reflection. I did make that comment at the time- you don't appear to have noticed.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
"Please do consult with real geologists." Do you know every time I read real geologists I find them annoyed by YECS distortions and avoidances of facts. eg; how did all those sand layers end up under conglomerate layers in the Flood? How did the fossils of creatures that died in the Flood sort so nicely so even bacteria ended up sorted into evolutionary order?
Why aren't there any kangaroos in the Pre Cambrian strata?
How did the koalas get back to Australia?
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Why should there be kangaroos in Precambrian stata? The Precambrian has few fossils of multicellular organisms. Can you guess why the call the Cambrian explosion and explosion? There are no sharks, no cockroaches, no bony fish, and no squids in the Precambrian. Kangaroos aren't in the Cambrian because they aren't marine organisms. Organisms that live in the same general locality get buried together.
You say you were associated with YECs, but it seems you missed many explanations.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Your flood didn't happen- as you point out- there are flood layers during the various major strata. That precludes a major flood. Further- the strata have not been laid down as hydro-strata- the geological column knows no major flood. Your questions are redundant and need to be answered in the context of there having been no worldwide flood.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen "Your flood didn't happen- as you point out- there are flood layers during the various major strata."
You're exactly wrong. The major strata ARE Flood strata. The major strata are best explained by a worldwide catastrophe. You need to read Derek Ager's book. As you now know, he is an evolutionary geologist, now deceased, who explained that the strata are the result of major catastrophic events. I’m waiting for you to give a rational explanation for no erosion. Tap, tap, tap—waiting!!!
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
1) If the major strata are flood strata (from a single event) then there can be no flood layers within them. You cannot have discreet flood layers within an all encompassing, mountain covering major flood event.
This question totally precedes yours in logic.
I don't need to read Derek Ager's book, although I might do. He is but one voice among many and I understand the evidence is against his claims.
Respond to discrete flood layers within the major Flood.
tap tap tap
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen" Your flood didn't happen..."
It's not my flood. It's God's Flood. The Apostle Peter affirmed that the Flood happened. Moses recorded that the Flood happened as revealed to him by God. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? If you do, why do you not believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis or 1 Peter 3.20 and 2 Peter 3:4-6, or Jesus in Matthew 24.37, or Hebrews 11.7. There's other NT references to Noah and God's Flood. Do you pick and choose what's true, Itchy Ears.?
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Everyone picks and chooses. Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? The do you believe that God made man before the animals? It says so in the 2nd Chapter of Genesis. Do you pick & choose what is true? Do you believe that there were windows in the dome of the sky?
Do you believe that the world sits solid on foundations?
I don't use the Bible as a science text, you choose to. The consequence is that you have to ignore evidence. It is why YECS is not reliable.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
That requires a certain knowledge of what the standard for a "right" religeon is. The challenges of the discoveries of science over the past few hundred years also constitute serious challenges. Churches that deny the validity of those discoveries will whither and fade. There is no choice- they are standing on sinking ships, denying there is water around them.
ozowen 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ozowen Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
If the single Flood didn't happen on a global level (as the evidence insists) then the explanation for your examples, and any others, will not take a global flood into account (that would be illogical)
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen The Flood did happen on a global scale, and no, the evidence does not insist. If it does, you explain how it does. Your conclusion is invalid.
"and any others" tells me you would not accept any evidence for the Flood, not even revelation from God--you have already rejected His witness.
The widespread deposits I mentioned are what one would expect from a global Flood. The only thing that separates the Flood from multiple catastrophes would have to be the nearly total lack of erosion.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
I note that you failed to respond to my answer to your assertions re the Bible. Once again, let me help you, YECS is a minor cult operating as a blend between the Seventh Day Adventist movement (from whence it came) and the mainstream church.
Your method of interpretation is suspect. Literalism falls on its own sword- it has no choice.
ozowen 5 months ago
I'm sure that scientists have a shitty sexlife if they have one at all, if I were to put my penis into a distorted ape's vagina I would feel disgusted, it wouldn't be natural to me, if I have to reproduce for the sake of humanity I will be a sperm donor, I guess sex will were and will never be the same since the mid 1800's or so, now I'm scared to have sex.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
A black guy got butthurt when people called him an ape. I guess he hasn't bothered to read the article on humans on wikipedia, to hell with him.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
What Hitler tried to do was a waste of time just like he was himself, he was a sad and pathetic little man and a waste of sperm, there's no such thing as an aryan master race because humans are filthy, fuck Hitler, Nazis, Neo-Nazis and people who look up to them.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
That previous post was in response to a post currently at the top of my youtube thread- but was a year ago. But it was nicely relevant to our current discussion.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Nebraska Man never got any scientific cred. That canard is another Creationist lie. National Geographic is a popular magazine- not a scientific journal.
Thanks for helping with my demonstrating why I think YECS credibility is so low. Lucy is but one of hundreds of her species now uncovered. Piltdown was a fraud and was exposed by the scientific process, relatively quickly in an age without very fast communications. (and the USA rejected it alsmost entirely from the outset)
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen Did I ever mention National Geographic? You must be confusing me with someone else.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Re National Geographic- The so called Nebraska Man farce only ever got space in the National Geographic. Every time Creationists bring it up they are repeating Nebraska Man as "proof" of evolutionary hoaxes in science- this is a lie. You noted Nebraska Man- it only got space in National Geographic and in Creationist "literature"
Repeating it is a form of deception.
ozowen 5 months ago
@ozowen The news of Nebraska Man was first published in Illustrated London News (1922). See article at TalkOrigins.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Not in anything scientific. As I said, it remains a lie to repeat it. It adds numbers to a supposed "long list" that isn't.
ozowen 5 months ago
I don't care so much about social training anymore since I won't be active in society, I don't want to and I have no need to participate in a superficial life and world with filthy lifeforms who think they're pure/clean when they dress themselves nice and use perfume, they're still filthy in and out.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
The US is the most hated country anyway and american wannabes like Brits, Irishmen and Aussies deserve to be hated as well.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
@TheMeteorStrike
I'm sorry, Aussies wannabe Americans. LOL! That's a long way from where we wannabe mate. You must live in a seriously delusional world.
ozowen 5 months ago
@TheMeteorStrike
I have just read your long rants there mate. You are delusional and need help. See a psychologist or psychiatrist soon. I mean that as kindly as I can. You aren't well.
ozowen 5 months ago
I dislike americanized/degenerated people who do things like walk like a robot, confront you with a very cold and stiff stare with no emotion or facial expression and standpoint, say "hi" and walk away, those who end a conversation with "I don't care(!)"/"So what"/"Couldn't care less" and those who start a sentence in an discussion about God not existing with "IF THERE WAS A GOD..." and end it with something trying to convince religious people who believe in this or that that God doesn't exist.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
I'm fine with internet slang, but acting like retards in school/work would be enough for me to fire them if I was the boss, if Anonymous, WikiLeaks, 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica and stuff like that will dominate the future and make people dumb, dysfunctional and degenerated I will retreat from society and avoid contributing to it in other ways than buying stuff, I won't go to parties with people my age, my job, not go to birthday parties, not send my family members cards during christmas etc.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
Another thing that sucks is that humans can feel nihilistic at times (feeling that life is a waste of time, is useless and has no meaning), there are many differences between humans and other lifeforms, but people who can't see them are f.ex people who think that humans are smart monkeys (It's actually apes, monkeys are small ape-like creatures with tails), and they're people who supposedly know much about evolution, well, my ass, most of them are defunct/degenerated/americanized.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
Who in the right mind would want to crossbreed with a neandertal or ape anyway, are there really some people out there who would like to do that? It isn't possible with neandertals since they don't exist, but they can do it with apes if they want to waste their sperm on something that won't work. No sane person would ever do that, It's an insult to humanity and the epitome of dehumanization.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
All this talk about Darwin (who was a retard for marrying his cousin while he still had the choice of marrying someone outside his family and giving life to inbred filth) and evolution doesn't make me want to contribute to society so much anymore, if evolution is true then humans are filth and should live like their fellow lifeforms on earth, not make futuristic stuff, I don't get why several pornstars enjoy drinking blood and piss and eating shit.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
Sometimes I envy retards and severely autistic people because they aren't born with the need and compulsion of choosing between evolutionism, atheism, christianity, islam, satanism etc., it sucks that people who are aware of the world around them, it isn't fair.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
Scientists dress so nice, they don't deserve it, if they descend from what appears to be a mix of a chimpanzee and a human they should be filthy and not clean.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
Also, if humans were born into a family of neandertals they were taught by the neandertals and would know that they were descendants of them and not God, the humans would tell it to their children, grandchildren etc. and know at least over 10'000 years ago that they descend from neandertals and not God.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
It's important to respect other people's opinions, but if some people feel pure or clean if evolution is true and that humans are interested in having sex with a neandertal or chimpanzee then I don't respect their opinions and I don't get why scientists want to discover/find the missing link which doesn't exist, It's dehumanization at It's worst, what do atheists and scientists have against God anyway, It's better to be made in the image of a divine being than being the offspring of filth.
TheMeteorStrike 5 months ago
@TheMeteorStrike WOW! You're an idiot! How does it feel? Are you frightened by big words and stuff like that?
yeyodelvillar 5 months ago
@TheMeteorStrike
"scientists want to discover/find the missing link which doesn't exist"
Found plenty of em. Your argument about mating is a tad odd and rests on assumptions that mating across species was immoral. Given that if we could be mating across species then we would not have been particularly different from them at the time- a la ring species.
Many scientists are believers- eg: Ken Miller, Francis Collins. (both also evolutionists and very non-creationists)
ozowen 5 months ago
Technical answer: Yes.
So is gravity, and I don't see you pushing for "The Hand of God Holds Us Down" theory in schools.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@mcsciennes I thought I should reply to this. Most of you skeptics are unwilling to check the facts from both sides. If you haven't read my comments why bother telling me about it? It seems you were saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
So what scientists believe relates to another and is testable, not necessarily has been tested and passed, but just testable is more important than proven fact... So scientists take very little regard for what is known and decide to believe in the unknown which they claim as fact and teach as though it were fact when it itself is not fact. I'm completely lost here. They claim evolution as fact. Well in that case there is no point in it because it's just a "whatever she said".
Sageangel18000 5 months ago
@Sageangel18000 Another thing. A prediction made by evolutionists is that you would find in the fossil record the transitional phases from one species to another and a sort of "tree of life" that shows us the path of these evolutions. In fact, there are no fossil records for these "missing links" and the fossil record has actually been described as more like grass growing with fossil records for every major animal in existence appearing as if at the same time.
Sageangel18000 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins says, “What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists.” It embarrasses creationists only because his interpretation is false. Actually, the continued insistence that 93% of our genome is junk should be embarrassing to the evolutionists who say so because much recent evidence shows that junk DNA is surely not junk. The frustration concerning this is that evolutionists will say little to correct their faux pas and continue to browbeat creationists in other ways.
TigeyPuss1 5 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 Oh, thank God! A human with a brain in their skull! I have waited so long for someone to present a logical statement regarding this subject and it's driving me to insanity. God bless you.
Sageangel18000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Evolution is a fantasy.
GoodScienceForYou 5 months ago
Fuck high-heeled smug middleclass women who wear nice clothes and too much make-up and think they're clean/pure when they take a walk in the city, they're not, they're filth, trash, garbage, they're abominations.
TheMeteorStrike 6 months ago
Living forever as pure filth is tragic and miserable, humans don't deserve that, they're too filthy, filthy distorted apes/primates.
TheMeteorStrike 6 months ago
It's ridiculous that filthy life-forms like humans are "the chosen ones/beings/creatures/lifeforms" of God or whatever, humans aren't clean, they're filthy, filthy creatures doesn't deserve to get an afterlife unless It's only their soul who goes to Heaven, Primates/Humans/Apes/Monkeys are the filthiest and the last creatures I'd expect to the viewed as clean by any God except a "God-version" of f.ex the cat (which is purer than a God-version of f.ex humans/apes which is The God).
TheMeteorStrike 6 months ago
I'm thinking about killing myself because I don't want to live forever in heaven as a human unless my body and maybe organs are clean/pure if my soul (if I have one) doesn't come there, humans are filthy because they're apes/primates, I don't want to live as a being like that forever, the soul is the only clean/pure thing about humans and maybe animals, everything else about humans is pure filth, the blood, the flesh, the heart, everything.
TheMeteorStrike 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 If evolution were a fact, everyone would be able to discern the reality of evolution from germs to Germans, but the evidence for that kind of evolution is scanty at best. Yes, there is much evidence for evolution in the variation within a species, but this should never be construed to include evolution between phyla.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 You can say the same for gravity, we understand gravity much as we understand evolution, and if gravity is a fact then evolution is a fact because it is a fundamental law of the universe which all species on anyplanet has to go through to survive and dominate its planet. And people are saying oh you cant prove evolution because there are still holes in the idea, well gravity still have holes in its ideas such as a graviton has never been found only mathematical made up.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 When evolutionists talk about evolution, one has to know what they mean by evolution. If you mean life evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, that is false. That kind of evolution has not taken place. Variation with a species, even the development of new genera, occurs all the time. This is because of genetic variability within a gene pool and mutations. Evolutionists use these minor changes as evidence for evolution of germs to Germans. This grand scale evolution is false.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 But no one knows how the first living organism arise, and scientist never said they knew either, there are many ideas of how they came to be, such as amino acids combine with the water from the toxic lakes billions of years go made the first living organism, another idea is amino acids on an Asteroid slammed into earth and human life originated somewhere else and the list goes on, but the thing is scientist aren't giving up we've unlock DNA and proved macro evolution.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 DNA doesn't prove macro evolution. It proves an intelligent designed. You and I and Witchhunter93 should thrash this topic out together. DNA doesn't support the theory of evolution. That is a hopeful misconception of atheists. DNA strongly supports intelligent design and at the same time refutes the idea that time plus chance can create complex, interrelated biological systems. There is no evidence that random events ever produced integrated, complex, purposeful, integrated systems.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 That's exactly the problem. Evolutionists claim the KNOW how life evolved. Because I'm a creationist, my professor in bacterial physiology and cytology asked how the first cell wall arose--he tailored the final exam to me. I srewed up somewhere because I got a B+ for the final--maybe I got a little too facitious. He knew I had no faith in the evolutionary paradigm and disgarded evolution.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 Scientist are like detectives, we looks for the evidence and the clues of the crime scene, detectives can pin point the killer with the smallest evidence and the smallest clue, and scientist do the same we find clues and evidence to how things happen and over the centurys the fossil, and DNA, and geological evidence pin points evolution as the suspect, you can deny and deny all you want but the evidence is right there.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 It looks like some scientists have abandoned the scientific method wherein observations are made of natural phenomena, experiments conducted to reproduce the observations under controlled conditions, and finally repeating the experiments and obtaining the same results. Evolutionists haven’t done this. No one has observed the evolution of amebas to aardvarks. The best they’ve done is observe is variation with species and speciation. That’s a far cry from the claims of evolution.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 The detective at the crime scene never see how the murder happened, but because of the evidence at the crime scene the detective can determine exactly what happen and when it happened, and that is exactly what scientist do we find evidence, fossilized evidence to see what species lived back then, geological evidence to see when they lived backed then, and when you connect the evidence you get a tree of life branching into different organisms: Natural Selection
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 The detectives are never at the crime scene while its happening but always after, and scientist are the same, you keep saying evolution isnt true this and but you haven't even looked at the DNA evidence, Fossilized evidence, Geological Evidence. Like small piece of hair or foot print at a crime scene you can tell exactly what happened at the murder with pin point detail. The strongest evidence scientist have for evolution isn't fossils, its DNA.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 Check out my response to WitchHunter93 on the subject of fossils and DNA. You should allow people to message you. Repeating the same remarks would only fill up this blog with needless repetition.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 Scientists, like detectives can draw the wrong conclusions from “the smallest evidence… the smallest clue.” How do you know when a paleontologist, or group of paleontologists, has come to the wrong conclusion? How could anyone know when no one has ever witnessed a single-celled organism become an invertebrate simply because we cannot persist long enough to make the observations? Our knowledge of DNA has shown us that chance mutations more often degrade the genome.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 I worked as a clinical lab scientist for 25 years. The difference between evolutionists’ getting wrong conclusions drawn from scanty data, and medical scientists getting it wrong is that if an evolutionist gets something or all of it wrong, nobody dies or is harmed. There are no obvious consequences for a wrong conclusion in evolution. Unsolved cases show detectives can get it wrong. Paleontologists often find themselves in sharp disagreement with each other. Who’s right, who’s wrong?
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 About 600 PhDs were earned doing studies on Piltdown Man. They and their mentors were all wrong. Another famous example of failure among evolutionary scientists was Nebraska Man. His features, his lifestyle, and many other things were determined from a single tooth of an extinct pig. We can observe variation and speciation within a species, but is it legitimate to extrapolate this knowledge to the evolution of a germ to a German over half a billion years?
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 Many paleontologists thought Ramapithecus was a human ancestor, but they dropped this wrong conclusion. Many paleontologists believed Tiktaalik was a transitional form between fish and amphibians, but then ichnofossils were found millions of years older disqualifying Tiktaalik for the honored position of transitional form. The vaunted peppered moth demonstrated genetic drift aided by natural selection. It didn't show a lizard become a bird, or a scale become a hair.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 Evolutionists use the scant occurrence of transitional forms in the fossil record as evidence for grand-scale or macro-evolution. Darwin predicted that innumerable transition forms would eventually be found in the fossil record, but that has never happened. The alleged transition forms, such as Tiktaalik and Dimetrodon, don’t meet the requirements. The theory of evolution has never met the basic requirements to be given the status of a theory.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Fossils are not what prove evolution, it's just extra evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory and fact not because of the fossils we've found, but from other things such as the DNA evidence.
Fossilization is rare, we are pretty lucky to have found this many fossils. However, evolution would still be a scientific theory & fact even if no fossils were ever formed
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 If evolution were a fact, it should be easily testable. Variation within a species cannot be considered as evidence for evolution. We can test gravity, the properties of light, or the effects of a new medicine. We can observe them, but we can’t observe macro-evolution. Evolutionists have been using the fossils as the cornerstone of evolution for the last 150 years. DNA evidence is inimical to evolution, and this is something I will be glad to discuss in more detail.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
If you ask Richard Dawkins or pretty much any scientist working in the field of biology they would tell you that evolution in a scientific fact.
We can observe evolution, we can test it. However, the evidence does not depend at all on observing macroevolution directly. If we could, then it would be evidence AGAINST evolution. Macroevolution is only a term biologists when they talk about speciation. It's not a different type of evolution, it's the exact same process step by step.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93
To be more clear, I meant to say that "macro" and "micro" evolution were just terms that biologists use when talking about evolution going above or below the level of species, but they aren't really different forms of evolution. The only difference is how much time they are given to change.
Were you implying that there is some form of limit that allows microevolution to be possible but not macro?
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Now apart from variation within a species and speciation, in what ways do you observe evolution? I'm not talking about genetic drift, such as the trivial changes in the peppered moth, or changes in the beaks of finches. Evolutionists have to account for the evolution of single-celled organisms to an orangutan. From the standpoint of DNA, it's not a possibility. It wouldn't hurt you to read The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells which explains many of the problems.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
That's pretty much the only form of evolution we can observe. If we could observe a bird changing into something much different like a pterodactyl-like creature, then that would be evidence against evolution since it says that large changes involve very large amounts of time. Millions of years of time that we do not have
Does that mean that therefore it is impossible? certainly not. We have other ways of seeing if creatures had a common ancestor and they havent found any limitations
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 This inability for us to observe over millions of years is one reason creationists reject the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. It would be more accurate to entitle this blog "Creationists Say Evolution Is a Hypothesis" because the evolution you just described cannot be observed. Darwin and all evolutionists after him used the fossil record as evidence for germs to Germans. So does paleontologist Kevin Padian, 3rd speaker in above video.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Because it is impossible to observe evolution in deep time, what I call macro-evolution, Darwin's theory cannot qualify as a scientific theory. It must be observable, testable, and repeatable, but no one knows of anyway and of these can be done. Some evolutionists use proxy methods, like the fossils, DNA and morphological similarities, but this have some problems too. We design carburators for various machines, e.g., but that doesn't mean a lawnmower evolved from a automobile.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Observing something directly is not the only way to make something qualify as a scientific theory. Creationists do this thing where they will only accept a specific form of evidence that they know is impossible to reach and try to brush off the evidence with DNA, fossils, ect...
The Big Bang is not observable, testable and repeatable. However, it qualifies as a scientific theory as well due to its own evidence
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
What you call macro-evolution is not a different evolution. It's the exact same thing as micro-evolution. It is micro-evolution over a much much longer period of time, which allows many small changes to occur. If we can observe and test micro-evolution, and mix it with all the other evidence such as the fossil and DNA evidence, we can strongly conclude that macro-evolution has happened without the need of a direct observer.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 I'm going to jump in the middle of your posts because I want to make some remarks about DNA. Those remarks follow.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Maybe no one today would have that expectation, but look how Darwin handled it in his Chapter 6 Difficulties On Theory. He wrote:” Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? That’s a good question. We should be seeing such a riot in the living world, and I wondered why we didn’t.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 A little later, he said: “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” If his theory is true, they must have existed, and you said as much that micro-evolutionary changes add up over time to produced macro-evolution. I know a few good reasons why that can’t happen. This will take us into molecular biology, away from evidence for a worldwide flood--what I was addressing.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Before I go there, Darwin gave the answer to his situation. He said that the reason we don’t find all those intermediate fossils is because he believed in the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Funny little “just so” idea. All those transitional forms and the only time they got fossilized was as fully-formed, stable species. What were the odds that would happen. The vast majority of the fossils represent fully developed organisms, along with a few dubious intermediates.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Evolutionists generally agree that evolution proceeded from a primeval, simple organism and progress by essentially numberless trials of mutations tested by natural selection, preserving good mutations and removing deleterious mutations. I used to think that was reasonable, but finally concluded it was irrational. Evidence for this conclusion came from the studies of those rare breed of scientists called population geneticists.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 In 1968 Motoo Kimura published “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level,” sparking a revolution that produced The Neutral Theory of Evolution. He wrote: “Calculating the rate of evolution in terms of nucleotide substitutions seems to give a value so high that many of the mutations involved must be neutral ones.” The genetic code is redundant, more than one codon codes for an amino acid. For instance, the amino acid alanine (Ala) has 4 different codons: GCT, GCC, GCA, and GCG
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 This may not seem like much of a problem, but over a many generations, the effects of these effectively neutral mutations are additive and become pronounced. That’s because mutations of this sort are not exactly neutral. They are very slightly deleterious and pass under the radar of natural selection. The graph in Kimura’s shows what is the “no selection zone.” Natural selection can’t “sense” these very minor mutations and doesn’t cull them out of the genome.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Although most mutations are only slightly deleterious, their additive effects will kill a species. This prompted A.S. Kondrashov to ask WHY HAVE WE NOT DIED 100 TIMES OVER? (My emphasis). If our species has gone through thousands of generations, our genetic load would have become so great we would have died out a 100 times by now. The genome becomes irreparable by natural selection AND the guided selection of geneticists.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 How would natural selection, or a geneticist, correct those many millions of nearly neutral mutations, especially those redundant codons. Which codon was the original for each locus along the DNA molecule? How can it be determined when it effect is so slight that it would take many generations before anyone could decide that GCT was better than GCC in one place and worse in another. Codon usage bias tells us that those four codons are not exactly equal.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Look up Kimball's Biology Pages by John W. Kimball and download his free book. Then you can read about his take on codon usage bias in more detail than I can go into here.
Kondrashov asked why we haven’t died 100 times over, but it would be appropriate to ask why thousands of species haven’t died. We and the chimps allegedly diverged from the same common ancestor. Why aren’t both species dead now along with all the other primates supposedly evolved before us?
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 The mutation rates are very high among humans. Some investigators have the rate up around 600-1200 mutations/individual. That’s not much in a genome of 3 billion nucleotides, but after a thousand generations, the number becomes significant. How would a geneticist or natural selection backtrack to a genome that was healthier? It would be impossible, and if geneticists tried to straighten it out over a few hundred generations, other myriads of mutations would have crept in.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 None of those geneticists would even know if they had “corrected” the mutations they targeted. The effects would be undetectable for generations. Natural selection would be effectively useless to weed out all those mutations.
Because of our high mutation rate, our species couldn’t be much older than a few hundred generations. At 20 yrs/gen, you can see the problem. 100 generations would get us back to the birth of Messiah. 300 generations would land us in the Garden of Eden.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 The most fascinating discovery in genetics is the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Decades ago, I was convinced that DNA represented something far more sophisticated and complex than any computer program. I learned some BASIC and even more Assembly and began to wonder if DNA had similar features as GOSUB and ON…GOTO/GOSUB. The DNA sequence in genes is read linearly and copied into mRNA, which is read by the ribosome to make the corresponding protein. Leaving out details.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 SNPs, in turns out, don’t have to be included in the gene sequence for making or doing a certain thing. They can be on any chromosome. For instance, there are 6 SNPs (actually more) involved in determining eye color scattered across the genome. For the theory of evolution, one wonders how the specific locations of these SNPs became associated with the gene sequence for eye color. One SNP might be on chromosome 6, another on 20, etc., billions of nucleotides away from the gene.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 DNA shows clear evidence of a very high order of intelligent design and no evidence of random mutations honed by natural selection. Evolutionists such as Dawkins and Coyne still push the idea that most of our DNA is junk because it isn’t involved in making the 20,000-25,000 proteins, saying that these non-protein coding sequences are relics of evolutionary progress. However, scientists have been confirming that these non-protein sequences are vital to fetal development.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Most non-protein coding sequences include pseudogenes, but even the pseudogenes have functions recently discovered by scientists. More disturbing is that endogenous retroviruses that are transcribed into DNA and added to our DNA. This added DNA has important functions in the production of blood cells, in regulating human gene expression involved with fat metabolism and cell signaling in the liver and placenta. In placenta, they modify syncytin production.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
I'll take a look at that book you recommended, thanks
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
The transitional fossils that we have found are consistent with what evolution says you should find. But evolution isn't dependent on the fossil record at all.
There's a huge amount of other evidence, the universal genetic code being just one example.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 The alleged transition forms are consistent with what the theory says, not because they show minute morphological changes, such as the forelimbs of a lizard becoming wings, but because they show similar morphological features with other similar species. Skinks and lizards are pretty much the same, but which is the ancestral stock)? Creationists affirm speciation of an ancestral species evolving to the numerous living lizard species. Lizards didn't evolve into birds, however.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Yes, we know.
Nobody would expect to find a fossil for every small step of the process from reptile to bird, but it's not a necessity, because fossilization is a rare event. I've said before that evolution would still be a scientific theory even if no fossils ever formed, but it does help strengthen it as long as it remains consistent with what we should find.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
But I'm just curious. Were you saying that there is some form of limitation that allows evolution to only occur at a "micro" level, but doesn't allow it to occur with many "micros" over a much longer period of time?
ie: Something allows only micro-evolution to happen but prevents macro-evolution?
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 The Nautiloids transnational fossils: Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus. Insect transitional fossils: Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Melittosphex, Eophyllium. Fish traditional fossils: Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Guiyu. And the list goes on and on, the so called missing link, has been found and overwhelmed with links of one species to another.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 I didn't no the nautiloids were transnational. Did you get all this from Kathleen Hunt or one of her parrots? Have I got a rude awakening for you.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 We can make observations of gravity, but we cannot observe evolution beyond the minor variations within a species. When you say evolution is a fact because gravity is a fact, that is a non sequitor. I could just as easily say ghosts are a fact because gravity is a fact. That is a non sequitor tantamount to your gravity/evolution thesis. Evolution suffers from a severe lack of evidence. Witchhunter93 in this blog thinks DNA is positive evidence for evolution. See my replies to witch.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 To say evolution is a fact because gravity is a fact is a non sequitor. I could just as easily say that ghosts are a fact because gravity is a fact. We don't know if there is life on other planets--never observed. That's an evolutionary fantasy. The theory of evolution is one gigantic hole. No one has ever observed evolution for the simple fact that it occurs so slowly that humans cannot observe its progress through millions of years. We haven't been around that long.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 No scientist has ever said it was a fact, in fact scientist never account any single law as a fact because nothing in the universe is 100% fact, your assume i think evolution is a fact because i dont think its false but i dont think its a fact at all i think is an idea that is supported by tons and tons of evidence which is a theory, not even gravity or electromagnetism is a fact.
bboyloco3 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 Ask Richard Dawkins if evolution is a fact. Tell this to Eugenie Scott—evolution is not a fact, when she has stated emphatically that it is on radio and written statements from NCSE, not in the above video, but elsewhere. She and Kevin Padian are evolutionary fundamentalists—very radical people. You have no idea how extreme these two are, especially Eugenie. She’s either nuts or she is a sold-out fanatic. As far as your tons and tons of evidence goes, it’s mostly hyped, bogus…
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Eugenie is simply pissed off at Creationist nasty tricks. She is being radicalised by YECS behaviour.
ozowen 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 The only evolution we observe is the minor changes that take place within a species. We don't see species becoming an entirely new kind of organism. That is not the macro-evolution that Kevin Padian (the 3rd speaker is the video) teaches. There is no evidence for macro-evolution, microbes to men. The fossil record would provide some sort of documentation for that if it existed, but it does not. No one has ever observed evolution on another planet. No observation = nonsense.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@bboyloco3 We are aware of the evidence, and evolution is not a fact. In fact, whenever their is a debate between a professional creationist and evolutionist, the evolutionist tends to lose the debate.
I am convince that the most important evidence for or against creation and evolution is in the area of genetics, and evolution fails all tests in this area.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
/watch?v=pI-7PFN_4wE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Dubious07 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 Eight thousand years of written history in China lacks any record whatsoever of a global flood.
They must have forgotten to write it down.
RFIDemocracy 6 months ago
@RFIDemocracy i keep telling these people that same point , china is not in the year 2000 they didnt even know about jesus until the last 500 years i think lol
/watch?v=pI-7PFN_4wE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
now u can just share this link
Dubious07 6 months ago
@RFIDemocracy how could the chinese have written about the genesis flood if it occurred before their civilisation began?
ferrel81 6 months ago
@ferrel81 The same way we can write about the Roman Empire which occurred before our civilization began.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1 but how can we write about the roman empire? because people who were in the roman empire wrote about it and we can read and recite that knowledge. who was present in the genesis flood? noah and his family. the chinese civilisation descended from this family, as did every other civilisation on earth. as an aside, there are dozens of ancient civilisations who have documented flood accounts of some kind.coincidence?
ferrel81 6 months ago
@ferrel81 The various flood stories from antiquity came through the descendants of Noah and his family. The generations following Noah distorted the original account of the Genesis Flood as it was told from one generation to another. However, if there was no worldwide Genesis Flood, each society invented their own flood stories. The Chinese got their story either as descendants of Noah or as descendants of story tellers.
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
There is no evidence for a world wide flood. Flood myths abound wherever civilisations begin- guess why. Civilisations begin near or on flood plains and/ or rivers.
The physical evidence doesn't exist.
ozowen 6 months ago
@ozowen, There is plenty of evidence that there was a worldwide flood. Leading evolutionary-minded geologists like Derek Ager described continuous widespread sediments covering several continents in his books, and Trevor Palmer, in Controversy, explained how asteroids and meteors crashed into the ocean generated gigantic waves at least 150 times in geologic history, which W.M. Napier calculated to be about 26,000’ high. How would you distinguish between these impacts and the Flood?
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago
@TigeyPuss1
Gee, perhaps the time differences between events would be the major distinction. You have to take the entire science, not choose the bits you like.
ozowen 6 months ago
@ozowen, There are more marine sediments on the continents than land sediments. How did that happen? Ocean crust is denser than the more buoyant continental crust, yet marine sediments make up the vast majority of sediments on the highest mountains. Even in Grand Canyon, thousands of feet above sea level, there are thick layers of sediment containing marine fossils. Are we living at a unique “just so” moment in time when the continents are above sea level and the ocean crust is under water?
TigeyPuss1 6 months ago