speek to a Jehovah witness they'll tell you every thing you just mention it's true satan rule this world talk to a Jehovah witness to get the answer you just said trust me
Even darwin said in a letter before he died....."and it seems that i may have devoted my whole life to a phantasy." 1859. Darwin knew what he believe was a lie. I'm not sure if he repented and excepted Gods gift of pardon, but I do know he was reading Gods Word (Romans) before he died.
How often do people die believing a lie? Lets face it, man isn't as smart as he thinks. God says, your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not my thoughts.
@RolandMaurer No, you're willingly ignorant, or dumb on purpose if you believe mans theory. Btw, it's "you're ignorant", learn how to write a sentence.
So you really think everything happened by chance????? Check the probability, it is too small. If you really look at it, there is no possibility of life.
@rbalebetse Blah blah blah NOT TRUE! If there would be no possibility of life there would be 0 chance, you said the probabilities were too small. It happened.
less than 100 years ago we believed that if u left meat out long enough it would turn into flies.. its called spontaneous regeneration. whos to say all science knows now is wrong as it was back then? truth is we will never rly know. my stance on this is that evolution isnt true.. o and since i have a sense of humor im going to poke fun at this guy.. he says "what about the fish? its not rly clear where the fish managed to survive the flood." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA its a fish. they breathe underwater:P
there's far too much supporting evidence for evolution. the evidence has sunk its teeth in far too deep..there's no way the entire theory will come crashing down. u must remember, it has been gradually constructed one piece of evidence at a time for over 150 years.
@treyshooter94 "less than 100 years ago we believed that if u left meat out long enough it would turn into flies.. "
If by "we" you mean some retarded rednecks that you're related to, then sure "we" believed that, but no serious scientist has believed that since 1668.
"its not rly clear where the fish managed to survive the flood." ... its a fish. they breathe underwater"
Can they breathe dirt? If you dump that much water on land, you turn the world's oceans into one large mud puddle.
@NecessaryTruths Most fish can only live in salt water. Rain is not salty, so having enough rain to cover all the mountains of the earth would greatly dilute the sea water, causing mass extinctions, just 6000 years ago. I think there would have to be masses of evidence for such a theory to be considered by any intelligent person. In addition, we happen to know the flood story in the Bible is not original. There are older similar myths. I suggest you search for Gilgamesh.
@Yusufjarellperry You have not backed a single one of your statements with evidence.
And genetic differences between humans and apes are EXACTLY what evolution explains. Apes branched of from humans, their genetics changed, which is what evolution is about: genetic changes over time. So we can't breed with them. You're just giving evidence for evoltuion, but no evidence to back your claims against evolution.
@Yusufjarellperry Yes that is observed however, you cannot and have not observed the process by which that has occured. Hence your statement on human chromosomes is one that is "after-the-fact", and thus is not observable. Hence it is an assumption.
@Gilbertus1986 Macro evolution occurs very quickly: each generation is an evolution of the previous, that's why your dna is different to that of your parents, why you look different to them; but a big change requirs millenia to occur, we only discovered evolution 200 years ago so we haven't had the time to observe it occuring properly. But 2000 years ago people were considerably shorter than they were today, and the further back you go the shorter they get. Evolution in action? Probably.
@SUPERFEE1000 Macro evolution, has never been observed as such I doubt how you can say it occurs quickly, since it hasn't been observed it is ASSUMED to have happened. As mentioned before assumptions are not science.
Even if it takes millions of years, if evolution was continually occuring then we should expect to see some individuals in some species that is either in the process or near completion of evolving into another species... Like a bell curve in mathematics there are always outliers.
@Yusufjarellperry Is this evidence empiricaly tested and repeatable, SCIENTIFIC evidence or is it historical evidence, (subject to interpretation)... So much for it being a "scientific" theory...
@MIT2004 Or perhaps this animal was a dog in the first place, and just variated into the differing variants of its kind... "breeds".. This goes along with the Flood, and dramatically decreases the amount of animals needed. (I am not religious, however this does make sense).
There is no proof that things change into other species, whereas there is empirical proof that things can variate into different variations / breeds.
The resistance a bacteria can build does NOTHING for evolution. At the end of the day the bacteria left are STILL bacteria, as such no evolution has occured. Unless you want to put a bit of FAITH, in the statement "it takes millions of years".
Furthermore, I wouldn't trust wikipedia as the "be-all-end-all" of knowledge. I had a look and it is FULL of assumption based evidence. Genetic similarities mean nothing, when we share 75% of our DNA with worms..lol. and 50% (though I have been told its more), with Bananas. Embryonic development has been ruled by law to be a fraud, why do they STILL teach this when it is false, (and modern pictures have confirmed this).
@Gilbertus1986 Also, assumption based on evidence is the most reliable way of proving something. EVERY theory, from gravity to evoltuion to spherical Earth, is based on it. And genetic similarities are evidence for evolution, the theory predicts it: if we all share an ancestor, then we would also share it's dna. And bacteria resistance is PROOF of evolution, as it shows the species developing adaptations that help is survive. Bacteria to us took 3.5 billion years, and a hundred million to make
@SUPERFEE1000 Nope, the scientific method begins with observation. NEVER with assuption. Empirical evidience is what makes something scientific, however where is the empirical evidence for evolution? Didn't you read my comments before? Bacterial resistance proves NOTHING for evolution, the bacteria stays a bacteria
@Gilbertus1986 I never said the scientific method begins with assumption, it begins with a hypothesis, an assumption is made based on all the evidence available once the research is complete.
@SUPERFEE1000 Nor did I, (this is you misconstruing my words), I AM stating that you are believing in assumption based "science", that have not been empirically verified.
@SUPERFEE1000 If you really think that SCIENCE is assumpton based then I ask you then why does the scientific method start with an OBSERVATION. Furthermore I ask you to look up the definition of EMPIRICAL. EMPIRICIAL evidence is the basis of all scientific theorys / laws, there is NO denying this.
If all science was assumption based then you will be opening the doors for religion to be scientific, or dreams to be scientific or anything anyone assumes to be scientific. That isn't science.
@Gilbertus1986 Bacterial resistance is evidence for evoltuions. It takes billions of years for bacteria to evolve in to advance creatures but developing resistances is exactly what evolution says will happen, and the bible never does.
@SUPERFEE1000 Bacterial resistance IS NOT EVOLUTION. The bacteria stays the SAME species, as such it hasn't "evolved" into a new species, NO EVOLUTION IS OBSERVED... Seriously read this, and understand. If you think that this is evidence for evolution, then YOU ARE ASSUMING IT IS OCCURING OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS... This method doesn't explain the occurance of NEW features, (like legs on fish)
@Gilbertus1986 the first simple animals (sponge, charnia etc). It is a slow process, it only speeds up once the creatures develop the ability to breed sexually (because this mixes their genes so produces a creature which is already very different to them.
@SUPERFEE1000 What you have said is a FAITH statement, nothing more. Think about these questions for a bit. How does an organism develop the ability to breed sexualy? What sex was the first one? How did it breed without a mate? What is the likelyhood of a male and female of the same species, in the same location at the same time in history? How does random mutations develop the sex organs that fit like a "lock and key"? As you can see from these questions, evolution isn't logical
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution isn't entirely random, if a mutation proves beneficial then it's descendants will continue in the evolutionary direction of the first mutation. We don't know which sex the first of a kind of animal is, and if we did it would still be irrelevant. And if a mutation requires another of the same species to function, it is because they originally met by chance (after millions of years, it's likely two withcorresponding sexual organs will meet) and then their descendants will
@Gilbertus1986 have the same mutations. And sexual organs don't fit like "lock and key", they are imperfect, whch is why vaginas can fit many different shapes and sizes of objects, they can't only be penetrated by a penis. Anyway, enough of that, this is turning into text porn. Evoltuion is a helluva lot ore logical than creationism, that's undeniable.
@SUPERFEE1000 I haven't talked one iota about creationism as such this is completely YOUR strawman. Sexual organs do fit like a "lock and key" and I have had it explained as such by the Biology lecturers at the University I attend. Hence your disbelief is unfounded. Furthermore, think about where it is located and how the 2 operate you'll begin to see the similarities, (yet they came about via a completely random process..rolleyes)
Wikipedia: Evidence of Common Decent. Debunk all the evdence in that article and I'll renounce evolution. Give me some evidence for the Biblical creation story, and I'll become a creationist. Also, Noah's ark is a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Completely ripped it off. Silly cowboy authors.
@SUPERFEE1000 I am agnostic. DNA is information, information comes from evidence, thus a creator, (whichever it is). Fossils show no transitional link, show jumps and periods of statis, must have a line of progression in which all transitions of millions of years can be seen in the fossil record. Systems in Biology that need all parts to function properly before a benefit can be utilised. eg- Human digestion system.
@Gilbertus1986 There are actually transitional fossils; there's a whole wikipedia article on it. But asking for a whole train of fossils showing each stage of a transition is a bit much: finding that is incredibly unlikely, unless we scan the entire Earth's crust, which would be impossible. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that evidence=a creator. Even if by that you mean chance or a big bang, it doesn't equal evidence. Evolution isn't a progression, it's a change. It has no
@SUPERFEE1000 Nope, no transitional fossils. Archeopteryx is a bird, archeoraptor was a fake. Fossils named confuciornus were found within the same strata as archeopteryx, however they resemble MODERN birds.. What transitional forms does wikipedia cite? (wikipedia really isn't the best source of info, look for something more reputatble
@Gilbertus1986 Look at the wikipedia article, there are too many to say at once. And it is actually a pretty good source of info-it's unbiased (unless you go along with conservapedians and say it's full of liberal extremists), you need reliable sources or something will be investigated thoroughly to see if it's true, and saying "anyone can edit wikipedia" is a bad excuse for distrusting it, as anyone can write a book or make a website, but wiki needs experts to write it, or links to them.
@SUPERFEE1000 Wikipedia IS biased if you do not realise this then there is no hope for you. EVERY person is biased, the ONLY thing in the world that is unbiased is the facts. Half of this debate is about how people INTERPRET these facts. Hence rather lapping everything up as if it was the source of al knowledge, its the job of thinking people to take everything on face value and nut out what is real and what is fiction.
@Gilbertus1986 Ultimate purpose, other than to keep the creatures alive. It's simply random mutations with the ones suited to it's environment surviving and becoming dominant. The digestive system may have slowly formed all parts at once, or have formed while our ancestors relied on a different method of feeding. That's why it's scientific: We don't know everything about it, it is falsifiable but if it's true we should, eventually, fill in the holes and it will self-correct, which is happening.
@Gilbertus1986 Ultimate purpose, other than to keep the creatures alive. It's simply random mutations with the ones suited to it's environment surviving and becoming dominant. The digestive system may have slowly formed all parts at once, or have formed while our ancestors relied on a different method of feeding. That's why it's scientific: We don't know everything about it, it is falsifiable but if it's true we should, eventually, fill in the holes and it will self-correct, which is happening.
@Gilbertus1986 Also, thanks for not being like most non-evolutionists and not insulting me and crap like that. Guess that only applies to creationists.
Why do stupid people think Noah had to take adult animals. Don't u think he would have taken small babies? Also it was 2 of each KIND and only animals no insects no marine live
@copenukka yes 100million species. the bible NEVER said get all species. it states get a pair of each KIND of ANIMAL. that does not include insects or water animals. you dont read do you?
@MIT2004 Also these animals can variate into the different breeds we see today, (such as dogs and cats) as such its not millions of animals, just a pair of each kind (as the Bible ACTUALY says)
where's the evolutionary theory in a nut shell ; a bunch of chemicals came together by chance and formed a living breathing creature [ the recipe for life is ] a chance accumlation of cabon , hydrogen , nitogen , and oxygen add a pinch of phosphorus and suffer , let simmer for a billion or two years , repeat if nessessary [ note] if chemicals did act this way it would be called spontaneous generation which is the idea of getting something from nothing ..and there you have it ..
@Zhomitz9229 You havent prevented me w any evidence at all but typical responce you start calling names then start lying.
You claim to be sooooo smart but you dont even understand what thhe word Bye means. Go look in a dictionary read it alot of times then make a flash card and come back and read this again then re read the flash card then repeat until you understand ...............BYE
@coolvideo28 Haha Thanks for letting me win. Reread The four Comments I posted above Your last comment if you know how to read. Once you do that try make it look like god somehow did all that. I watched your videos, it is nothing but proof some random person existed. Anyone that reads this comment that has a brain any bigger than yours (im talking walnut size and up) will see that I legitimatley raped you with information. You are an embarrasssment to the Human race.
@coolvideo28 Here is some more info for you BTW. There are 10,000 species of insects alone on this planet. I am kind of curious how Noah got all of them on a boat. One more thing about his ark. it never mentioned he took horses, which would have been an important animal since they are faster than oxen and are easier to train than camels. Why didnt he take them. Oh yea horses were only native to north America, something the bible again doesn't mention.
@Zhomitz9229 - ever heard of macro- evolution ? species have the ability to change from one form into another but never changing into another species all together , here's the problem with evolutionist , they think there's NO off botton or that there's NO limits to how far a spcies can mutate , tell me how a birds wings can evolve little by little and still the bird doesn't get eaten ?
@fordatude Good Job explain Macro-evolution (not sure how that means evolution is wrong). Here is the thing micro evolutions make up macro evolutions. You cant become another species with micro evolutions only macros. This is why Primates and Humans are not the same species although they come from the same evolutionary path. Your question is worded weird but i will try to answer it the best I can. Birds wings change little because they don't want to be eaten. Evolution takes place
@Zhomitz9229 because an organism needs to adapt to its environment which includes predators, prey, climate, etc. You have it backwards, they don't adapt after they evolve they evolve so they can adapt. Its not a question of why don't they get eaten after evolution it, it is a question of what was trying to eat them that made them evolve. I hope this answers your question.
@Zhomitz9229 - dude that doesn't make since , every species has everything it needs to survive when it is born , every living thing already has a purpose in its environment , if that balance is disturb you will have more species in nature than othere's , a bird has everything it need's in order to survive ; so there's no need to evolve .
@fordatude I don't want to have to explain evolution for you but if I have to i will. Here is a quick summary. Species do have everything they need to survive, because of evolution. There is never balance, the slightest climate change will bring on microevolution. Ex. the average temperature in northpole decreases 5 degrees, Bears fur will be thicker. Why? Because when a bear is born with thicker fur it has the ability 2 live longer under these conditions producing more offspring with thick fur.
@Zhomitz9229 - oh thank you for the lesson on what you think evolution is , but i really dont need you to explain it to me WHY because i've already stated that there are changes in species depending on there environment which can trigger micro-evolution , BUT micro-evolution is NOT macro-evolution , tell me why you think there is a need for a species to change from one to another ; example dog into cat ?
@gamesbok - your and idiot , evolutionist are the one's that made the claim that one species can turn into another species , what's the matter don't you know anything about evolution ? you are a evolutionist right ?
@fordatude Under no circumstances would Evolution permit a cat to turn into a dog, as they are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, although it would predict specication of cats. You remain ignorant and stupid.
@gamesbok - thanks for proving one thing for me and that is if you ask 10 evolutionist to explain evolution you would get 10 different answer's .. keep on believing in the evolutionary pipe dream ..
@fordatude Care to provide some examples of these 10 different explainations? Perhaps it's your lack of facility with the English language, your failure to understand the difference between 'another species' and 'a different species'. If I can tempt you out of the utterly superficial and dismissive world you appear to inhabit, perhaps I can persuade you to explain what you think might be the limits to micro-evolution, and why you think it cannot become macro-evolution?
@gamesbok - the theory of evolution is always changing , everytime a so call fact of evolution is examined it turns out to be a bogus [ hoax ] here's a question for you ..do you believe that mankind is he only power in the universe ? that there's NOTHING better than man . i mean really when you look at our earth , our sun and moon , our universe , do you really think its all a accident ?
@gamesbok - you mean the kind of magic you believe in .. where DNA , proteins , atoms , H2o , somehow just put themselves together to form a living creature ? where a universe just popped into existence from nothing ? i quess in your reality you can just make things up and expect people to believe it .
@fordatude You seemed to have introduced Cosmology there, for reasons best known to yourself. The origins of DNA have been well understood for 50 years.
Oro J 1961. Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions. Nature 191:1193–1194 [PubMed]
@gamesbok -many geologists claim that radiometric '' clocks '' show rocks to be millions of years old . however , to read any clock accurately we must know where the clock was set at the beginning . its like making sure that an hourglass clock was set with all the sand in the top bowl at the beginning . however , no geologists were present when the earth and its many rock layers were formed , so they cannot know where the radiometric clocks were set at the beginning . would you agree with this ?
@fordatude Unfortunately for you the promlems with radiometric dating, as you suggest, are well understood, and the theory behind method is sound. The initial conditions, the chemestry behind the 'setting' of the atomic clocks is understood., and the correlation of the 47 different methods is very, very good.
There are problems, such as the different carbon metabolism of different species is a complication for C14, but it's never used for marine species or mollusks. The scientists are ahead.
@gamesbok - when scientist date rocks , they don't actually observed the atoms changing . they measure the products of change , which they assume took place in the very distant past . assumption # 1-the original number of unstable atoms [ uranium ] in rocks is not known . scientist can measure only how many unstable and stable atoms [ lead ] remains in a rock , assumption # 2 plus they don't know how quickly unstable atoms decayed in the past . they assume they decayed slowly like they do today
@fordatude Wow, you've totally undermined radiometric dating. Nobody has ever considered these points before, and nobody in the entire scientific community ever spotted these obvious flaws. Everyone since Rutherford transpartently head their heads up their asses. Your Nobel Prize is in the post.
@fordatude No, I believe they were formed by gravity. Also, only a few fossil claims are bogus. What does it matter though? You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make them think.
@gamingsoul11 -whatz only a few bogus claims 2 , 4 , 7 ??? i can name alot more than that , it pains me how evolutionist only look at the evidence they want to see and dis-regard the rest .. come on man all you got is hypothesis and hypothesis are a dime a dozen ..you evolutionist think life has no meaning , no reason to live , life is just an illusion , WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN THAT ?
@fordatude No rational person (those who know evolution is a fact) believes that. You also said I "disregard the rest (evidence)." I dare you to bring forth evidence against evolution that can't be intellectually torn apart. The only reason bogus claims get out is because the media is irresponsible.
@gamingsoul11 - the oldest rocks [ pre-cambrian ] contains numerous ''fully developed complex invertebrates , the sudden appearence of life is a blow to the theory of evolution ..
@fordatude I might see what you mean by "sudden appearance of life." Sometimes, evolution can occur in sudden spurts. I can't remember the name for it right now. It's still far from a blow to evolution.
@gamingsoul11 - can a car put itself together NO , life just doesn't appear suddenly out of nowhere without help ..is it really that hard to believe in GOD ? man has dominion over all living creatures just like the bible says , on the science side of things i dont believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old because the liquid iron core doesn't last that long ..
@fordatude There are sudden periods of evolution but life doesn't come out of nowhere. If you are confused on anything else relating to evolution, try talkorigins(dot)org. They have more info compiled than I can remember.
@humansaretheworld --maybe you can explain to all the folks out there HOW the forces of nature can design , assemble , maintain ? second; what are you talking about when you say that GOD is a concept ? until science can explain how life really came to be the book of genesis still stands...
@humansaretheworld --i'm not sure i understand what your saying BUT i think that you think GOD needs to explain creation in full detail in order for you to understand ..you said the forces of nature are complex ..i say creation is also complex ..physics & bio-chemisty are just tools we use to try to understand the universe and how life on this planet is even possible..genesis still stands..
@humansaretheworld ---there are also lots of storys concerning the flood of noah in many different countrys dating back years moses before moses wrote it down in genesis ..also science has confirmed back in the 50's that ,time,space.and matter is a reality just like it says in gen 1......
@coolvideo28 More info: It is predominant in the christian religion that god hates gays and he didnt make them gay because they chose it. Only problem is that scientists have found the part of the genome that determines sexuality and are doing tests to determine what is doen to it to make a person attracted to the same sex (something you probably hide deep down in side). God supposedly is the only one to create life, and yet we have cloned hundreds of animals and are closing to making our own.
@coolvideo28 Scientists have even brought back extinct animals by splicing genes and breeding animals together. Ligers a mystical creature from Napolean Dynamite, have actually been bred in captivity. I am actualy enjoying this that I have now posted 8 times with different evidence and you are just ignoring it. Whats it like being a complete numskull.
@coolvideo28 How about this one, Time Dialation, Yes we can possibly travel to the future by traveling fast enough and far enough from a gravitational force. Tests have shown that identical stopwatches started at exact same time, read differently when one was put in a jet plane. Essentially the pilot expirienced 10 seconds of time while people on lad expirienced 11 therefore traveling 1 second into future. If we can trave there we can see the future, something only god was supposed to be able to
@coolvideo28 Have you had enough yet, Here I will give you a pice of evidence similar to yours. I found a pice of paper in my back yard that said kinkos, therefore kinkos exists, which means god exists (laughs at shroud "evidence"). Pretty easy concept to understand, If the shroud actually proved God then there wouldn't be evolution taught in schools, we would just sit and pray for info. Since we don't do that it obviously proved nothing but the existence of jesus.
@Zhomitz9229 Typical response You cant handle the Truth so you start calling people names its realy sad and your true colors come shining through your not interested in the Truth your interested in believing what you want to no matter how rediculous it is. and if anyone shows you the Truth you attack them wow just wow bye
@coolvideo28 Carbon Dating has proved that the earth is over 6000 years old. Bible said earth revolves around the sun, it doesn't. Evolution has been proven many times, so much that the pope accepted it as truth, there are billions of galaxies other than the milky way. You would think that if God created all those there is bound to be life other than us just because it is improbable that there isn't, yet he never mentions it to the ones who wrote the bible.
@coolvideo28 In the bible North America isn't mentioned once, but i guess that wasn't important enough for god to tell anyone. adam and Eve could not have populated the entire earth because it has been proven through gene studies and experiments that brothers and sisters reproducing will have offspring with serious health defects. After 4 generations of imbreding the human race would have died. Also the egyptian prophet osiris was born 1000 years before christ, OF A VIRGIN, then died and rezzed
@coolvideo28 but before that heal spent his time healing the sick and blind, and even spent time in the dessert a faced many temptations. If God is so powerful why did he spend 6 days creating the earth, he easily could have made it in one or even 1 min. Marry could have never given birth without being impregnated since no human can be born without a chromosome from the father whether it is an x or a y. So unless God gave a chromosome I highly doubt she reproduced asexually.
@coolvideo28 We share a more than 50% of our genome with Bannanas which leads to the idea that we came from the same single cell organism but over billions of years of point mutation in our genome, we turned to humans while bananas went in a different direction. Actually every living think on this planet is made of the same DNA base pairs which really leads to the fact we came from the same thing.
@Zhomitz9229 Yes we have a common Designer how do you miss this? because you try purposfly too. You dont believe evolution you just dont want to serve God who you believe in so when you hear the Truth about God you get hostile its kindof funny watching you throw a tempurtantrum pothetic but funny. God explains it took 6 days so His people wouldnt fall for scams like evolution like you have. You have given me no evidence just insults U say U R so smart so lets try this again Bye
@BT3701 Most fish die when the saline level of the water changes. A deluge of fresh water rain, enough to flood the world above the highest mountain peak, would have created a brackish mixture that would have killed most marine life. Was the rain salt water? If it was, how did all the fresh water fish survive the salt water flood? How did the freshwater fish all get back into the correct lakes and rivers all over the world? Stop and think. Your taking a bronze age myth to be literally true.
@BT3701 If you mean the laws of nature, then yes, the earth has always existed under the same conditions. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood. There is no evidence that the laws of nature suddenly changed, or were suspended for a year so you can believe Genesis is literal.
@ebullock43 The only way anyone can say there is no evidence for a world wide flood is if they are to ignore the evidence. The fossil record alone supports the Noahic Flood. Clam fossils found at the top of mountains are just one of many evidences. Clams don't climb mountains.
@BT3701 Clams don't climb mountains, but mountains rise out of the sea. Fossils require being quickly buried under certain conditions. A clam left on a mountain by a receding flood would quickly decay and leave no trace. Besides, fossilization requires much longer than 4k years. The fossils you're talking about originated from the sea floor, were fossilized, then rose as plate tectonics pushed a new mountain range up out of the sea.
What other evidence do you have for this world-wide flood?
@ebullock43 Actually it was a combination of mountains rising combined with sediment from the upheaval of floodwaters which exceded the mountain heights which buried some clams under the sediment on top the rising mountains where they fossilized. As part of the evidence of the Flood, we would expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime. And that’s exactly what we find.
@BT3701 Name one fossil that is fossilized in sand, mud, and lime that is in a mountain that isn't a sea animal. Once you do i have an explanation for you, animal got caught in a flash flood near a river bed, (not a world ending one like noah expirienced). Once fossilized plate tectonics then formed a mountain in that spot.
@BT3701 Clams don't fossilize on top of mountains and it takes much longer than 4k years. We do see fossil animals and plants in rock layers all over the world -- all neatly laid down in the order they evolved through the geological ages. If there had been a world-wide flood that caused ALL the fossils we would expect to see everything mixed together; Cambrian creatures mixed with dinosaurs mixed with modern birds, and mammals. Are there any bunny fossils in the Cambrian?
@BT3701 Sand, mud and lime do no turn to stone in a mere 4k years. It takes much, much longer. Sediments left on a mountain by a flood would have been quickly eroded away before turning to stone, let alone any clams buried in them could be fossilized. I don't think you understand what fossils actually are, or how they are created.
What other "evidence" do you have for this world-wide flood?
@BT3701 I have a question about this supposed world-wide flood. Where did the water to flood the earth above the highest mountain peak come from? Where did it go to?
@BT3701 Its called Plate Tectonics, the same thing that causes earthquakes can also form mountains over long periods of time. I will say that you are correct that fossils don't move, they don't "move" to the mountains the mountains come to them.
@BT3701 One more thing. Do you know how rain works, rain happens due to evaporated water from the ocean rising to the upper atmosphere (warm air rises). once in the colder troposphere the water vapor then condenses and turns into a liquid. As a liquid the forces of gravity cause it to fall to the earth. With this explanation explain to me How all this water started to flood the earth. All the water would first have to evaporate.
@Zhomitz9229 Once again you wrongly assume that the pre-flood world was the same as today's world. A common mistake. According to the Bible two sources of water were used to bring about a global flood. Those two sources are mentioned in Genesis 7:11 as follows; In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened up.
@BT3701 Last time I checked the bible wasn't considered an accurate historical reference. Floods no matter how "holy" or whatever can change Natural laws of science. The earth has a molten core with a crust on the outside causing plate shifting. You can't win arguments with the bible because it is not an accurate source of literature. Thanks for the laugh though. So eliminating the bible it is obvious there couldn't possibly been a flood of that magnitude.
@BT3701 Great response. A response like that only means one thing. You have no real response. That's like a creationist saying "I will pray for you" when they really mean "i hate you for making me look like an ass". When you have proof the bible is accurate then you can come back but until then, "in time you will understand" that you have been lied to your whole life.
@Zhomitz9229 A more accurate statement would be, no evidence I might provide would ever convince you since your pride wouldn't allow you to accept the fact that what you currently believe concerning this might possibly be false. BTW I too once believed as you now do.
@BT3701 Evidence? When did you have any evidence. For future reference you should realize that evidence cannot be derived from a fictional piece of literature. Never once did I bring up Lord of the Rings in order to prove something, therefore you can't bring up the bible because it has no citations for where this info came from other than a few random people who only give their first name. How many people do you think were named John? Seriously.
@BT3701 It's not pride keeping me from believing it its the fact that it is false. Creationists have the bigger fear. If it turns out I'm wrong "oh well" but if you are wrong then you lived a lie your ENTIRE life and you don't want that to be true. "BTW I too once believed as you do now" Like I never heard that from a creationist. What is that supposed to make me do "Oh well this guy use to be an atheist but obviously something changed him, so I must be wrong". You are a creationist drone
@BT3701 And any sort of "evidence" you may have brought to the table (you didn't but I will humor you) I completely refuted and gave a more reasonable ( and true) explanation. Go look up what evidence actually is and then you can try and give me it in an orderly manner. "Arguing with creationists is like, going against a defense attorney who uses pictures, drawn by his 5 year old son, as evidence against a murder".
@BT3701 Considering I probably won't a reply or it will be one of those "You are Naive, I will pray for you but I am done arguing" responses, I am just going to go ahead and accept the trophy for Taking evolution and sexually violating you with it.
@Zhomitz9229 Nice. And that comes from the person who said "Every creationist uses insult tactics" Looks like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.
@Zhomitz9229 "To maintain my atheism, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything, that non-life produces life, that randomness produces fine-tuning, that chaos produces information, that unconsciousness produces consciousness, and that non-reason produces reason. And frankly, I just didn't have enough faith to continue to believe that." - In Quoting Ex-atheist Lee Strobel
@BT3701 Ouch. That really hurt my argument. Oh wait no it didn't. See here's the thing, just because someone with a degree in law at Yale (anyone can get a degree in Law its not that hard) said something doesn't make it a valid argument. You would think someone who studied to be a lawyer would realize that both sides of the argument need to be analyzed, but again most lawyers are crooks or scammers anyways so its not unexpected.
@BT3701 But back to the actual statement. Atheism- Belief that Nothing produces everything. How is that more unbelievable than A man you cant see who was CREATED FROM NOTHING who is all knowing and powerful created everything in the universe. Same thing but ours doesn't involve a man it involves extremely in depth theories involving real things like antimatter, and dark matter, etc. Non life does produce life ( we are all made up of proteins which are not living organisms)
@BT3701 Randomness, there isn't randomness, there are plenty of books out there that can use mathematical equations to predict when randomness will happen and what it will do, essentially removing the factor of random. I'm not sure the name of the book but it has Chaos theory in the title. Unconsciousness produces consciousness, not sure what he means by that. Reason produces reason. I wouldn't expect a lawyer to fully understand the science behind what an atheist believes but whatever.
@BT3701 So instead of being atheist he would rather believe in someone who impregnated a woman without touching her, told Christians to kill thousands of non believers (christian crusades), and set up a church where its OK for a priest to molest a child, had a son (we are all his children) who killed millions of jews (hitler), and will burn you in hell for eternity if you dont believe in him (selfish a trait gods shouldnt show). Well I guess its his life.
@BT3701 So under the surface of the earth there were water reserves exceeding by several times all the oceans on the surface? And at God's command it all magically came out of the earth? You've never told us where the water went to after the flood, but I'm guessing that perhaps you think it all trickled back down into its underground storage? And you must have an explanation about why scientists don't find this underground ocean that is several time bigger than all the surface oceans combined?
@ebullock43 The flood waters receded into what we call oceans. But once again in your view, you must believe the pre-flood world was the same as the world you see today. Truth is, it was totally different than the world we see today.
@BT3701 there has always been a land mass on earth, and oceans. Until you can prove this wrong (without using the bible because I dont use the movie Waterworld in order to explain how the world is made of 100% water) then it is not possible for a flood of that magnitude to occur without sufficient evidence, like Every living creature on earth being a marine creature.
@ebullock43 The pre-flood world is believed to have had more land mass above water, and the oceans were smaller before the Noahic flood. That's why there is oil below the ocean floor which is created by vegetation and animals that once existed where there is water today.
@BT3701 So you believe the earth surface was much drier before this supposed flood. Then God caused water to come from above and below for a world-wide flood, then the flood waters receded into today's oceans? Wouldn't those oceans already be filled with flood waters? Why do you believe that? What evidence led you to that conclusion? I'm pretty sure it takes a lot longer than 4000 years for animal and plant material to turn into petroleum. This still doesn't explain where all the water went.
@ebullock43 Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (receded) (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9). They are the same waters of the Noahic flood!
@BT3701 I have to give it to you, I didn't think you could come up with an answer. Unfortunately, it does not match the geological evidence. But I guess it's a good enough answer to sustain your beliefs.
@ebullock43 It's merely a matter of how you interpret the evidence. Either way the Bible is never mistaken. Some of us already know that. Others will have to wait to realize it.
@BT3701 We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think the Bible is mistaken about a great many things. The earth doesn't rest on pillars, for instance. Disease isn't caused by demons, Rape, genocide and slavery are all immoral. The creation of the universe and the earth and the rise of life on earth was nothing like the descriptions in Genesis. Many of us have known that for a long time. Others are afraid they will go to hell if they question their beliefs, or admit doubts.
Every creationist uses the tactic of insult. Notice how he had to bring up that most civilized humans would take offense to being called a monkey as if to persuade you that evolution is fake because Darwin was just insulting the human Species. Using that logic then by saying people don't like to be called pricks means that it is impossible for a human to be a prick because they don't exist.
@Zhomitz9229 Untrue. Your generalizations of creationist's are unfounded. Not EVERY creationist uses insult tactics. Secondly, are you implying or insinuating that many evolutionists and atheists are never found guilty of insulting those whom they disagree with? If you reply yes then that would mean you're a liar.
@BT3701 I can Generalize. You see, not all Nazi's were evil people, but we still call them evil, that is generalizing. Of course not all creationists use insults in their arguments, but a lot of them do. The fact is majority of creationists are less educated in the fields of natural (actual) science, than atheists are. They are educated when it comes to the bible but that is extremley outdated. Plus they let their emotions get the best of them, if they cant prove you wrong it frustrates them.
@Zhomitz9229 Not frustrated, Just convinced that no amount of evidence would convince you. Therefore, no amount of arguing is about to change your mind.
A person who dont know a fish isnt bothered by a flood,isnt going to change my mind,also shovels have been around as long as man made holes,which was before the flood.
speek to a Jehovah witness they'll tell you every thing you just mention it's true satan rule this world talk to a Jehovah witness to get the answer you just said trust me
MyKelvin15 5 days ago
Evolution needs more guys like this to help it's cause! Poor soul - two peas rattling around inside his head... or maybe just one.
jbooks888 3 weeks ago
There is just too much evidence for evolution to denie.
The recent development of genetics could have proved evolution wrong, but it didn't.
Genetics turned out to be the ultimate proof.
Why don't Genesis believers start with something simple, like proving that it's a lie that the Earth rotates around the sun...
drijfkip1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS ADMITS TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
SEARCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
VIEW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
WATCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
KNOW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
SHARE: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
Dawkins: Civilisation with high level of technology from elsewhere in universe seeded self replicating molecules on this planet?
mat2112moneychangers 1 month ago
Even darwin said in a letter before he died....."and it seems that i may have devoted my whole life to a phantasy." 1859. Darwin knew what he believe was a lie. I'm not sure if he repented and excepted Gods gift of pardon, but I do know he was reading Gods Word (Romans) before he died.
How often do people die believing a lie? Lets face it, man isn't as smart as he thinks. God says, your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not my thoughts.
Evolution is the lie that's been proven absurd.
Ezekielthirtyeight 2 months ago
@Ezekielthirtyeight -- you ignorant...
RolandMaurer 1 month ago
@RolandMaurer No, you're willingly ignorant, or dumb on purpose if you believe mans theory. Btw, it's "you're ignorant", learn how to write a sentence.
Ezekielthirtyeight 1 month ago
@Ezekielthirtyeight "How often do people die believing a lie?"
You can calculate that for the USA.
About 2.5million die each year, of wich about 80% is religious. So that's at least 2 million a year.
drijfkip1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ezekielthirtyeight "Evolution is the lie that's been proven absurd." stick this back up your arse
VarykGerai 3 weeks ago
Charles Darwin > God
Richard Dawkins > Jesus Christ
conspiracytards 7 months ago 4
So you really think everything happened by chance????? Check the probability, it is too small. If you really look at it, there is no possibility of life.
rbalebetse 9 months ago
@rbalebetse Blah blah blah NOT TRUE! If there would be no possibility of life there would be 0 chance, you said the probabilities were too small. It happened.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@rbalebetse By the same argument, there is no possibility of God !
tedgrant2 4 months ago
THUMBS UP
V V V V V V V V
treyshooter94 11 months ago
less than 100 years ago we believed that if u left meat out long enough it would turn into flies.. its called spontaneous regeneration. whos to say all science knows now is wrong as it was back then? truth is we will never rly know. my stance on this is that evolution isnt true.. o and since i have a sense of humor im going to poke fun at this guy.. he says "what about the fish? its not rly clear where the fish managed to survive the flood." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA its a fish. they breathe underwater:P
treyshooter94 11 months ago
@treyshooter94
there's far too much supporting evidence for evolution. the evidence has sunk its teeth in far too deep..there's no way the entire theory will come crashing down. u must remember, it has been gradually constructed one piece of evidence at a time for over 150 years.
itzahazylife 11 months ago
@treyshooter94 "less than 100 years ago we believed that if u left meat out long enough it would turn into flies.. "
If by "we" you mean some retarded rednecks that you're related to, then sure "we" believed that, but no serious scientist has believed that since 1668.
"its not rly clear where the fish managed to survive the flood." ... its a fish. they breathe underwater"
Can they breathe dirt? If you dump that much water on land, you turn the world's oceans into one large mud puddle.
NecessaryTruths 6 months ago
@NecessaryTruths Most fish can only live in salt water. Rain is not salty, so having enough rain to cover all the mountains of the earth would greatly dilute the sea water, causing mass extinctions, just 6000 years ago. I think there would have to be masses of evidence for such a theory to be considered by any intelligent person. In addition, we happen to know the flood story in the Bible is not original. There are older similar myths. I suggest you search for Gilgamesh.
tedgrant2 4 months ago
@Yusufjarellperry You have not backed a single one of your statements with evidence.
And genetic differences between humans and apes are EXACTLY what evolution explains. Apes branched of from humans, their genetics changed, which is what evolution is about: genetic changes over time. So we can't breed with them. You're just giving evidence for evoltuion, but no evidence to back your claims against evolution.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@Yusufjarellperry Yes that is observed however, you cannot and have not observed the process by which that has occured. Hence your statement on human chromosomes is one that is "after-the-fact", and thus is not observable. Hence it is an assumption.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Yusufjarellperry At least you admit its macro evolution :D :D
Now has ANYONE ever observed macro evolution? (Observations are key to the scientific method)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Macro evolution occurs very quickly: each generation is an evolution of the previous, that's why your dna is different to that of your parents, why you look different to them; but a big change requirs millenia to occur, we only discovered evolution 200 years ago so we haven't had the time to observe it occuring properly. But 2000 years ago people were considerably shorter than they were today, and the further back you go the shorter they get. Evolution in action? Probably.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Macro evolution, has never been observed as such I doubt how you can say it occurs quickly, since it hasn't been observed it is ASSUMED to have happened. As mentioned before assumptions are not science.
Even if it takes millions of years, if evolution was continually occuring then we should expect to see some individuals in some species that is either in the process or near completion of evolving into another species... Like a bell curve in mathematics there are always outliers.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Yusufjarellperry Is this evidence empiricaly tested and repeatable, SCIENTIFIC evidence or is it historical evidence, (subject to interpretation)... So much for it being a "scientific" theory...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Yusufjarellperry What evidence do you have for your claims? (apart from having you say its true).
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@MIT2004 Or perhaps this animal was a dog in the first place, and just variated into the differing variants of its kind... "breeds".. This goes along with the Flood, and dramatically decreases the amount of animals needed. (I am not religious, however this does make sense).
There is no proof that things change into other species, whereas there is empirical proof that things can variate into different variations / breeds.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 that is true. he have not seen a fish turn into a human. you should see how a mathematician disproof evolution
MIT2004 1 year ago
@MIT2004 Yup, have seen it in 2 ways :D
Abiogenesis - specific protein formation in nature, if it doesn't get oxidised first
Mutation rate- a little too confusing for me, I prefer Biology, not maths lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Yusufjarellperry where did i give the impression that i do not believe in GOD? i do believe in him
MIT2004 1 year ago
The resistance a bacteria can build does NOTHING for evolution. At the end of the day the bacteria left are STILL bacteria, as such no evolution has occured. Unless you want to put a bit of FAITH, in the statement "it takes millions of years".
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Furthermore, I wouldn't trust wikipedia as the "be-all-end-all" of knowledge. I had a look and it is FULL of assumption based evidence. Genetic similarities mean nothing, when we share 75% of our DNA with worms..lol. and 50% (though I have been told its more), with Bananas. Embryonic development has been ruled by law to be a fraud, why do they STILL teach this when it is false, (and modern pictures have confirmed this).
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Also, assumption based on evidence is the most reliable way of proving something. EVERY theory, from gravity to evoltuion to spherical Earth, is based on it. And genetic similarities are evidence for evolution, the theory predicts it: if we all share an ancestor, then we would also share it's dna. And bacteria resistance is PROOF of evolution, as it shows the species developing adaptations that help is survive. Bacteria to us took 3.5 billion years, and a hundred million to make
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Nope, the scientific method begins with observation. NEVER with assuption. Empirical evidience is what makes something scientific, however where is the empirical evidence for evolution? Didn't you read my comments before? Bacterial resistance proves NOTHING for evolution, the bacteria stays a bacteria
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I never said the scientific method begins with assumption, it begins with a hypothesis, an assumption is made based on all the evidence available once the research is complete.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Nor did I, (this is you misconstruing my words), I AM stating that you are believing in assumption based "science", that have not been empirically verified.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 All science is assumption-based, you get all the evidence for something, examine it and assume that it points to this happening.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 If you really think that SCIENCE is assumpton based then I ask you then why does the scientific method start with an OBSERVATION. Furthermore I ask you to look up the definition of EMPIRICAL. EMPIRICIAL evidence is the basis of all scientific theorys / laws, there is NO denying this.
If all science was assumption based then you will be opening the doors for religion to be scientific, or dreams to be scientific or anything anyone assumes to be scientific. That isn't science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Bacterial resistance is evidence for evoltuions. It takes billions of years for bacteria to evolve in to advance creatures but developing resistances is exactly what evolution says will happen, and the bible never does.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Bacterial resistance IS NOT EVOLUTION. The bacteria stays the SAME species, as such it hasn't "evolved" into a new species, NO EVOLUTION IS OBSERVED... Seriously read this, and understand. If you think that this is evidence for evolution, then YOU ARE ASSUMING IT IS OCCURING OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS... This method doesn't explain the occurance of NEW features, (like legs on fish)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 the first simple animals (sponge, charnia etc). It is a slow process, it only speeds up once the creatures develop the ability to breed sexually (because this mixes their genes so produces a creature which is already very different to them.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 What you have said is a FAITH statement, nothing more. Think about these questions for a bit. How does an organism develop the ability to breed sexualy? What sex was the first one? How did it breed without a mate? What is the likelyhood of a male and female of the same species, in the same location at the same time in history? How does random mutations develop the sex organs that fit like a "lock and key"? As you can see from these questions, evolution isn't logical
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution isn't entirely random, if a mutation proves beneficial then it's descendants will continue in the evolutionary direction of the first mutation. We don't know which sex the first of a kind of animal is, and if we did it would still be irrelevant. And if a mutation requires another of the same species to function, it is because they originally met by chance (after millions of years, it's likely two withcorresponding sexual organs will meet) and then their descendants will
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Evolution is driven by RANDOM mutations... Yes evolution is RANDOM
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 are you a retard?
diabolomanpaino 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 have the same mutations. And sexual organs don't fit like "lock and key", they are imperfect, whch is why vaginas can fit many different shapes and sizes of objects, they can't only be penetrated by a penis. Anyway, enough of that, this is turning into text porn. Evoltuion is a helluva lot ore logical than creationism, that's undeniable.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 I haven't talked one iota about creationism as such this is completely YOUR strawman. Sexual organs do fit like a "lock and key" and I have had it explained as such by the Biology lecturers at the University I attend. Hence your disbelief is unfounded. Furthermore, think about where it is located and how the 2 operate you'll begin to see the similarities, (yet they came about via a completely random process..rolleyes)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
F50Italia 1 year ago
hope you're joking dude, for the sake of humanity - if not; you must be the missing link!
LOoLinc 1 year ago
"What about the fish? It's not really clear whether the fish managed to survive the flood."
Lmao You're a funny character.
FICGOTSWAG 1 year ago
Creationists crack me up.
Wikipedia: Evidence of Common Decent. Debunk all the evdence in that article and I'll renounce evolution. Give me some evidence for the Biblical creation story, and I'll become a creationist. Also, Noah's ark is a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Completely ripped it off. Silly cowboy authors.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 I am agnostic. DNA is information, information comes from evidence, thus a creator, (whichever it is). Fossils show no transitional link, show jumps and periods of statis, must have a line of progression in which all transitions of millions of years can be seen in the fossil record. Systems in Biology that need all parts to function properly before a benefit can be utilised. eg- Human digestion system.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 There are actually transitional fossils; there's a whole wikipedia article on it. But asking for a whole train of fossils showing each stage of a transition is a bit much: finding that is incredibly unlikely, unless we scan the entire Earth's crust, which would be impossible. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that evidence=a creator. Even if by that you mean chance or a big bang, it doesn't equal evidence. Evolution isn't a progression, it's a change. It has no
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Nope, no transitional fossils. Archeopteryx is a bird, archeoraptor was a fake. Fossils named confuciornus were found within the same strata as archeopteryx, however they resemble MODERN birds.. What transitional forms does wikipedia cite? (wikipedia really isn't the best source of info, look for something more reputatble
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Look at the wikipedia article, there are too many to say at once. And it is actually a pretty good source of info-it's unbiased (unless you go along with conservapedians and say it's full of liberal extremists), you need reliable sources or something will be investigated thoroughly to see if it's true, and saying "anyone can edit wikipedia" is a bad excuse for distrusting it, as anyone can write a book or make a website, but wiki needs experts to write it, or links to them.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Wikipedia IS biased if you do not realise this then there is no hope for you. EVERY person is biased, the ONLY thing in the world that is unbiased is the facts. Half of this debate is about how people INTERPRET these facts. Hence rather lapping everything up as if it was the source of al knowledge, its the job of thinking people to take everything on face value and nut out what is real and what is fiction.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Everyone is biased, so there's no point trusting anything? That's what it sounds like you're saying to me.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@SUPERFEE1000 Yes thats it... Science shouldn't be biased, people are. However FACTS are not biased, yet peoples interpretations of them are.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Ultimate purpose, other than to keep the creatures alive. It's simply random mutations with the ones suited to it's environment surviving and becoming dominant. The digestive system may have slowly formed all parts at once, or have formed while our ancestors relied on a different method of feeding. That's why it's scientific: We don't know everything about it, it is falsifiable but if it's true we should, eventually, fill in the holes and it will self-correct, which is happening.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Ultimate purpose, other than to keep the creatures alive. It's simply random mutations with the ones suited to it's environment surviving and becoming dominant. The digestive system may have slowly formed all parts at once, or have formed while our ancestors relied on a different method of feeding. That's why it's scientific: We don't know everything about it, it is falsifiable but if it's true we should, eventually, fill in the holes and it will self-correct, which is happening.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Also, thanks for not being like most non-evolutionists and not insulting me and crap like that. Guess that only applies to creationists.
SUPERFEE1000 1 year ago
Why do stupid people think Noah had to take adult animals. Don't u think he would have taken small babies? Also it was 2 of each KIND and only animals no insects no marine live
MIT2004 1 year ago
@MIT2004 there are over 100 million species of animals on this planet.... one guy who built one boat.... absolutely no way in hell
copenukka 1 year ago
@copenukka yes 100million species. the bible NEVER said get all species. it states get a pair of each KIND of ANIMAL. that does not include insects or water animals. you dont read do you?
MIT2004 1 year ago
@copenukka And that includes many kinds of animals that eat other animals and nothing else. How did Noah cope with that problem - ?
tedgrant2 4 months ago
@MIT2004 Also these animals can variate into the different breeds we see today, (such as dogs and cats) as such its not millions of animals, just a pair of each kind (as the Bible ACTUALY says)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Sometimes 7 of each kind also ! (or is it 14, as some people guess)
tedgrant2 4 months ago
@tedgrant2 I wouldn't know, never read that part of the Bible.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago 2
where's the evolutionary theory in a nut shell ; a bunch of chemicals came together by chance and formed a living breathing creature [ the recipe for life is ] a chance accumlation of cabon , hydrogen , nitogen , and oxygen add a pinch of phosphorus and suffer , let simmer for a billion or two years , repeat if nessessary [ note] if chemicals did act this way it would be called spontaneous generation which is the idea of getting something from nothing ..and there you have it ..
fordatude 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 For the Record I gave you more proof then you can handle but you are too scared to go watch my favorited videos
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 I guess you gave up, thats ok its good to no when to give up i guess.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 You havent prevented me w any evidence at all but typical responce you start calling names then start lying.
You claim to be sooooo smart but you dont even understand what thhe word Bye means. Go look in a dictionary read it alot of times then make a flash card and come back and read this again then re read the flash card then repeat until you understand ...............BYE
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 Haha Thanks for letting me win. Reread The four Comments I posted above Your last comment if you know how to read. Once you do that try make it look like god somehow did all that. I watched your videos, it is nothing but proof some random person existed. Anyone that reads this comment that has a brain any bigger than yours (im talking walnut size and up) will see that I legitimatley raped you with information. You are an embarrasssment to the Human race.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 Here is some more info for you BTW. There are 10,000 species of insects alone on this planet. I am kind of curious how Noah got all of them on a boat. One more thing about his ark. it never mentioned he took horses, which would have been an important animal since they are faster than oxen and are easier to train than camels. Why didnt he take them. Oh yea horses were only native to north America, something the bible again doesn't mention.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 - ever heard of macro- evolution ? species have the ability to change from one form into another but never changing into another species all together , here's the problem with evolutionist , they think there's NO off botton or that there's NO limits to how far a spcies can mutate , tell me how a birds wings can evolve little by little and still the bird doesn't get eaten ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Good Job explain Macro-evolution (not sure how that means evolution is wrong). Here is the thing micro evolutions make up macro evolutions. You cant become another species with micro evolutions only macros. This is why Primates and Humans are not the same species although they come from the same evolutionary path. Your question is worded weird but i will try to answer it the best I can. Birds wings change little because they don't want to be eaten. Evolution takes place
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 because an organism needs to adapt to its environment which includes predators, prey, climate, etc. You have it backwards, they don't adapt after they evolve they evolve so they can adapt. Its not a question of why don't they get eaten after evolution it, it is a question of what was trying to eat them that made them evolve. I hope this answers your question.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 - dude that doesn't make since , every species has everything it needs to survive when it is born , every living thing already has a purpose in its environment , if that balance is disturb you will have more species in nature than othere's , a bird has everything it need's in order to survive ; so there's no need to evolve .
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude I don't want to have to explain evolution for you but if I have to i will. Here is a quick summary. Species do have everything they need to survive, because of evolution. There is never balance, the slightest climate change will bring on microevolution. Ex. the average temperature in northpole decreases 5 degrees, Bears fur will be thicker. Why? Because when a bear is born with thicker fur it has the ability 2 live longer under these conditions producing more offspring with thick fur.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 - oh thank you for the lesson on what you think evolution is , but i really dont need you to explain it to me WHY because i've already stated that there are changes in species depending on there environment which can trigger micro-evolution , BUT micro-evolution is NOT macro-evolution , tell me why you think there is a need for a species to change from one to another ; example dog into cat ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Dog into cat? You're more stupid than you think you are.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok - your and idiot , evolutionist are the one's that made the claim that one species can turn into another species , what's the matter don't you know anything about evolution ? you are a evolutionist right ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Under no circumstances would Evolution permit a cat to turn into a dog, as they are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, although it would predict specication of cats. You remain ignorant and stupid.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok - thanks for proving one thing for me and that is if you ask 10 evolutionist to explain evolution you would get 10 different answer's .. keep on believing in the evolutionary pipe dream ..
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Care to provide some examples of these 10 different explainations? Perhaps it's your lack of facility with the English language, your failure to understand the difference between 'another species' and 'a different species'. If I can tempt you out of the utterly superficial and dismissive world you appear to inhabit, perhaps I can persuade you to explain what you think might be the limits to micro-evolution, and why you think it cannot become macro-evolution?
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok - the theory of evolution is always changing , everytime a so call fact of evolution is examined it turns out to be a bogus [ hoax ] here's a question for you ..do you believe that mankind is he only power in the universe ? that there's NOTHING better than man . i mean really when you look at our earth , our sun and moon , our universe , do you really think its all a accident ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Good luck with the magic. I'll stick with the science.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok - you mean the kind of magic you believe in .. where DNA , proteins , atoms , H2o , somehow just put themselves together to form a living creature ? where a universe just popped into existence from nothing ? i quess in your reality you can just make things up and expect people to believe it .
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude You seemed to have introduced Cosmology there, for reasons best known to yourself. The origins of DNA have been well understood for 50 years.
Oro J 1961. Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions. Nature 191:1193–1194 [PubMed]
Believe me, I expect nothing from you.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok -many geologists claim that radiometric '' clocks '' show rocks to be millions of years old . however , to read any clock accurately we must know where the clock was set at the beginning . its like making sure that an hourglass clock was set with all the sand in the top bowl at the beginning . however , no geologists were present when the earth and its many rock layers were formed , so they cannot know where the radiometric clocks were set at the beginning . would you agree with this ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Unfortunately for you the promlems with radiometric dating, as you suggest, are well understood, and the theory behind method is sound. The initial conditions, the chemestry behind the 'setting' of the atomic clocks is understood., and the correlation of the 47 different methods is very, very good.
There are problems, such as the different carbon metabolism of different species is a complication for C14, but it's never used for marine species or mollusks. The scientists are ahead.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok - when scientist date rocks , they don't actually observed the atoms changing . they measure the products of change , which they assume took place in the very distant past . assumption # 1-the original number of unstable atoms [ uranium ] in rocks is not known . scientist can measure only how many unstable and stable atoms [ lead ] remains in a rock , assumption # 2 plus they don't know how quickly unstable atoms decayed in the past . they assume they decayed slowly like they do today
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Wow, you've totally undermined radiometric dating. Nobody has ever considered these points before, and nobody in the entire scientific community ever spotted these obvious flaws. Everyone since Rutherford transpartently head their heads up their asses. Your Nobel Prize is in the post.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@fordatude No, I believe they were formed by gravity. Also, only a few fossil claims are bogus. What does it matter though? You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make them think.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 -whatz only a few bogus claims 2 , 4 , 7 ??? i can name alot more than that , it pains me how evolutionist only look at the evidence they want to see and dis-regard the rest .. come on man all you got is hypothesis and hypothesis are a dime a dozen ..you evolutionist think life has no meaning , no reason to live , life is just an illusion , WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN THAT ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude No rational person (those who know evolution is a fact) believes that. You also said I "disregard the rest (evidence)." I dare you to bring forth evidence against evolution that can't be intellectually torn apart. The only reason bogus claims get out is because the media is irresponsible.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 - the [ pre-cambrian ] is a major problem for evolutionist .
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude How so?
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 - the oldest rocks [ pre-cambrian ] contains numerous ''fully developed complex invertebrates , the sudden appearence of life is a blow to the theory of evolution ..
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude There are invertebrate fossils in this period, but I don't see how this is a sudden appearance of life or a blow to evolution.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@fordatude I might see what you mean by "sudden appearance of life." Sometimes, evolution can occur in sudden spurts. I can't remember the name for it right now. It's still far from a blow to evolution.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 - can a car put itself together NO , life just doesn't appear suddenly out of nowhere without help ..is it really that hard to believe in GOD ? man has dominion over all living creatures just like the bible says , on the science side of things i dont believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old because the liquid iron core doesn't last that long ..
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Nobody said that life appeared out of nowhere. And why wouldn't the core last that long?
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 - didn't you say that there are sudden spurts ? doesn't the pre-cambrian rocks say the same thing ?
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude There are sudden periods of evolution but life doesn't come out of nowhere. If you are confused on anything else relating to evolution, try talkorigins(dot)org. They have more info compiled than I can remember.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@fordatude Life had the help of the forces of nature. The forces of
nature are very complex and are quite capable of forming life. A super
human like creator being creates more questions than it answers. Only
by making god a concept can you avoid answering questions about god's
existence that you would want answered about anything else.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld --maybe you can explain to all the folks out there HOW the forces of nature can design , assemble , maintain ? second; what are you talking about when you say that GOD is a concept ? until science can explain how life really came to be the book of genesis still stands...
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Like I said the forces of nature are complex so
you should study physics and chemistry. Genesis explains
nothing because it not only does not explain how god could do
such a thing and it does not explain how such a super human like
being exists. If humans need a creator then surely a super human
like being would be in a greater need of a creator. The reason you
never think god needs any explanation is that god never gets past
the mental concept stage into reality.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld --i'm not sure i understand what your saying BUT i think that you think GOD needs to explain creation in full detail in order for you to understand ..you said the forces of nature are complex ..i say creation is also complex ..physics & bio-chemisty are just tools we use to try to understand the universe and how life on this planet is even possible..genesis still stands..
fordatude 1 year ago
@fordatude Have you read the stories of Gilgamesh? Cunieform
Sumerian stories unmistakeably similar to the ones in genesis were
written in Sumeria predating the biblical narrative. Abraham was a
Sumerian. Long live the gods of Sumer who created the world.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
@humansaretheworld ---there are also lots of storys concerning the flood of noah in many different countrys dating back years moses before moses wrote it down in genesis ..also science has confirmed back in the 50's that ,time,space.and matter is a reality just like it says in gen 1......
fordatude 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 More info: It is predominant in the christian religion that god hates gays and he didnt make them gay because they chose it. Only problem is that scientists have found the part of the genome that determines sexuality and are doing tests to determine what is doen to it to make a person attracted to the same sex (something you probably hide deep down in side). God supposedly is the only one to create life, and yet we have cloned hundreds of animals and are closing to making our own.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 Scientists have even brought back extinct animals by splicing genes and breeding animals together. Ligers a mystical creature from Napolean Dynamite, have actually been bred in captivity. I am actualy enjoying this that I have now posted 8 times with different evidence and you are just ignoring it. Whats it like being a complete numskull.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 How about this one, Time Dialation, Yes we can possibly travel to the future by traveling fast enough and far enough from a gravitational force. Tests have shown that identical stopwatches started at exact same time, read differently when one was put in a jet plane. Essentially the pilot expirienced 10 seconds of time while people on lad expirienced 11 therefore traveling 1 second into future. If we can trave there we can see the future, something only god was supposed to be able to
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 Have you had enough yet, Here I will give you a pice of evidence similar to yours. I found a pice of paper in my back yard that said kinkos, therefore kinkos exists, which means god exists (laughs at shroud "evidence"). Pretty easy concept to understand, If the shroud actually proved God then there wouldn't be evolution taught in schools, we would just sit and pray for info. Since we don't do that it obviously proved nothing but the existence of jesus.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Typical response You cant handle the Truth so you start calling people names its realy sad and your true colors come shining through your not interested in the Truth your interested in believing what you want to no matter how rediculous it is. and if anyone shows you the Truth you attack them wow just wow bye
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 Carbon Dating has proved that the earth is over 6000 years old. Bible said earth revolves around the sun, it doesn't. Evolution has been proven many times, so much that the pope accepted it as truth, there are billions of galaxies other than the milky way. You would think that if God created all those there is bound to be life other than us just because it is improbable that there isn't, yet he never mentions it to the ones who wrote the bible.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 In the bible North America isn't mentioned once, but i guess that wasn't important enough for god to tell anyone. adam and Eve could not have populated the entire earth because it has been proven through gene studies and experiments that brothers and sisters reproducing will have offspring with serious health defects. After 4 generations of imbreding the human race would have died. Also the egyptian prophet osiris was born 1000 years before christ, OF A VIRGIN, then died and rezzed
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 but before that heal spent his time healing the sick and blind, and even spent time in the dessert a faced many temptations. If God is so powerful why did he spend 6 days creating the earth, he easily could have made it in one or even 1 min. Marry could have never given birth without being impregnated since no human can be born without a chromosome from the father whether it is an x or a y. So unless God gave a chromosome I highly doubt she reproduced asexually.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 We share a more than 50% of our genome with Bannanas which leads to the idea that we came from the same single cell organism but over billions of years of point mutation in our genome, we turned to humans while bananas went in a different direction. Actually every living think on this planet is made of the same DNA base pairs which really leads to the fact we came from the same thing.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Yes we have a common Designer how do you miss this? because you try purposfly too. You dont believe evolution you just dont want to serve God who you believe in so when you hear the Truth about God you get hostile its kindof funny watching you throw a tempurtantrum pothetic but funny. God explains it took 6 days so His people wouldnt fall for scams like evolution like you have. You have given me no evidence just insults U say U R so smart so lets try this again Bye
coolvideo28 1 year ago
Stop and think. Noah didn't have to collect fish as you suppose. Fish already live in water. Floods don't change that.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Most fish die when the saline level of the water changes. A deluge of fresh water rain, enough to flood the world above the highest mountain peak, would have created a brackish mixture that would have killed most marine life. Was the rain salt water? If it was, how did all the fresh water fish survive the salt water flood? How did the freshwater fish all get back into the correct lakes and rivers all over the world? Stop and think. Your taking a bronze age myth to be literally true.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 The problem is, you assume the earth was under the same conditions before the Biblical flood as it now is.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 If you mean the laws of nature, then yes, the earth has always existed under the same conditions. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood. There is no evidence that the laws of nature suddenly changed, or were suspended for a year so you can believe Genesis is literal.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 The only way anyone can say there is no evidence for a world wide flood is if they are to ignore the evidence. The fossil record alone supports the Noahic Flood. Clam fossils found at the top of mountains are just one of many evidences. Clams don't climb mountains.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Clams don't climb mountains, but mountains rise out of the sea. Fossils require being quickly buried under certain conditions. A clam left on a mountain by a receding flood would quickly decay and leave no trace. Besides, fossilization requires much longer than 4k years. The fossils you're talking about originated from the sea floor, were fossilized, then rose as plate tectonics pushed a new mountain range up out of the sea.
What other evidence do you have for this world-wide flood?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 Actually it was a combination of mountains rising combined with sediment from the upheaval of floodwaters which exceded the mountain heights which buried some clams under the sediment on top the rising mountains where they fossilized. As part of the evidence of the Flood, we would expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime. And that’s exactly what we find.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Name one fossil that is fossilized in sand, mud, and lime that is in a mountain that isn't a sea animal. Once you do i have an explanation for you, animal got caught in a flash flood near a river bed, (not a world ending one like noah expirienced). Once fossilized plate tectonics then formed a mountain in that spot.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 Clams don't fossilize on top of mountains and it takes much longer than 4k years. We do see fossil animals and plants in rock layers all over the world -- all neatly laid down in the order they evolved through the geological ages. If there had been a world-wide flood that caused ALL the fossils we would expect to see everything mixed together; Cambrian creatures mixed with dinosaurs mixed with modern birds, and mammals. Are there any bunny fossils in the Cambrian?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@BT3701 Sand, mud and lime do no turn to stone in a mere 4k years. It takes much, much longer. Sediments left on a mountain by a flood would have been quickly eroded away before turning to stone, let alone any clams buried in them could be fossilized. I don't think you understand what fossils actually are, or how they are created.
What other "evidence" do you have for this world-wide flood?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@BT3701 I have a question about this supposed world-wide flood. Where did the water to flood the earth above the highest mountain peak come from? Where did it go to?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@BT3701 Its called Plate Tectonics, the same thing that causes earthquakes can also form mountains over long periods of time. I will say that you are correct that fossils don't move, they don't "move" to the mountains the mountains come to them.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 One more thing. Do you know how rain works, rain happens due to evaporated water from the ocean rising to the upper atmosphere (warm air rises). once in the colder troposphere the water vapor then condenses and turns into a liquid. As a liquid the forces of gravity cause it to fall to the earth. With this explanation explain to me How all this water started to flood the earth. All the water would first have to evaporate.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Once again you wrongly assume that the pre-flood world was the same as today's world. A common mistake. According to the Bible two sources of water were used to bring about a global flood. Those two sources are mentioned in Genesis 7:11 as follows; In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened up.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Last time I checked the bible wasn't considered an accurate historical reference. Floods no matter how "holy" or whatever can change Natural laws of science. The earth has a molten core with a crust on the outside causing plate shifting. You can't win arguments with the bible because it is not an accurate source of literature. Thanks for the laugh though. So eliminating the bible it is obvious there couldn't possibly been a flood of that magnitude.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 In time you will understand.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Great response. A response like that only means one thing. You have no real response. That's like a creationist saying "I will pray for you" when they really mean "i hate you for making me look like an ass". When you have proof the bible is accurate then you can come back but until then, "in time you will understand" that you have been lied to your whole life.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 A more accurate statement would be, no evidence I might provide would ever convince you since your pride wouldn't allow you to accept the fact that what you currently believe concerning this might possibly be false. BTW I too once believed as you now do.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Evidence? When did you have any evidence. For future reference you should realize that evidence cannot be derived from a fictional piece of literature. Never once did I bring up Lord of the Rings in order to prove something, therefore you can't bring up the bible because it has no citations for where this info came from other than a few random people who only give their first name. How many people do you think were named John? Seriously.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 It's not pride keeping me from believing it its the fact that it is false. Creationists have the bigger fear. If it turns out I'm wrong "oh well" but if you are wrong then you lived a lie your ENTIRE life and you don't want that to be true. "BTW I too once believed as you do now" Like I never heard that from a creationist. What is that supposed to make me do "Oh well this guy use to be an atheist but obviously something changed him, so I must be wrong". You are a creationist drone
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 And any sort of "evidence" you may have brought to the table (you didn't but I will humor you) I completely refuted and gave a more reasonable ( and true) explanation. Go look up what evidence actually is and then you can try and give me it in an orderly manner. "Arguing with creationists is like, going against a defense attorney who uses pictures, drawn by his 5 year old son, as evidence against a murder".
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 Considering I probably won't a reply or it will be one of those "You are Naive, I will pray for you but I am done arguing" responses, I am just going to go ahead and accept the trophy for Taking evolution and sexually violating you with it.
Have a Good Day.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Nice. And that comes from the person who said "Every creationist uses insult tactics" Looks like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Wasn't an insult. I just stated a fact.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 "To maintain my atheism, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything, that non-life produces life, that randomness produces fine-tuning, that chaos produces information, that unconsciousness produces consciousness, and that non-reason produces reason. And frankly, I just didn't have enough faith to continue to believe that." - In Quoting Ex-atheist Lee Strobel
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 Ouch. That really hurt my argument. Oh wait no it didn't. See here's the thing, just because someone with a degree in law at Yale (anyone can get a degree in Law its not that hard) said something doesn't make it a valid argument. You would think someone who studied to be a lawyer would realize that both sides of the argument need to be analyzed, but again most lawyers are crooks or scammers anyways so its not unexpected.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 But back to the actual statement. Atheism- Belief that Nothing produces everything. How is that more unbelievable than A man you cant see who was CREATED FROM NOTHING who is all knowing and powerful created everything in the universe. Same thing but ours doesn't involve a man it involves extremely in depth theories involving real things like antimatter, and dark matter, etc. Non life does produce life ( we are all made up of proteins which are not living organisms)
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 Randomness, there isn't randomness, there are plenty of books out there that can use mathematical equations to predict when randomness will happen and what it will do, essentially removing the factor of random. I'm not sure the name of the book but it has Chaos theory in the title. Unconsciousness produces consciousness, not sure what he means by that. Reason produces reason. I wouldn't expect a lawyer to fully understand the science behind what an atheist believes but whatever.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 So instead of being atheist he would rather believe in someone who impregnated a woman without touching her, told Christians to kill thousands of non believers (christian crusades), and set up a church where its OK for a priest to molest a child, had a son (we are all his children) who killed millions of jews (hitler), and will burn you in hell for eternity if you dont believe in him (selfish a trait gods shouldnt show). Well I guess its his life.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 So under the surface of the earth there were water reserves exceeding by several times all the oceans on the surface? And at God's command it all magically came out of the earth? You've never told us where the water went to after the flood, but I'm guessing that perhaps you think it all trickled back down into its underground storage? And you must have an explanation about why scientists don't find this underground ocean that is several time bigger than all the surface oceans combined?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 The flood waters receded into what we call oceans. But once again in your view, you must believe the pre-flood world was the same as the world you see today. Truth is, it was totally different than the world we see today.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 there has always been a land mass on earth, and oceans. Until you can prove this wrong (without using the bible because I dont use the movie Waterworld in order to explain how the world is made of 100% water) then it is not possible for a flood of that magnitude to occur without sufficient evidence, like Every living creature on earth being a marine creature.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@BT3701 You mean the world was magical?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 The pre-flood world is believed to have had more land mass above water, and the oceans were smaller before the Noahic flood. That's why there is oil below the ocean floor which is created by vegetation and animals that once existed where there is water today.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 So you believe the earth surface was much drier before this supposed flood. Then God caused water to come from above and below for a world-wide flood, then the flood waters receded into today's oceans? Wouldn't those oceans already be filled with flood waters? Why do you believe that? What evidence led you to that conclusion? I'm pretty sure it takes a lot longer than 4000 years for animal and plant material to turn into petroleum. This still doesn't explain where all the water went.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (receded) (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9). They are the same waters of the Noahic flood!
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 I have to give it to you, I didn't think you could come up with an answer. Unfortunately, it does not match the geological evidence. But I guess it's a good enough answer to sustain your beliefs.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 It's merely a matter of how you interpret the evidence. Either way the Bible is never mistaken. Some of us already know that. Others will have to wait to realize it.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think the Bible is mistaken about a great many things. The earth doesn't rest on pillars, for instance. Disease isn't caused by demons, Rape, genocide and slavery are all immoral. The creation of the universe and the earth and the rise of life on earth was nothing like the descriptions in Genesis. Many of us have known that for a long time. Others are afraid they will go to hell if they question their beliefs, or admit doubts.
ebullock43 1 year ago
BOOOOOO! DARWINISTS WILL GO TO HELL!
weirdone17 1 year ago
@weirdone17 There's no such thing as a "Darwinist".
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
Every creationist uses the tactic of insult. Notice how he had to bring up that most civilized humans would take offense to being called a monkey as if to persuade you that evolution is fake because Darwin was just insulting the human Species. Using that logic then by saying people don't like to be called pricks means that it is impossible for a human to be a prick because they don't exist.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Untrue. Your generalizations of creationist's are unfounded. Not EVERY creationist uses insult tactics. Secondly, are you implying or insinuating that many evolutionists and atheists are never found guilty of insulting those whom they disagree with? If you reply yes then that would mean you're a liar.
BT3701 1 year ago
@BT3701 I can Generalize. You see, not all Nazi's were evil people, but we still call them evil, that is generalizing. Of course not all creationists use insults in their arguments, but a lot of them do. The fact is majority of creationists are less educated in the fields of natural (actual) science, than atheists are. They are educated when it comes to the bible but that is extremley outdated. Plus they let their emotions get the best of them, if they cant prove you wrong it frustrates them.
Zhomitz9229 1 year ago
@Zhomitz9229 Not frustrated, Just convinced that no amount of evidence would convince you. Therefore, no amount of arguing is about to change your mind.
BT3701 1 year ago
A person who dont know a fish isnt bothered by a flood,isnt going to change my mind,also shovels have been around as long as man made holes,which was before the flood.
pidner 2 years ago
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13
98stwarmachine 2 years ago 6