flagellum

[cliffordanthonypaiva]

If folks doubt the nonsense of evolution, try finding in the sedimentary record a fully fractional transitional fossil (ie 1/3 wing feather, 2/3 limb). NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FOUND ANYWHERE. These informed "scientists" should be in straight jackets to even imagine precision designed potential energy transformation system such as ATP Synthase, multi-gear turbine, is a result of random mutations? NO: ADP to ATP designed for cellular energy transformation requirements.

[aliveSlayer]

@cliffordanthonypaiva You should search some information about the archaeopteryx or epidexipteryx.

[Skylan393]

@cliffordanthonypaiva Yes it is, you're just not thinking in the correct manner.

[cliffordanthonypaiva]

The problem here is not God, as He Created all things through His Son. The problem is God Himself. People on this planet cannot conceive of a Person who is infinite, and infinitely PERSONAL. That in fact the Universe He created resides physically within Him...not the other way around. All physico-chemical laws initiate and function from Him; that the Father and Son possess EXACTLY the same Spirit. Biochemistry exists only within Himself. Evolution is pure imaginative fantasy...that's all.

[bcrystal8]

slyfox <3

[j919or]

@theawakener7 The hebrew word can have both meanings and the context clearly defines the usage/meaning as short periods in the order of 24 hr. Why do scholars feel like they need to adjust inter[pretations to fit scientists? Evolution is not even science. Its historical reconstruction. Youre all a buncha lemming following these arrogant sicentists that claim to know what they could not possibly know.

[screilly]

Everything in the Bible happened exactly as it reads obviously! You guys are dumb for believing this "Evorlution" business. We're clearly made out of God's best batch of Clay!!!!

[TheLalo1818]

@screilly hahahahahahahaha i cant believe you are saying that hahaha

[edgecutterman]

@screilly Then tell me how the Evolution theory (by Darwin) was completely proven right. We have found the connection between every creature on earth.

[j919or]

@screilly Obviously u have lost ur mind bc any fool can see that everything is an accident. And those accidents occur millions of times per day per living organism. There is no other way it couldve happened.

[tuliman]

greatest videoclip ever!!!

[sfrgth457]

AWESOME!!

[kkayyo]

Bacteria

[jmarcl089]

Is it a bacteria's flagellum or eucariothic?

[psychosavant]

Yes I know how old the earth is and how old the universe is.

Your view on the "poetic usage" is completely arbitrary stretch of symbolism which I suppose is necessary if you want to force the Bible to mean what you want it to. It would make far more sense, in respect of Occam's Razor, to acknowledge the blatant falsehood of the Bible. Especially considering the lack of symbolic presentation in the rest of the book of Genesis, even in that chapter. A simple example, the order of creation.

[psychosavant]

This can't be the case, because after the first day the bible clearly states its definition of day as being morning and evening.

"And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:3

Therefore since we know the earth was not created 4000 - 6000 years ago it simply cannot be accurate.

[Y0ts0]

you believe in a book written by people who would be considered as uneducated by todays standards. its not so much about "is there a god" but wether this people just lied like everybody today who claims to talk with (a) god. what makes people who lived hundereds of years ago unqestionable? what if i say i'm the rebirth of jesus?

[tubewatch59]

And that's what just about all Bible Scholars (and certainly the public who read the Bible) believed until "science" came along recently, and supposedly showed otherwise.

God could have used various ways to describe creation. That it is written as is, shows that it was always meant to describe an ordinary 6 days of work, with a day of rest at the end, which then served as a pattern for our working week.

Noahs flood was a global flood. What possible reason is there for saying it's local?

[tubewatch59]

"ARE YOU FEELING ME BRO??"

:) Oh, I hope not! :)

The #3117 word is used all through Genesis and the other word (owr - some # number in the 200's - I'll look it up again later) isn't used in the scriptures until much later on. So Yowm (#3117) is in fact the word used in Genesis.

The whole way the passage is put together is to emphasize as forcefully as possible ("evening and the moring were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,... day) that we are talking about a normal week of 24 hour days.

[tubewatch59]

"Does the term 'Back in the day' mean 24hrs a long time ago?"

It depends on the context, for instance:

It was just earlier today (referring to a short time, maybe minutes or hours previously), that I recalled how, in my fathers day (referring to a previous era - not a 24 hour day) we used to go to the corner shop, and we'd stock up on food for that evening (a reference to a particular evening on a particular day) and the next few days. (referring to a period less than a week in length)

[tubewatch59]

"So your saying God said 'Let there be light pointing just at the earth for 12hrs only'. Let there be light as a beam."

Light coming from one direction will act just as the sun acts - won't it. You are imagining difficulties that aren't there.

Let the Bible speak with the clear meaning it has. Don't try and limit it to saying what we think it needs to say. Don't coddle it. Don't be afraid of what people will think of you if you don't follow the trends in science and philosophy.

[tubewatch59]

Just because you ridicule a directional source of light means little. Why wouldn't initial light have come from a particular direction? It makes logical sense.

God rested for one day on the 7th day. It's a pattern for us. It's simple to understand.

Since you don't believe in a global flood either, then - what use is the Bible to you? Since you can just alter it's meaning to suit whatever prevailing philosophy or science comes along. The flood story makes no sense if it's local.

[tubewatch59]

Hebrew Scholars know that the intent of scripture is to convey the meaning of Genesis 1, as individual 24 hour days. It's in the context.

Do you believe in the universal deluge? Noah's flood?

[tubewatch59]

"How could there be a solar 24hr day if the sun hadn't even been created for 3more DAYS yet?"

Simple. You'd just need to have the primeval light ("Let There Be Light") coming predominantly from one direction, such that day is when the earth faces it, and night is when the earth is between the source and that position on it's surface.

By the way: What problems do you have with orthodox Christianity? To call it "rubbish" (You meant that?) makes one wonder what is basis for your beliefs?

[tubewatch59]

I think there are a few findings now, but it's listed a few days back in this discussion, in a reply to another poster. And as I said there have been plenty of sightings for thousands of years of creatures which sound more like dinosaurs than anything else. In addition there are various creatures that make an appearance in the fossil record, dissappear (for what some take are millions of years - I do not) and then reappear in the present time. Why are dinosaurs treated differently?

[tubewatch59]

Anyhow, we now have evidence that demonstrates the assumption all dinosaurs had died out millions of years ago, may be grossly incorrect. Unfossilized bones? Containing active protein material!!??

And why have these specimens not been carbon dated? Is it merely because scientists are assuming through prejudice (that they don't even notice in themselves) that they simply do not need to date something they have already assumed "too old" to be dated by C14?

Is that "questioning everything"??

[tubewatch59]

I do all of these things brother awakener.

But still, why assume that dinosaurs are long gone even before Adam when the Bible says no such thing?

After all, the Bible (being as it is the Word of God) is going to be what science will eventually come to believe, whether they want to or not - eventually - (even if it must be at the final day of judgement for most of them).

If the Bible says that all the animals were created in 6 days, then who are we to try and find ways around that?

[tubewatch59]

Yes, I checked the notes. At that time dinosaurs were reasonably new discoveries, and probably controversial too, so it is unlikely that they would have been included in Bible study notes I should think. And indeed they still are not, because many translators take other views.

One more valid translation (given the description) of a non-extinct animal perhaps would be the elephant, if you substitute the trunk for the tail.

Why are you so certain dinosaurs were long gone before Adam?

[tubewatch59]

Behemoth is NOT a hippopotamus! Nothing like it. You're reading one of those translations where they figured they'd better go along to get along.

Hippopotami(?) don't move their tails like cedars. Or the mountains bringing him forth food? It just seems a little unlikely. And since we have seen that dinosaur bones are unfossilized and fairly young in any case, Behemoth seems to fit a dinosaur rather well. But you don't have to agree if you really don't want to.

[tubewatch59]

"Dinosaurs are not young they are ancient. I'm not re-interpriting scripture, I'm just stating scripture."

You are ignoring the passages in Job, and the other eyewitness accounts of these kinds of creatures throughout history.

[gregrutz]

So God made the dinosaur so he could wipe them out on Day 5? What a shame.

They hardly had time to evolve feathers.

[tubewatch59]

Dinosaurs existed through most of earths history and many written sightings from eye witnesses are available to read. In fact there may be some alive today in New Guinea, the Congo ...

Why don't I go there to see? Well, I just might actually.

But really, even if they were discovered - it would be nothing more or nothing less than when the coelecanth was found alive after 80 million years. All such a discovery would do is to make Sarah Palin look smart, and Matt Damon look dumb. :)

[gregrutz]

Just show me one living dinosaur and you will be famous for dis-proving evolution.

Yes, they found a ceolecanth,

soooo..........????

Last time I checked, evolution was still around too.

And there are decendents of dinosaurs, we call them Birds.

[tubewatch59]

You can believe what you wish, but since dinosaurs are in fact young as evidenced by their unfossilized bones containing still active proteins (including visible blood cells), that is one more reason not to have to attempt to re-interpret scripture to follow the latest trends in science. I am just concentrating on dinosaurs here of course, but what makes you think that Adam was not given dominion over dinosaurs? He was given dominion (for the short time he had it) over all animals.

[gregrutz]

There hasn't been a dinosaur on the earth for 65 million years. The unfossilized bone you are talking about was 74 million years old.

Keep re-interpreting the bible to follow the trends, just like you always do.

[tubewatch59]

So gregutz, since you are unworried that finding a dinosaur would disprove evolution (as the finding of the coelecanth did not disprove evolution) then why do you still insist that an unfossilized bone containing active proteins - must be at least 74 million years old? It seems like you are not seeing the obvious here. It's obviously not 74 million years old - is it?

They should carbon date those bones. They are clearly only thousands of years old - at maximum.

[gregrutz]

The scientist, a christian woman, who treated the rock [fossil] with acid and found the soft tissue claims it is 70 million years old. i believe her, she is the expert.

She is also upset that creationist are misusing the data.

Carbon dating only work on organic stuff less that 50,000 years old. This is a fossil.

[tubewatch59]

"a christian woman, who treated the rock [fossil] with acid and found the soft tissue claims it is 70 million years old. i believe her, she is the expert."

Of course she thinks that. She's a nice lady too, from what I've read of her. But how does she really know that. It's her opinion. But you cannot just brush aside that (A) It wasn't a fossil, and (B) There was active protein material inside - producing specific immune reactions.

They should carbon-date it.

[gregrutz]

You can't carbon date a fossil,

you can use other radiometric dating,

but of course it would tell you that the rock is 70 million years old.

Also, you can't get your information from a christian video, they lie.

Active protein materal......bull shit.

[tubewatch59]

"You can't carbon date a fossil,"

It's NOT a fossil. It contains organic material / proteins / remnants of red blood cells. It could be and there is no reason why scientists shouldn't want to date it, since it points to the very real possibility of dinosaurs having been alive up to the recent past. Who wouldn't want to carbon date such a find? Could it be that they are worried that they will encourage creationists?

I bet they already have carbon dated it! What were the results?

[gregrutz]

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

No mention in the artical about changing the date

[tubewatch59]

"No mention in the artical about changing the date"

Of course there isn't. They're not about to go around saying - "boy, I think the creationists might have been right on this - after all!" - are they!

But it shows that there are dinosaur bones that - if scientists didn't already figure were tens of millions of years old - appear to be merely thousands or even hundreds of years old.

They really ought to carbon date them.

[gregrutz]

Carbon 14 doesn't have a long enough half life, it only work for things less than 50,000 years old. So there is nothing radioactive to date. The fossil and the soft tissue are millions of years old.

[tubewatch59]

That's not very scientific of you to assume that. What is to be gained by not dating it? Who wouldn't want to know? Who?

You need to carbon date it to test that idea out, don't you!

If - the C14 dating returns an age of greater than 50000 years (infinite C14 age, as they say) then you and the rest are quite possibly correct with your millions of years age assesment.

But if it carbon dates at, say 15000 years, then the 70 million year old age assumption is likely to be in error.

[tubewatch59]

You simply do not know for sure that there isn't any C14 in it, unless you measure it. Right?

I mean it's not like it's the first time that this would have happenned. Coal and diamonds are supposed to be millions of years old too, and they find C14 well above the 50000 years threshold all the time. It's just explained away as instrument error.

It's a case of scientific dogma getting in the way of the data.

They say science questions everything! Does it? Really?

[tubewatch59]

T. Rex Related to Chickens

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, posted: 12 April 2007 02:10 pm ET

"I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences?" said John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, lead author of one of the studies. "That's just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones."

Fascinating! They should carbon date these finds.

[tubewatch59]

"The dinosaurs for example died out on aion 5 or day 5"

I don't think that is neccessary, since after all, it seems many dinosaur bones are at the most a few thousand years old. There is still intact proteins causing protein specific immune reactions in animals. That wouldn't be there after tens of millions of years. I don't think we need to propose large amounts of time beyond what scripture has made fairly clear.

[tommytalks77]

Oh I see now, you are one of those...

Scriptures made it fairly clear, isn't it?

The same scriptures that talk about talking snakes and magic apples, parting seas, hundreds of thousands of animals all together in a pretty ark, women coming out of a man's rib, who came out of the mud. I see...

Have a happy life...

[tubewatch59]

"Scriptures made it fairly clear, isn't it?"

Scripture kind of gives you a preview of what science will eventually come to accept.

BUT - It's NOT insider trading! You also could take advantage of it too if you were willing. (But I suppose not. :)

[gregrutz]

How did God seperate the light from the darkness on day one without creating the sun yet?

[tubewatch59]

All that would be needed is a directional light source other than the sun. Coming from the center of the galaxy perhaps? As the earth turned, you'd get the normal light and darkness. It would have then faded and left the sun as the main light source.

[tommytalks77]

Erm, but science has proved that God did not create everything, not on the ways that are described on any scriptures, including the bible. And I MEAN proved. Thousands of researchers have countless, literally an Everest of a mountain of evidence, all of which, from different fields of study, ALL point to the same direction which is how we KNOW the age of the universe, of earth, of the first human common ancestor etc. If God did it all it was pré-big-bang but definitely not like the Bible says.

[tubewatch59]

"And I MEAN proved. Thousands of researchers have countless, literally an Everest of a mountain of evidence, all of which, from different fields of study, ALL point to the same direction ..."

I think you've been convinced by Darwinian public relations.

There are so many scientists, doing so many things, it's just too easy to say it's all in support of macrevolution, when all findings do is back up microevolution.

That "Everest" is a mountain of dust. It will blow away in the wind.

[tommytalks77]

Sorry friend but you are misinformed.

There are so many transitional fossils that sometimes paleontologists have a hard time deciding which one is already a new species and which one is still the previous species but just closer to the new one.

watch this video, there's a cool sequence of pics showing fossils transitioning species:

watch?v=Ex5RQT66TvY&feature=ch­annel_page

Seriously, science doesn't work on "public relations", either it's been proved or it hasn't... evolution has been proved.

[tubewatch59]

"There are so many transitional fossils that sometimes paleontologists have a hard time deciding which one is already a new species and which one is still the previous species ..."

There's lots of closely related species within forms, but always - gaps between forms. You find stasis in the fossil record. With almost no exceptions to that rule. All of the smooth transitions you speak of are between closely related species. They don't cross certain boundaries.

Save a disputed few.

[tommytalks77]

Look, anybody in the scientific community that could prove there are flaws with the theory of evolution would jump at a chance of doing so as that would definitely be worth a nobel prize and a place in history. But no one has been able to in 150 years, much the opposite, ALL evidence points to the same conclusion.

If you are such a genius who could shake evolution, please, enlighten us. Otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself by being blind to the facts and evidence. Willingly blind!

[tubewatch59]

I'm not blind to evolution. Rather, it is transparent obvious to me that it is a process incapable of generating anything beyond trivial biological systems. It must alter or damage complex systems already existing. It does not build.

It is clear that philosophies such as naturalism has blinded the minds of people who are in thrall to that silly idea that all we have, was the product of a mythological blind watchmaker. (Don't tell me to watch cdk's video. I've seen it. It's irrelevant.)

[tommytalks77]

Sorry mate but you are blinded by faith and fairy tales.

Scientists care nothing for philosophies, ideologies etc., all science requires is evidence. If you can demonstrate something with tests, and if these tests can be reproduced by others, independently, then your theory might be taken seriously and then it will still have to endure the scrutiny of the whole community, for EVER. If at any point somenone can find a flaw in your theory then it is discredited. That simple. If you can (cont.)

[tommytalks77]

(cont.) prove any flaw in evolution go ahead, please. You'll be rich and famous. So far there's so much evidence for it that whatever you SAY will NOT have any weight against the endless papers , studies, transitional fossils etc.

It is a fact, sorry to burst the bubble you live in. In 150 years since Darwin people from different fields have found consistent prove of it. Even in court Intelligent Design has been discredited. There is not even a debate about it, only with religious fools...

[tubewatch59]

"In 150 years since Darwin people from different fields have found consistent prove of it."

What they have found is proof of microevolution. What they have not found proof of is macroevolution.

IDists and creationsts keep on pointing out over and over why macroevolution cannot work. But you and most other scientists are convinced macroevolution is true, so believe it if you really want to. Science IS a democracy after all. We can't help you any, until you see the problem yourself.

[tommytalks77]

Wrong again.

I don't know why I still bother.

Macroevolution has also been proved, observed and even reproduced on laboratories. Go leran some about it.

Plus there is not even such a thing as micro or macro evolution. It is all the same thing.

And science is not a democracy or a contest of popularity. Either something can be proved right or it is not taken seriously. Or if someone can demonstrate an idea to be wrong, that's the end of it.

I'm done, stick to your delusions.

See ya in hell...

[gregrutz]

The fact you call it Darwinism show you have been watching too many ID videos.

Evolution was accepted as fact 150 years ago.

[tubewatch59]

Micro-evolution is observed. That is a fact.

Darwinism however, is extrapolating microevolution - way beyond what it is observed to actually do.

The mountain of evidence in support of evolution, is also a mountain of evidence in support of ID. Perception of 'what is accepted as fact' depends on (a) your viewpoint, and (b) How many people hold to that particular viewpoint. You guys are in the majority, so 'evolution (meaning - macroevolution) is a fact'.

[gregrutz]

ID is Creationism, it says the earth is only 6000 years old.

The first geologist went looking for evidence of a global flood. They believed in the bible. They couldn't find any. They studied the rocks a concluded the world was millions of years old, before radiometric dating was invented.

[tubewatch59]

"ID is Creationism,..."

ID is compatible with Creationism but isn't explicit on who the designer is.  It COULD have been little green men. Though I personally doubt that. I'm a creationist myself.

[tubewatch59]

"... went looking for evidence of a global flood ... They couldn't find any.

There is plenty of evidence of the great flood - "canyons" of it. You can see it in all kinds of ways. Dinosaurs especially, usually always adopt the "dead dino" posture indicating rapid burial and asphyxiation. There's lots of evidence for it. Heck, they've now even agreed that Venus and Mars suffered world catastrophes.

Those geologists were interpreting everything from a uniformitarianist framework.

[lasse585]

God created the iPod !! It's too complex to have evolved from biological brains!!

[3gdosrsfs]

That's just silly....it goes like this...

God created the man(biology) a long with the ability to learn, who in turn built the I-pod.

See, simple....

[r0galik]

if that above is silly, your comment is plainly stupid. From where did you take this assumption that God created man? Now that's NOT NICE... You desire too many answers.

[3dMelon]

Exellent

[Kujien]

What CDK007's Video On The Evolution Of the Flagellum

[irreduciblyc0mplex]

This is not a bacterial flagellum it's a computer animation.

[elyron]

Probably why atheist Antony Flew converted to Intelligent Design ...

[miseriaykretek]

And why is that?

"This flagellum is too complex to solve at the moment. Lets just say God did it and move on"

Thats the sort of ignorant claim that hampers and handicaps science into mediocre theological copouts. Intelligent Design is a fraud, and completely anti-science. No scientist should ever throw his hands up and say "I give up! God did it!". We had plenty of this in the stone age, especially with the human eye. True science has and always will persist over trashy psuedo-science.

[elyron]

Perhaps reading why ex-atheist Flew "converted" to ID is a good place for any open-minded person to start.

As for Dawkins, fellow-atheist Ruse laments: "For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth."

[miseriaykretek]

I agree about Dawkins, very much actually; but on the subject of Antony Flew- he had little to nothing to do with the writing of the book, "THERE IS A GOD", as he clearly states in several of his interviews. The book was written by an outspoken Christian apologist who heart was fiercely buried in religious agendas. It certainly was not an objective book.

[elyron]

I had read that claim some time ago, and was quite disturbed; however, that claim was later debunked by Regis Nicoll ("Antony Flew:True Convert or Exploited Scholar?"). (Sorry if this is a repeat; I didn't see my reply posted.)

[miseriaykretek]

I had stumbled across that earlier and thought nothing of it. I will look into it, though.

[tubewatch59]

"This flagellum is too complex to solve at the moment. Lets just say God did it and move on"

That is not really so unreasonable a position. Except you don't have to move on of course. You provisionally accept that it is too complex to evolve with known evolutionary mechanisms. So you (reasonably) accept that maybe God did create it. But then you keep on investigating. Maybe one day you'll find out how it evolved. And ... maybe you won't. It's not so bad as you fear it to be.

[miseriaykretek]

Yes, I agree. However, it's the intervention of God- a supernatural being that is outside the realm of science- that smolthers the scientific locomotive and instead forces the progress into a stagnant stage, a dead end, just to wedge in a creationist theory.

Which, had it been taken seriously as 'Alternative science' long before, would've severely hampered humankind's progress in biology, chemistry, medicine, all fields in science; if we simply played the God card at every obstacle.

[tubewatch59]

I see your point, but I don't think it would have that effect. A lot of science came about because it was considered that God had made an orderly universe that could be investigated and worked out. I get the impression that some of those scientists took enjoyment in "reverse engineering" (so to speak) the creation, to see how it worked. There were many scientific breakthroughs in that period. But I agree, you don't play the "God did it" explanation unless there is no justifiable alternative.

[r0galik]

Fuck answers, dont make assumptions based on mild schizophrenia

[elyron]

Actually, science only took root in the West because of Christianity - see "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization." I've spoken to one knowledgeable atheist who chided a junior atheist for not knowing that.

[miseriaykretek]

Yes, and Alchemy came from Chemistry, and Astronomy from Astrology. That does not lend any credibility to horoscopes or to the exlixir of life.

It may have started with a different intention, but both outgrew it's own pretenses (In respectable society). Christianity didn't interfere with science as it does now with ID. Acknowledging God is one thing, to force God into science is another.

That being said, no one can rightfully deny the Church's presence and influence in the west.

[miseriaykretek]

Yes, and Alchemy came from Chemistry, and Astronomy from Astrology. That does not lend any credibility to horoscopes or to the exlixir of life.

It may have started with a different intention, but both outgrew it's own pretenses (In respectable society). Christianity didn't interfere with science as it does now with ID. Acknowledging God is one thing, to force God into science is another.

That being said, no one can rightfully deny the Church's presence and influence in the west.

[3gdosrsfs]

Now here I thought you were a bit more reasonable....

I see the ignoracnce in you our right flatly dismissing ID.

Have a few ID clowns made some stupid

assumptions? Of course they have but no one on the NS side is guilty of this? No dogma in evolution?

Come now.

To use a theoretical computer animation

against what we can plainly see in a micron scope, that is trashy and psuedo-

science.

[beogradBaybie]

wow

[HER039]

Wonderful