As far as I know the dare consist on originate a flagellum means mutations induction and selection. Apparently the evolutionists have only bla, bla, bla, bla, bla... zero results. this should be disgraceful for National Academy of Science of USA.
@IDtaksovr Anyone who thinks that the flagellum can't evolve by a process of natural selection operating on random mutations must not have an open mind.
Some species of bacteria may have crossed and joined other bacteria to become eukaryotic cells. check out the endokaryotic hypothesis. Once eukaryotic cells there is almost no "interbreeding" possible. One exception is a male donkey and a female horse -> mule, although they can't have offspring.
Donkeys and horses can mate because they have a common ancestor and still share a lot of DNA. They have evolved into seperate species, so they can't have fertile offspring.
And one more thing: You always hear about the missing link between man and ape. They just can't find it, but what you don't hear is that no one can find a link between any two species. No link has ever been found between any two major species. It is as though someone got a grain of sand, and then a pebble, and then a rock and then a bolder, and then a mountain, and tried to show that mountains evolve from sand grains. Look how well they line up. Dah. . . .
@gregrutz We should have a missing link for everything according to what you say but it's funny we never get to see them for ourselves.And whales need that muscle to have sex it's not vestigial.There should be millions of fossils lots of species supposed to evolved we would have millions for ALL species if that were true.
@gregrutz What would we say if a mountain lion went extinct?Oh its a transitional Cat?Just because something died off it does not make it transitional just a nother dead species my friend.How many endangered species are there today alone?Very bad example you gave and with no proof to back it up not to mention even most evolutionists wouldn't buy that one.Extinction is clearly not because of evolution they diddnt disapear because they turned into something different they just died off.
I want you to tell me how something dead became alive?
I could see how a bunch of minerals and maybe chemicals could come together given enough time and a way of mixing, but the grand canyon flaw in evolution is the inability of something to just come alive.
just because you DON'T KNOW or can't imagine how it could, you support hypothesis that it was God's invention. Now that's stupidity. Open your mind dude and LeArN!!
funny how atheists resort to child like tactics with focus on degradation in order to suede/fool whom? i dunno? themselves i guess. whatever excuse even if it doesn't jive.
that's ok. true colors shining through. darkness and dread.
have fun making fun.
the only thing i credit for is one understanding and having refrained from vile profanity. i must give credit to that.
"funny how atheists resort to child like tactics with focus on degradation in order to suede/fool whom?"
You actually hadn't seen much creationist comments lately, did you? LOL
Well anyway, I think that the only thing childish here is to make up fairy tales, and saying they are true...
And the stupid thing here is to give your best to counter a proces which is prooven, and demonstrated, and which makes us understand diseases and so on, with those fairy tales...
'prooven, and demonstrated, and which makes us understand diseases and so on, with those fairy tales...'
your point being? we made a human from a worm already? where is this study shown?
show me the proofs of evolution between species and not within a species. 'DEMONSTRATED' where?
the 'stupid thing' in the counter process. diseases make us understand how a worm changed to a human. missed that demo. can you send me the video and maybe a credible link to this.
"why isn't the bacteria a different species but still a bacteria?"
OMFG!!! This... that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's why you creationists are stupid. And I have no more intention talking to you. As you aren't worth it.
A bacteria is stil a bacteria. The next time you will say that it's not evolution that we have a common ancestor with the great apes, cause animals are still animals.
You guys talk full bullshit and don't even know about it!
yup, you waste yours and my time with your very own fairytale.
you can believe what you like. i am not stopping you.
your comparison here isn't what i was talking about.
can't argue constructively with you for the lack of respect plus the ability to stay within the realm of what was said w/o wandering. apples to oranges for example is what your off base understandings are.
Ahhhhh... Now I understand why you're so uneducated about biology. And how you can even say such stupid things like "apples to oranges" or "worms to humans"
LOL
Well if that's so then I'll take the time and give you an advice:
Go to school, you still have time. Learn about biology, learn what evolution REALY says. Learn about the scientific method. Learn about the calculations biologists use. LEarn about why bacterial diseases are so dangerous, and so on.
"hope your 'nerves' calm some so you can focus more clearly."
You don't have to hope for anything. As I end this debate here. You creationists have not the slightest clue of biology, and that's why it's impossible to explain you. And in the end I have no benefit at all by making you understand the basics of biology.
@AlpondrickTheGreat: (continuing). As I mentioned earlier, the head of the Human Genome Project strongly disagrees with you, and he is a believing evangelical Christian who writes books defending Christianity. Do you really believe that you, or the other people who go to your church, have a more sophisticated understanding of either Christianity or Evolution than he does? Even Pope John Paul II did not object to evolution. Ask yourself if it really makes sense for you to be so confident.
@AlpondrickTheGreat: "i am twelve and evolution does work. within a species.
you should know that and no other".
Given that you're 12, It seems likely that people in your church told you that. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, you need to understand that many people do NOT believe that. And, if you want to grow to be thoughtful adult, you should ask yourself whether the church demonomination you just happen to belong to is necessarily the one with the truth.
"80% of birds live in pairs until death. That's a LOT more "moral" than humans." I'm an atheist, and therefore sympathetic to tomaselvis' POV, but my understanding, as someone who has taken a particular interest in bird behavior, is that that's total nonsense. There are a few bird species that pair up, but more don't. Goldfinches are one of the types that tend to pair; you can often see couples together.
(cont. from prev.) Keeping in mind that many Christians, such as the Evangelical Christian head of the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins), strongly disagree with you. Earlier in this discussion, you said that some of the bible is to be taken literally and some not. What gives you confidence you, personally, have special knowledge that people like him don't have, such that you know that THAT part of the Bible is among the parts to be taken literally?
(continued from previous)... You do this without giving any reason why it couldn't happen. When it's pointed out that the fossil record shows intermediate stages, you just ignore that, and repeat that it can't happen.
Can you think of any reason why it couldn't happen except that you're particular Christian denomination's particular interpretation of the Bible says that it can't?
Maybe there's simply no way for us to communicate, because you simply believe that changes can't accumulate, because your particular Christian sect (unlike some other Christian sects) tells you so. Honestly, right now that appears to be the case. When presented with the question of why changes can't accumulate very far, you simply repeat your axiomatic statement that they don't and can't, sometimes accompanied by the argument that there is no evidence that they do.
"I dont agree that they accumulate over time. They accumulate if needed and only within the parameters of the species." I don't understand what you're saying. We agree that genes change for reasons of survival. Why wouldn't there be one change, and then another, and another over a long period of time, adding up to a very significant overall changes? What keeps survival-based changes from accumulating to the point that they lead to a different species?
How do you Christians explain asian, black and white people if man is made in the image of an invisible being out of time and space? Which one is correct?
yes, 'hard' to answer ridiculous questions. not all but this one was pretty bad.
God isn't an invisible being the way you word it. He is All and if we were made in His image meaning we aren't animals. i don't have the scripture reference but your question shows the misunderstanding. i think you may have been told wrong.
ill try with more patience but some questions seem rhetorical just for arguments sake.
"no animal can think as advanced as we do or compete us."
In fact the bonobo ape thinks more logicaly even early on than humans early on. Pretty good tests were made on this. There are actually some other diferences that pull them back...
So yes, they can think pretty much advanced, even more like Certain humans.
So you failed here.
"how many nobel peace prizes have been given to animals?"
Why should they lol... They're smarter in terms of nature anyway... LOL
"animals are unable to choose between moral and whatever feels good 'naturally'."
And this one is WAY WRONG!!! Tests have been made with the bonobo apes... They know very well what's wrong, what's bad, envy, fairness, etc...
In fact, way more than you find it in retarded religious teachings, where they used to spit on homosexuals, blacks, science, critical thinking, science, etc...
Luckily even religion evolved, and today there's less of that ;P
really? that's why the have orgies? it must be right because it was natural?
so is killing people and many other things that animalistic people do but does it make it okay? where does the dreaming end? what's wrong then? nothing?
yes, 'really' animals in the human race that put themselves at the animal level.
it is becoming.
damn...everyone is 'retarded' but you and it's so old and meaningless doing nothing in your favor but showing exactly what substance i speak of but at this point it's obvious you aren't comfortable in changing.
"yes, 'really' animals in the human race that put themselves at the animal level.
it is becoming."
Actually we all are animals in the end including me. But some just don't want to acknowledge that.
Oh and cause there are some links missing in the fossil record it doesn't mean there was nothing there... That's just funny.
And no... there are surely no cases of worms evolving into humans... Worms live beside us... check your garden or underneath some rocks... you'll ocasionaly find them :P
"these thoughts and spirit are also in the soul. the ability to feel regret or compassion.
more to the 'soul' than i can explain at this time but you can search elsewhere for better info. "
Well this is simply what I don't like about religion... It gives mankind the stupid idea that we're so special, and any better than other living beings...
Religon has killed many, but Darwin's theory has killed more than that! Figure the numbers from Hitler's euthanization chambers. Also, the German and Japanese brutality can be linked to only ONE belief: that the Chinese and russians were subhuman... less evolved... not equals.. what have you. In other words, survival of the fittest.
But well ok, cause it's actually mankind that invented religion, it's in the end mankinds fault off the dark ages and the disgusting religion we used to know... Luckily it has changed till today a little bit... BUT STILL NOT ENOUGH!
it ever happened." We agree that species can adapt for the purpose of survival. We agree that these genetic changes can accumulate over time. And we in fact see creatures with varying degrees of genetic changes from each other. And we see many cases in the fossil record of intermediate stages. I can't imagine how one could not even consider these things to be evidence of speciation through accum changes.
I dont agree that they accumulate over time. They accumulate if needed and only within the parameters of the species.
These are clearly defense and survival mechanisms. They dont transform to something new. We have never seen what you are suggesting with abiogenesis or evolution.
No machine has ever built itself. Biology is a machine of cells. Life does not
come from non-life.
Silicon and steel will never turn in to Optimus Prime unless someone puts him together.
The Horse and the Donkey (as an example) are in a unique position in time.
They are two different species but clearly have a common ancestor as follows.
They are just just barely far enough away from the "Y" in the Evolutionary branch to where they can still produce offspring together, yet far enough away from the "Y" to where the offspring is not viable.
"The Bible makes no such mention of any flesh bearing creature with the ability to transform to something else via abiogenesis or evolution. Observable science does not support those either."
How come we only find fossils of older type of animals? Where are the fossilized bunnies and Kangaroos?
In case you didn't know, Santa is different people in different countries. And which one is the correct one? Just like christianity. There are loads of different types.
And you mentioning ONE legend of Santa proves he's real?
One last einstein: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." In other words, Einstein's concept is far from the Christian one, and compatible with what I would call atheism. Because for me, atheism means no personal god.
Another Einstein quote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." But he did have a feeling he called religious or sometimes God. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"He was not a beliver in religious denomination. He clearly stated however
that he wanted to know the mind of...who?
God." He very explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal God, so there is no "who" in Einstein's view. His view was much more abstract, and not incompatible with the view of many who would call themselves atheists, including myself.
" I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed.".
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it is possible, what's the basis for thinking those aren't examples of it?
Actually you don't win anything... You're just to stupid to debate with.
1st Your god argument "out of space and time" is simply stupid and not worth to talk about (just like the flying spagheti monster)
2nd I didn't ask you about your decent. I actually pointed out on your nationality... Which I was right
3rd If you think, that an animal adapting on diferent type of food (peppered moth, nylon dygesting bacteria,...) or immunity to antibiotics, incapability to breed with each other
on the diferent ends of a single recorded family tree, or changes like this... Aren't as hard as some visual changes (long neck, foot- fin, hairy body, size, etc...) You're damn wrong...
But anyway we have all the cases recorded, so it actually doesn't matter
4th this optimum prime thing tells me that you're just another idiot who doesn't understand how evolution works.
5th There's a hell lot of evidence, but I don't intend to present it to you, google it...
See, If I actually take a time to read something out of the bible, I see already full fantasy and self contradiction.
And that's because the bible is just a compilation of some of many diferent religious books, some people wrote...
The biggest problem is that you had too pick the books in the dark ages... But in the modern time you even pick and choose the meanings of diferent words.
Part 2 "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I want to focus on my questions about many small changes leading to species, but I will paste one einstein quote for context: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"Then why do you say you understand what's outside it, and that that is God?"
Its my best guess....I never said I understand it becasue I cant...I am goin on faith by what God has told me in His word. We have no way to tet eternity.
We both know there was a begining of time(an illusion according to Einstien).
That does not mean there is not anything outside of space and time.
"I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed."... ah, sorry, on youtube it's hard to tell what reply goes with what.
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why that the species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it CAN happen, what's the basis for thinking it doesn't?
We were distracted... I'll repeat what I want to ask... Suppose a bacteria adapts to a situation where there is a particular medicine, so that it has resistance to it. A matter of survival. Now suppose there is some other thing it can do to survive better... that makes it more efficiently turn food into energy, for example, so it needs less food, thereby increasing its chances for survival. So, in a situation like that, we might see a lineage with two changes to its genome. Is that correct?
(following up from my previous post) Both of those changes were for survival's sake, and now there are two changes. Then, once can imagine a series of a lot more changes, over a long period of time, all driven by survival. Could that happen?
If moses could split the Red Sea, why not? Again, probability and observable evidence is what makes it fact. We have neither. Interesting theory and some is acutally well thought out based on past discovery.....I just feel it's misses the mark in many areas and sorely....based on observable science alone, outside theology...I was well out of school when I became a christian. I did catholic school in 1st & 2nd but taught evolution as well.
"If moses could split the Red Sea, why not? Again, probability and observable evidence is what makes it fact. We have neither." Not sure what you're responding to. Are you responding to the question about accumulating many small survival-based genetic changes over time?
"Yeah...sorry there my friend....I must be hitting the wrong reply button or something." OK, I *think* you're responding to me there. YouTube has a reply button that doesn't seem to cause replies to be associated with the original message. Anyway, so if we agree that over MUCH time there can be a lot of survival induced genetic changes, doesn't that mean there could eventually be something different enough that it's a new species?
Oh and Gary Rob, Let me just say thank you for being civil and actually adding to the conversation...unlike some who feel ad-homonym attacks and insults make them smart. I'll glady defend my stance
all day long with a serious opponent rather than waste time answering a fool.
And about explaining things to you, how this is logic and not faith...
Well it's as simple as that. if you say:
complexity =>creator
this means that a creator, who is by definition even more complex than the whole universe tells us that there must have been a creator who created him... And that one is even more complex... And now you should already see where that leads... An infinite line of creators, and an infinite amount of them is infinite powerfull...
"Just show me this proof...that is all I ask." You haven't responded yet to my question about whether many small survival-based adaptations, occurring over an extremely large amount of time, might add up to enough differences that the result might be different enough to be called a different species. Could that happen?
I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed. I go by the historical record of the Bible and observable science. They work....take the time to lose the mis-conception of the Bible being the flat earthers...that originated in science
"I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed."... ah, sorry, on youtube it's hard to tell what reply goes with what.
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why that the species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it CAN happen, what's the basis for thinking it doesn't?
He was there before the clock of time started ticking"
I'm wondering what you mean by "before" in a context in which time doesn't exist. The concept of "before" is usually something that is dependent on the concept of time. I'm wondering if it's meaningful in the context you're referring to.
'He' doesn't need anyones help. it's you that need help from things you aren't getting right now. no pun intended but that is the answer to this specific comment.
Laws in physics are the formulas with which you calculate according to the THEORY. Biology doesn't have those formulas. But chemistry does. And it shows that evolution in DNA works.
Again you loose! This is too easy.
Are you this uneducated? Which school did you go to? You seem to lack enormous parts in your education. How old are you, 15?
It's seriously funny how you guys try too use this "figurative meaning" of the bible.
I saw how some creationists pointed out of the bible talking about the earth being ball shaped... They read out a statement on how god watches over the circle, that's earth...
WOW; but a circle is in 2D, and well yes, that makes it much easier too believe that a mighty being watches over it... :P
And I do certainly love to see in which part, and especially... UNDER WHICH PERSPECTIVE :D
I see you're pretty zealous about your religion, but... Give it up... It won't affect anything in the longrun, as there are many more realistic ways of how the universe came too be. And there's too much evidence on how life on earth evolved.
"like an 'accident... ... wouldn't wanna read it now. "
What the hell are you trying to say here anyway?
In case you don't know... The bible was just put together of many scripts chosen out of even more. But... I doubt any christian or Jew wants to believe that.
"Oh and Gary Rob, Let me just say thank you for being civil and actually adding to the conversation"... Well, I think folks on both sides of these debates become so immersed in the logic of their own side that the people on the other side seem like morons; other explanations become hard to imagine! But they really aren't (or else everyone is!), they're just immersed in the logic of their side. It happens to everybody. So there's no point in personal attacks.
where you are coming from....I was force fed evolution even in catholic grammar school. I did not believe it then and I don't believe it now. Connect the so called evidences for evolution for me. I understand the bits and pieces of science used to validate it but unfortunately, there are twice as many holes you can't answer without conjecture, speculation, FAITH and is
@3gdosrsfs: OK, but you still haven't answered my question: why is religious belief negatively correlated with provable ability to come to correct conclusions about facts? There must be a reason for that. What do you think it is?
If we continue having a discussion, I'll keep on asking that until I get an answer. :)
The reason is simple the negative correlation is due to the public education system being indoctrinated with non-sciecne, religion even in the name of sciecne......what is so hard to understand?
The NS'ers refuse to honestly and objectively review the facts of intellegent design as it destroys their 'god' evolution.
Not that is does not have merit, it does not fit your dogma. Prove me wrong.
Dont insult my intellegence or just say Im wrong. Evidence. Non simulated evidence.
"what is so hard to understand?" Measured IQ is not based on knowledge. It is based on the ability to correctly discern conclusions from presented facts. It's not based on pre-existing knowledge. You can have an extremely high IQ even as a child, without much exposure to the educational system.
OK, I don't think there's much sense in discussing the IQ thing further. You have a perception about what an IQ test is that is totally different from mine. (For instance I don't think they have any assumptions regarding natural vs supernatural realities.)
"No it isn't...I am simply saying who is interpreting the data? I bet you can see the result in many different ways." I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you. What result do you mean? I'm just asking, since we agree that small changes can occur that involve changes to the genes, whether over a lot of time, many such small changes can occur that add up to a substantial number of changed genes.
Oops...that was intended for the Iq test..not the genetics.
The point with the genetics is it does not happen for the purpose of evolution but for
survial. It adapts to enviroment but not to cause drastic change to another form.
We should have less organs if it were so.
Human has always been human and has always had the same genentics as far as we can see. There is only speculation otherwise. That speculation is based on a lot of fairy tail and man made charts.
"The point with the genetics is it does not happen for the purpose of evolution but for
survial." Evolutionary theory agrees with you there... small changes can happen for survival. (It does posit other mechanisms, such as one sex of a species evolving traits that are more attractive to the other sex, but that's not core -- the theory would be fundamentally the same without those niceties, so we can ignore them in this discussion.)
(following up from my previous post). Suppose a bacteria adapts to a situation where there is a particular medicine, so that it has resistance to it. That is a matter of survival. Now suppose there is some other thing it can do to survive better... that makes it more efficiently turn food into energy, for example, so it needs less food, thereby increasing its chances for survival. So, in a situation like that, we might see a lineage with two changes to its genome. Is that correct?
(following up from my previous post) Both of those changes were for survival's sake, and now there are two changes. Then, once can imagine a series of a lot more changes, over a long period of time, all driven by survival. Could that happen?
(following up) Actually even the sexual attractiveness thing is considered to be for survival because the more attractive variant has more offspring on average. I just meant to say, for completeness, that sometimes in the theory changes occur for reasons other than survival; evidence points us in that direction. But the main driving force is survival, which agrees with your point about our example bacteria adapting against a medicine.
Ok, As much as I get of this... you responded to me on a comment some months old or more, to argue with me about evolution vs. creation... Which in fact is a pretty dumb thematic... as there is actually nothing you can posibly have against evolution. And as good as nothing which could speak for creation...
I also believe you're American... (Only americans and muslim do believe in creation and criticize evolution...) I'll check later on your profile.
Ahm... There are few fanatics also elsewhere, who believe all the shit that comes from the US... But not really note worthy...
Oh and there's something you should know: Not all religious people are creationists. Why? Cause they don't close their eyes in front of nature... They actually see that every time a new species emerges in the micro level and also in bug or small birds level... In longer time zones even on bigger animals... and so on
Oh... And your decent doesn't matter to me actually... I don't care if your ancestors came from Italy, America or Mars...
And also It's useless to show you any examples of evolution (which happens after each living being is born - in other words: all the time). Cause out of experience you creationists try to excuse everything with "microevolution". Which is simply pathetic... And I'm done here.
As far as I know the dare consist on originate a flagellum means mutations induction and selection. Apparently the evolutionists have only bla, bla, bla, bla, bla... zero results. this should be disgraceful for National Academy of Science of USA.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Created. Jesus loves you.
MrDugifresh 1 year ago
Anyone who thinks that the flagellum evolved by a process of natural selection operating on random mutations must be missing a link
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr
ORLY
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr Anyone who thinks that the flagellum can't evolve by a process of natural selection operating on random mutations must not have an open mind.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Wow, I didn't no that evolution crossed from one species to another.
Somewhere in all of time there must be a proof of a bacteria becoming a larger separate species. Just can't find it yet. Oh but it is! butt it is.
The religion of Science Fiction.
nasalflute 2 years ago
"evolution crossed from one species to another."
WTF?
A species is something that can't interbreed with another species.
Species came from branching off a different species. A split.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You seem confused.
Arguing on the same belief?
Must have been sleepy.
ImDiscombobulated 2 years ago
Some species of bacteria may have crossed and joined other bacteria to become eukaryotic cells. check out the endokaryotic hypothesis. Once eukaryotic cells there is almost no "interbreeding" possible. One exception is a male donkey and a female horse -> mule, although they can't have offspring.
chellethegreatest 2 years ago
Donkeys and horses can mate because they have a common ancestor and still share a lot of DNA. They have evolved into seperate species, so they can't have fertile offspring.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Yes, its called speciation.
Chadwickyboy 2 years ago
And one more thing: You always hear about the missing link between man and ape. They just can't find it, but what you don't hear is that no one can find a link between any two species. No link has ever been found between any two major species. It is as though someone got a grain of sand, and then a pebble, and then a rock and then a bolder, and then a mountain, and tried to show that mountains evolve from sand grains. Look how well they line up. Dah. . . .
man4ourseason 2 years ago
All fossils are missing links, 99% of all species that lived on the earth are extinct.
Just type missing links in the search box.
There are lot of them if you just look.
gregrutz 2 years ago
search whale evolution. They have 5 missing links between land mammal and whale.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Every missing link we find creates two new missing links.
antipul446 2 years ago 8
That's why they'll always have an excuse to say we don't have enough evidence...
kusalaviro 2 years ago
@gregrutz We should have a missing link for everything according to what you say but it's funny we never get to see them for ourselves.And whales need that muscle to have sex it's not vestigial.There should be millions of fossils lots of species supposed to evolved we would have millions for ALL species if that were true.
korzon 1 year ago
@korzon We do have all the missing links, which one can't you find?
99% of all species are extinct, all missing links.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What would we say if a mountain lion went extinct?Oh its a transitional Cat?Just because something died off it does not make it transitional just a nother dead species my friend.How many endangered species are there today alone?Very bad example you gave and with no proof to back it up not to mention even most evolutionists wouldn't buy that one.Extinction is clearly not because of evolution they diddnt disapear because they turned into something different they just died off.
korzon 1 year ago
@korzon Yes, they just died off. That is how evolution works, suvival of the fittest, or another way to put it, most things just die off.
The ones that didn't are all transitional fossils, some like sharks have not changed much, it all fits the theory, even 'living fossils''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@korzon so god just makes stuff that isn't fit to survive? why would a loving creator do that?
fearisslavery 1 year ago
@korzon There are 6 intermediate transitianal fossils between Ambulocetus and modern whales.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
All were complete species.
gregrutz 1 year ago
They found 5 tranistional species for the evolution of whales.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I want you to tell me how something dead became alive?
I could see how a bunch of minerals and maybe chemicals could come together given enough time and a way of mixing, but the grand canyon flaw in evolution is the inability of something to just come alive.
Naaaaaaaaaaaa,
man4ourseason 2 years ago
well let's analyze
just because you DON'T KNOW or can't imagine how it could, you support hypothesis that it was God's invention. Now that's stupidity. Open your mind dude and LeArN!!
r0galik 2 years ago
funny how atheists resort to child like tactics with focus on degradation in order to suede/fool whom? i dunno? themselves i guess. whatever excuse even if it doesn't jive.
that's ok. true colors shining through. darkness and dread.
have fun making fun.
the only thing i credit for is one understanding and having refrained from vile profanity. i must give credit to that.
have fun!!
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
well actually, not 'all' but the few i met here lately.
poor argument.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"funny how atheists resort to child like tactics with focus on degradation in order to suede/fool whom?"
You actually hadn't seen much creationist comments lately, did you? LOL
Well anyway, I think that the only thing childish here is to make up fairy tales, and saying they are true...
And the stupid thing here is to give your best to counter a proces which is prooven, and demonstrated, and which makes us understand diseases and so on, with those fairy tales...
nomineZERO 2 years ago
'prooven, and demonstrated, and which makes us understand diseases and so on, with those fairy tales...'
your point being? we made a human from a worm already? where is this study shown?
show me the proofs of evolution between species and not within a species. 'DEMONSTRATED' where?
the 'stupid thing' in the counter process. diseases make us understand how a worm changed to a human. missed that demo. can you send me the video and maybe a credible link to this.
'fairy tale' see what i mean?
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"show me the proofs of evolution between species and not within a species. 'DEMONSTRATED' where?"
Well I'm sick of that you creationist idiots always ask for demonstration of evolution. Cause you guys are so damn lazy and unable to google it out.
That's why you guys are going on my nervs...
Peppered moth,
nylon eating bacteria,
penicilin resistant bacteria,
vyruses and bacteria get resistant to diferent medicine and so... etc.
Proofs enough.
And the DNA and ERV and so on...
nomineZERO 2 years ago
where's the Nobel prize for the discovery? why isn't the bacteria a different species but still a bacteria?
maybe if i 'googled' i'd find myself chasing your fairytale like you claim my God to be one.
'Oh and cause there are some links missing in the fossil record it doesn't mean there was nothing there... That's just funny.'
yes, likewise 'funny' how the atheist FAITH has even more zeal than that of a Christ believer hence the gap you just mentioned.
listen to yourself.
name caller.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"why isn't the bacteria a different species but still a bacteria?"
OMFG!!! This... that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's why you creationists are stupid. And I have no more intention talking to you. As you aren't worth it.
A bacteria is stil a bacteria. The next time you will say that it's not evolution that we have a common ancestor with the great apes, cause animals are still animals.
You guys talk full bullshit and don't even know about it!
nomineZERO 2 years ago
yup, you waste yours and my time with your very own fairytale.
you can believe what you like. i am not stopping you.
your comparison here isn't what i was talking about.
can't argue constructively with you for the lack of respect plus the ability to stay within the realm of what was said w/o wandering. apples to oranges for example is what your off base understandings are.
i can't make you see it.
go ahead and blame others for the disability.
it's my fault. i am just 12 1/2. don't sue me.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"i am just 12 1/2. don't sue me."
Ahhhhh... Now I understand why you're so uneducated about biology. And how you can even say such stupid things like "apples to oranges" or "worms to humans"
LOL
Well if that's so then I'll take the time and give you an advice:
Go to school, you still have time. Learn about biology, learn what evolution REALY says. Learn about the scientific method. Learn about the calculations biologists use. LEarn about why bacterial diseases are so dangerous, and so on.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Also you can ask me some questions... I will be nice next time.
I simply can't stand such stupid things to come out of the mouths of an adult, as they had the chance to learn it...
But you're just young. You simply can't know some specific things.
So as I've said... If you have questions, just ask. I'll clarify it for you.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Proofs everywhere.
And I have no intention to show you how humans evolved from worms...
Actually I demand that you show me how did you get to such a stupid idea.
creationists are all the same: LAZY and IMAGINATIVE. And miss simple logic.
As I've told you before, I'm simply sick of sending you guys all the evidence again and again and again...
Why am I actually being so nice??? :S
nomineZERO 2 years ago
you cannot show me because it cannot be done.
yes, why ar you soo nice? because running around in circles you have plenty of time but getting to the point is bothersome.
yeah, okay ! lol
hope your 'nerves' calm some so you can focus more clearly.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"hope your 'nerves' calm some so you can focus more clearly."
You don't have to hope for anything. As I end this debate here. You creationists have not the slightest clue of biology, and that's why it's impossible to explain you. And in the end I have no benefit at all by making you understand the basics of biology.
Bye.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
'end of the debate' because you are cranky and impatient having no reason to be here if you cannot defend your faith clearly w/o such a tantrum.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
@nomineZERO
Got Theology ?
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
Ex: “…for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago 4
@AlpondrickTheGreat: (continuing). As I mentioned earlier, the head of the Human Genome Project strongly disagrees with you, and he is a believing evangelical Christian who writes books defending Christianity. Do you really believe that you, or the other people who go to your church, have a more sophisticated understanding of either Christianity or Evolution than he does? Even Pope John Paul II did not object to evolution. Ask yourself if it really makes sense for you to be so confident.
garyrob 2 years ago
i don't object to evolution.
it does exist but hasn't shown missing links between species.
we cannot dup it but we can with inner species.
many breed of a species are the cause of EVOLUTION but not human from worms.
i am a follower of Jesus and not the pope. the catholic church isn't my God.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
@AlpondrickTheGreat: "i am twelve and evolution does work. within a species.
you should know that and no other".
Given that you're 12, It seems likely that people in your church told you that. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, you need to understand that many people do NOT believe that. And, if you want to grow to be thoughtful adult, you should ask yourself whether the church demonomination you just happen to belong to is necessarily the one with the truth.
garyrob 2 years ago
"80% of birds live in pairs until death. That's a LOT more "moral" than humans." I'm an atheist, and therefore sympathetic to tomaselvis' POV, but my understanding, as someone who has taken a particular interest in bird behavior, is that that's total nonsense. There are a few bird species that pair up, but more don't. Goldfinches are one of the types that tend to pair; you can often see couples together.
garyrob 2 years ago
(cont. from prev.) Keeping in mind that many Christians, such as the Evangelical Christian head of the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins), strongly disagree with you. Earlier in this discussion, you said that some of the bible is to be taken literally and some not. What gives you confidence you, personally, have special knowledge that people like him don't have, such that you know that THAT part of the Bible is among the parts to be taken literally?
garyrob 2 years ago
(continued from previous)... You do this without giving any reason why it couldn't happen. When it's pointed out that the fossil record shows intermediate stages, you just ignore that, and repeat that it can't happen.
Can you think of any reason why it couldn't happen except that you're particular Christian denomination's particular interpretation of the Bible says that it can't?
garyrob 2 years ago
"When it's pointed out that the fossil record shows intermediate stages, you just ignore that, and repeat that it can't happen."
---
Hey Gary, I've noticed the same thing.
When this is pointed out, these people seem ignorant to these facts, then proceed to carry on with what can only be considered willful ignorance.
OnTheFritz602 2 years ago
Maybe there's simply no way for us to communicate, because you simply believe that changes can't accumulate, because your particular Christian sect (unlike some other Christian sects) tells you so. Honestly, right now that appears to be the case. When presented with the question of why changes can't accumulate very far, you simply repeat your axiomatic statement that they don't and can't, sometimes accompanied by the argument that there is no evidence that they do.
garyrob 2 years ago
"I dont agree that they accumulate over time. They accumulate if needed and only within the parameters of the species." I don't understand what you're saying. We agree that genes change for reasons of survival. Why wouldn't there be one change, and then another, and another over a long period of time, adding up to a very significant overall changes? What keeps survival-based changes from accumulating to the point that they lead to a different species?
garyrob 2 years ago
How do you Christians explain asian, black and white people if man is made in the image of an invisible being out of time and space? Which one is correct?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
lol, ridiculous question.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"lol, ridiculous question."
Lol, why? Too hard for you?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
yes, 'hard' to answer ridiculous questions. not all but this one was pretty bad.
God isn't an invisible being the way you word it. He is All and if we were made in His image meaning we aren't animals. i don't have the scripture reference but your question shows the misunderstanding. i think you may have been told wrong.
ill try with more patience but some questions seem rhetorical just for arguments sake.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
Oh, so god is ALL? Why did the priests teach me wrong? Couldn't they talk to god or read the bible? What kind of holy book is that?
Please give me the biological difference between us and animals. Prove your claim.
Or if you claim the soul. Please add proof of this "soul".
tomaselvis 2 years ago
which animal can argue these differences?
no animal can think as advanced as we do or compete us.
how many nobel peace prizes have been given to animals?
animals are unable to choose between moral and whatever feels good 'naturally'.
these thoughts and spirit are also in the soul. the ability to feel regret or compassion.
more to the 'soul' than i can explain at this time but you can search elsewhere for better info.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"no animal can think as advanced as we do or compete us."
In fact the bonobo ape thinks more logicaly even early on than humans early on. Pretty good tests were made on this. There are actually some other diferences that pull them back...
So yes, they can think pretty much advanced, even more like Certain humans.
So you failed here.
"how many nobel peace prizes have been given to animals?"
Why should they lol... They're smarter in terms of nature anyway... LOL
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"animals are unable to choose between moral and whatever feels good 'naturally'."
And this one is WAY WRONG!!! Tests have been made with the bonobo apes... They know very well what's wrong, what's bad, envy, fairness, etc...
In fact, way more than you find it in retarded religious teachings, where they used to spit on homosexuals, blacks, science, critical thinking, science, etc...
Luckily even religion evolved, and today there's less of that ;P
nomineZERO 2 years ago
really? that's why the have orgies? it must be right because it was natural?
so is killing people and many other things that animalistic people do but does it make it okay? where does the dreaming end? what's wrong then? nothing?
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"really? that's why the have orgies? it must be right because it was natural?"
Damn, you're retarded.... So humans don't have? What an idiot you are... Seriously...
"so is killing people and many other things that animalistic people do but does it make it okay?"
Animalistic? Animalistic like the crusades? Animalistic like religious conflicts? Discrimination, etc... Seriously... you're retarded
nomineZERO 2 years ago
yes, 'really' animals in the human race that put themselves at the animal level.
it is becoming.
damn...everyone is 'retarded' but you and it's so old and meaningless doing nothing in your favor but showing exactly what substance i speak of but at this point it's obvious you aren't comfortable in changing.
it is tough i no.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"yes, 'really' animals in the human race that put themselves at the animal level.
it is becoming."
Actually we all are animals in the end including me. But some just don't want to acknowledge that.
Oh and cause there are some links missing in the fossil record it doesn't mean there was nothing there... That's just funny.
And no... there are surely no cases of worms evolving into humans... Worms live beside us... check your garden or underneath some rocks... you'll ocasionaly find them :P
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"these thoughts and spirit are also in the soul. the ability to feel regret or compassion.
more to the 'soul' than i can explain at this time but you can search elsewhere for better info. "
Well this is simply what I don't like about religion... It gives mankind the stupid idea that we're so special, and any better than other living beings...
Simply pathetic.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
maybe the dung beetle should be allowed more rights since the fanatics care more for other species than they do human.
abortion kills humans but we spend more time giving rights to animals.
weird the hypocrisy and the truth about your comment.
i do believe that humans are superior, yes.
how terrible.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"abortion kills humans but we spend more time giving rights to animals."
Actually it's religion that makes humans kill humans... Personal belief and so on...
Seriously How old are you?
You don't know NOTHING about life...
Anyway, sorry for my agressive writing, but it's pretty long ago since I've heard such stupid comments!
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Religon has killed many, but Darwin's theory has killed more than that! Figure the numbers from Hitler's euthanization chambers. Also, the German and Japanese brutality can be linked to only ONE belief: that the Chinese and russians were subhuman... less evolved... not equals.. what have you. In other words, survival of the fittest.
jzenzayer 2 years ago
"Darwin's theory has killed more than that!"
No shit... I can't believe the stupidity of some people. Seriously you're retarded...
Ok, so Einstein has got the Jackpot right? With his formula for the atomic bomb... Isn't it so?
And then you state Japanese... LOL The Americans are alot worse...
And You should read Mein Kampf from adolf hitler... It would do you good.
At least you wouldn't come out so stupid...
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Oh and another thing...
If you would understand evolution, you would know one thing: WE AREN'T THE CROWN OF CREATION, AND NO ONE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE OTHER... NONE AT ALL
nomineZERO 2 years ago
But well ok, cause it's actually mankind that invented religion, it's in the end mankinds fault off the dark ages and the disgusting religion we used to know... Luckily it has changed till today a little bit... BUT STILL NOT ENOUGH!
nomineZERO 2 years ago
i am impressed because i didn't have faith that you'd agree with anything i said.
i will celebrate for now and give more constructive arg later.
right on.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
What do you mean that I agree on? That religious people are geting smarter slowly and evolving? Well It's still to slow... LOL
It's just pains me after I hear about the "help" from christian misionaries that's given to other poor people... :S
nomineZERO 2 years ago
you may be evolving a big head but it doesn't mean there are anymore cells up there.
could be one of those visual bluff thingys like that lizard that puffs up the neck shield to look intimidating.
yup, evolution within a species but yer no pleadian being yet.
'help' pains you? i don't get the unintelligible comment.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"which animal can argue these differences?"
Chimps have faster memory than us. See youtube video.
80% of birds live in pairs until death. That's a LOT more "moral" than humans.
Animals show altruism. You loose again!
In the jungle you have less chance of survival than a lot of other animals. So you're not better at survival.
If you use "the soul", you have to prove it first.
Do you have any real arguments?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
those are apples to oranges and very limited compared to us.
gimme a break dude.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"those are apples to oranges"
In what way?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
you take offense because of pride and more faith than any Christian ever had.
your religion in unproven science is much stronger.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"It does support adaption and survival.
Theories are every where but no evidence
it ever happened." We agree that species can adapt for the purpose of survival. We agree that these genetic changes can accumulate over time. And we in fact see creatures with varying degrees of genetic changes from each other. And we see many cases in the fossil record of intermediate stages. I can't imagine how one could not even consider these things to be evidence of speciation through accum changes.
garyrob 2 years ago
I dont agree that they accumulate over time. They accumulate if needed and only within the parameters of the species.
These are clearly defense and survival mechanisms. They dont transform to something new. We have never seen what you are suggesting with abiogenesis or evolution.
No machine has ever built itself. Biology is a machine of cells. Life does not
come from non-life.
Silicon and steel will never turn in to Optimus Prime unless someone puts him together.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Ponder this 3gd:
The Horse and the Donkey (as an example) are in a unique position in time.
They are two different species but clearly have a common ancestor as follows.
They are just just barely far enough away from the "Y" in the Evolutionary branch to where they can still produce offspring together, yet far enough away from the "Y" to where the offspring is not viable.
The offspring being the sterile Mule.
OnTheFritz602 2 years ago
@gary Rob....anything is possible with God but the laws of observable science
do not support changing to another
creature. He could have but didn't.
God did not play dice. ;)
The Bible makes no such mention of any flesh bearing creature with the ability to transform to something else via abiogenesis or evolution.
Observable science does not support those either.
It does support adaption and survival.
Theories are every where but no evidence
it ever happened.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"The Bible makes no such mention of any flesh bearing creature with the ability to transform to something else via abiogenesis or evolution. Observable science does not support those either."
How come we only find fossils of older type of animals? Where are the fossilized bunnies and Kangaroos?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
Ther are plenty of fossil from yesterday of animals and fish and insects today.
the dragon fly and herring to name a couple....next.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
So where are the bunnies, kangaroos and other "modern" species? Why do we find "older" versions of "modern" species?
Why are the fossils in strata order? Why are there no man fossils beside dinosaur fossils?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
what are the fossil footprints of man and dino side by side?
we don't know why exactly and because we don't know does not prove your case.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"we don't know why exactly and because we don't know does not prove your case."
Well, we haven't found Santas workshop yet. That doesn't prove that he doesn't exist either.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
you and i both know the answer to that.
of course it doesn't prove either but who's looking/
again 'rhetorical'.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"you and i both know the answer to that."
Yes, god and Santa are both bullshit until proven.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
just in case you never heard. st. nick actually existed at one time and his ways still carry on.
some b.s. huh?
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
In case you didn't know, Santa is different people in different countries. And which one is the correct one? Just like christianity. There are loads of different types.
And you mentioning ONE legend of Santa proves he's real?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
One last einstein: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." In other words, Einstein's concept is far from the Christian one, and compatible with what I would call atheism. Because for me, atheism means no personal god.
garyrob 2 years ago
Another Einstein quote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." But he did have a feeling he called religious or sometimes God. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
garyrob 2 years ago
"He was not a beliver in religious denomination. He clearly stated however
that he wanted to know the mind of...who?
God." He very explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal God, so there is no "who" in Einstein's view. His view was much more abstract, and not incompatible with the view of many who would call themselves atheists, including myself.
garyrob 2 years ago
[this is edited from an earlier comment I wrote]
" I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed.".
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it is possible, what's the basis for thinking those aren't examples of it?
garyrob 2 years ago
Actually you don't win anything... You're just to stupid to debate with.
1st Your god argument "out of space and time" is simply stupid and not worth to talk about (just like the flying spagheti monster)
2nd I didn't ask you about your decent. I actually pointed out on your nationality... Which I was right
3rd If you think, that an animal adapting on diferent type of food (peppered moth, nylon dygesting bacteria,...) or immunity to antibiotics, incapability to breed with each other
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Prove it please...no more speculation.
Show me it happening in real life.
That is all I will say for all your long winded posts.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"That is all I will say for all your long winded posts."
It already is prooven, so I don't have to.
Now cry.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"Prove it please...no more speculation.
Show me it happening in real life."
Use google. It's pretty simple. You type in what you want info about and alakazam! You do know how to google right?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
on the diferent ends of a single recorded family tree, or changes like this... Aren't as hard as some visual changes (long neck, foot- fin, hairy body, size, etc...) You're damn wrong...
But anyway we have all the cases recorded, so it actually doesn't matter
4th this optimum prime thing tells me that you're just another idiot who doesn't understand how evolution works.
5th There's a hell lot of evidence, but I don't intend to present it to you, google it...
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Peppered moth, dog evolution, nylon eating bacteria, horse evolution, whale evolution, reptile - Mammal like reptile - mammal evolution, small theropod dinosaurs - birds evolution, cat evolution, darwins finches, etc, etc, etc...
You should have looked that up yourself... But... I'm just too friendly... :S
nomineZERO 2 years ago
UPS...
Almost forgot a werry important thing!
6th: the bible IS SCIENTIFICALY THE WORST BOOK POSIBLE! :P
Flat earth, heaven, self contradiction on man creation, Earth HUNG upon nothing,... and so on.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
correct....
The Bible is not primarily a science book.
It certainly has observable science in it.
Flat earth again?
Literal != Figurative...the Bible uses
both. You'd know that if you took the time
to actually read it. But us christians are brainwashed? Think again.
what will you repeat next????
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"The Bible is not primarily a science book.
It certainly has observable science in it."
So does the Quran. Are both correct then?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
"what will you repeat next???? "
o.O
What kind of dumb question is that?
See, If I actually take a time to read something out of the bible, I see already full fantasy and self contradiction.
And that's because the bible is just a compilation of some of many diferent religious books, some people wrote...
The biggest problem is that you had too pick the books in the dark ages... But in the modern time you even pick and choose the meanings of diferent words.
Pathetic.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Let me know when you are done repeating this, k?
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Comment removed
garyrob 2 years ago
What Einstein beileved:
Part 2 "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
I want to focus on my questions about many small changes leading to species, but I will paste one einstein quote for context: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
garyrob 2 years ago
"I do not believe in a personal God"
Lets not miss out on the context.
He was not a beliver in religious denomination. He clearly stated however
that he wanted to know the mind of...who?
God. So clearly either he was confused
or there is more to it than you wish to portray?
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
What Einstein beileved:
Part 1
Britanica:
"Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"Then why do you say you understand what's outside it, and that that is God?"
Its my best guess....I never said I understand it becasue I cant...I am goin on faith by what God has told me in His word. We have no way to tet eternity.
We both know there was a begining of time(an illusion according to Einstien).
That does not mean there is not anything outside of space and time.
Ie...as the multiverse logic goes.....
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
@ride4ruin...again
Im not covering my ears at all....it is you who shouting "I cant hear you."
You say it can be proven but the proof does not exsist. You've not show me one link or piece of info other than guessing.
You need much more faith to accept evolution. The fact that you cant provide one drop of observable evidence shows this.
The flood kills the nonsense of evolution.
The fossil record exsist as a result of a flood. The fact is you cant disprove the flood one iota.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
" meant before the illusion of time. Before and after are also an illusion.
If you were born in a space ship with out windows would you know about anything else unless you were outside the ship?
Of course you would'nt....you could only imagine what is beyond that hatch."
But in this case you believe God is outside the hatch?
garyrob 2 years ago
"But in this case you believe God is outside the hatch?"
Yes God is not subject to the laws of physics unless He chooses to be...ie..
Jesus...He is not restricted to knowledge based only on time and space. He is outside of it....above the law if you will.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed."... ah, sorry, on youtube it's hard to tell what reply goes with what.
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why that the species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it CAN happen, what's the basis for thinking it doesn't?
garyrob 2 years ago
We were distracted... I'll repeat what I want to ask... Suppose a bacteria adapts to a situation where there is a particular medicine, so that it has resistance to it. A matter of survival. Now suppose there is some other thing it can do to survive better... that makes it more efficiently turn food into energy, for example, so it needs less food, thereby increasing its chances for survival. So, in a situation like that, we might see a lineage with two changes to its genome. Is that correct?
garyrob 2 years ago
(following up from my previous post) Both of those changes were for survival's sake, and now there are two changes. Then, once can imagine a series of a lot more changes, over a long period of time, all driven by survival. Could that happen?
garyrob 2 years ago
If moses could split the Red Sea, why not? Again, probability and observable evidence is what makes it fact. We have neither. Interesting theory and some is acutally well thought out based on past discovery.....I just feel it's misses the mark in many areas and sorely....based on observable science alone, outside theology...I was well out of school when I became a christian. I did catholic school in 1st & 2nd but taught evolution as well.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"If moses could split the Red Sea, why not? Again, probability and observable evidence is what makes it fact. We have neither." Not sure what you're responding to. Are you responding to the question about accumulating many small survival-based genetic changes over time?
garyrob 2 years ago
Yeah...sorry there my friend....I must be hitting the wrong reply button or something.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"Yeah...sorry there my friend....I must be hitting the wrong reply button or something." OK, I *think* you're responding to me there. YouTube has a reply button that doesn't seem to cause replies to be associated with the original message. Anyway, so if we agree that over MUCH time there can be a lot of survival induced genetic changes, doesn't that mean there could eventually be something different enough that it's a new species?
garyrob 2 years ago
Oh and Gary Rob, Let me just say thank you for being civil and actually adding to the conversation...unlike some who feel ad-homonym attacks and insults make them smart. I'll glady defend my stance
all day long with a serious opponent rather than waste time answering a fool.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
And about explaining things to you, how this is logic and not faith...
Well it's as simple as that. if you say:
complexity =>creator
this means that a creator, who is by definition even more complex than the whole universe tells us that there must have been a creator who created him... And that one is even more complex... And now you should already see where that leads... An infinite line of creators, and an infinite amount of them is infinite powerfull...
In other words: LOGICAL ABSURD!
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Sigh.....God is outside of time and space.
He was there before the clock of time started ticking. Even the Big Bang folks say that there was a begining of time.
they at least got that part right.
The God wants you to trust what Him regardless of what may 'appear' to be.
I do not care what science you pick, just make sure it does not conflcit with the historically accurate bible and waht God told you.
The fact is observable science doe snot conflict with God.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"Just show me this proof...that is all I ask." You haven't responded yet to my question about whether many small survival-based adaptations, occurring over an extremely large amount of time, might add up to enough differences that the result might be different enough to be called a different species. Could that happen?
garyrob 2 years ago
I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed. I go by the historical record of the Bible and observable science. They work....take the time to lose the mis-conception of the Bible being the flat earthers...that originated in science
and the church trying to merge.
Not the purpose of either.
Things used out of purpose never work well.
I belive in seperation of faith and science.
I also believe one can be useful to the other.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"I most certainly did so. I told you anything is possible but hardly probable as it has yet to be observed."... ah, sorry, on youtube it's hard to tell what reply goes with what.
So, we agree that speciation based on accumulation of small, survival-based changes is possible. We differ in that you say it's yet to be observed.
I don't understand why that the species we see are not the result of those small changes over time? Since we agree it CAN happen, what's the basis for thinking it doesn't?
garyrob 2 years ago
Comment removed
garyrob 2 years ago
"Sigh.....God is outside of time and space.
He was there before the clock of time started ticking"
I'm wondering what you mean by "before" in a context in which time doesn't exist. The concept of "before" is usually something that is dependent on the concept of time. I'm wondering if it's meaningful in the context you're referring to.
garyrob 2 years ago
I meant before the illusion of time. Before and after are also an illusion.
If you were born in a space ship with out windows would you know about anything else unless you were outside the ship?
Of course you would'nt....you could only imagine what is beyond that hatch.
The same can be related to inside and outside of time. You can't really understand something you have not experienced. I've seen bungie jumping
but Im quite sure it's not eevn close to actually doing it.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Comment removed
garyrob 2 years ago
So if god is omnipotent and outside of time and space... why does he need your help to defend him on the internet?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
'He' doesn't need anyones help. it's you that need help from things you aren't getting right now. no pun intended but that is the answer to this specific comment.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
So I need help because I don't understand the logic of your dogma? Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds?
Your "truth" doesn't work in nature. Deal with it.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
the same can be said about your unproven theoretical logic.
how hypocritical and arrogant.
hmmm....sound famil?
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"the same can be said about your unproven theoretical logic.how hypocritical and arrogant."
Actually no. Scientists look at something that happens and builds a theory WHY it happens. And it works! Like chemistry, biology, physics, etc.
Believers claim something and THEN look for evidence. And they say "you need help because you don't get it". THAT'S arrogant and stupid.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
your talking scientific theory and not law.
there is a difference.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"your talking scientific theory and not law."
Then what is the theory of gravity? Does it mean that gravity does not exist? It's just a theory...
tomaselvis 2 years ago
ever heard of the law of gravity?
must not have heard that it's not a just a theory.
where's your law of evolution? that's why it's a theory.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"ever heard of the law of gravity?
must not have heard that it's not a just a theory.
where's your law of evolution? that's why it's a theory."
The law of evolution is actually natural selection, and the laws of gravity are in fact parts of the gravity theory.
So, big fail here!
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"law of gravity?"
Hahahaha!
Laws in physics are the formulas with which you calculate according to the THEORY. Biology doesn't have those formulas. But chemistry does. And it shows that evolution in DNA works.
Again you loose! This is too easy.
Are you this uneducated? Which school did you go to? You seem to lack enormous parts in your education. How old are you, 15?
Do you actually know what science is at all?
tomaselvis 2 years ago
i am twelve and evolution does work. within a species.
you should know that and no other.
resort to anything other than credible subject matter leading astray. that explains why you know natha.
lol all you like. doesn't make you any smarter.
try giving substance to the subject matter like the previous subjects you haven't stayed with w/exception of santa clause. who are you kidding?
and i'm just 12.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
Ok, if you're 12 it's ok to be ignorant.
I hope school will give you more education in all subjects.
Regarding your, "evolution does work. within a species". Look up "ring species". A clear example of your argument breaking apart.
You do NOT know how evolution works. I now you think you do, but you don't.
I will be kinder to you now that I know you're 12. It explains it all. Just ask me about evolution and I will answer.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
It's seriously funny how you guys try too use this "figurative meaning" of the bible.
I saw how some creationists pointed out of the bible talking about the earth being ball shaped... They read out a statement on how god watches over the circle, that's earth...
WOW; but a circle is in 2D, and well yes, that makes it much easier too believe that a mighty being watches over it... :P
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"The Bible is not primarily a science book.
It certainly has observable science in it. "
And I do certainly love to see in which part, and especially... UNDER WHICH PERSPECTIVE :D
I see you're pretty zealous about your religion, but... Give it up... It won't affect anything in the longrun, as there are many more realistic ways of how the universe came too be. And there's too much evidence on how life on earth evolved.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
like an 'accident'
two nothings collided from nowhere thus we became.
bigger fantasy and faith than anything i have ever heard.
maybe the pleadians are experimenting with us?
what other info than The original teachings of The Bible and not all the other intrusions of it?
wouldn't wanna read it now.
AlpondrickTheGreat 2 years ago
"like an 'accident... ... wouldn't wanna read it now. "
What the hell are you trying to say here anyway?
In case you don't know... The bible was just put together of many scripts chosen out of even more. But... I doubt any christian or Jew wants to believe that.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
"Oh and Gary Rob, Let me just say thank you for being civil and actually adding to the conversation"... Well, I think folks on both sides of these debates become so immersed in the logic of their own side that the people on the other side seem like morons; other explanations become hard to imagine! But they really aren't (or else everyone is!), they're just immersed in the logic of their side. It happens to everybody. So there's no point in personal attacks.
garyrob 2 years ago
NOw in all fairness, Im not at all a biology major(by any stretch).
I believe anything is possible. Probability is another matter. I believe God's creation
is quite capable of much more than we could ever know with our own understanding.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
@Gary Rob..... Hey, look. I fully understand
where you are coming from....I was force fed evolution even in catholic grammar school. I did not believe it then and I don't believe it now. Connect the so called evidences for evolution for me. I understand the bits and pieces of science used to validate it but unfortunately, there are twice as many holes you can't answer without conjecture, speculation, FAITH and is
a number of cases, cover-ups and lies.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
@3gdosrsfs: OK, but you still haven't answered my question: why is religious belief negatively correlated with provable ability to come to correct conclusions about facts? There must be a reason for that. What do you think it is?
If we continue having a discussion, I'll keep on asking that until I get an answer. :)
garyrob 2 years ago
The reason is simple the negative correlation is due to the public education system being indoctrinated with non-sciecne, religion even in the name of sciecne......what is so hard to understand?
The NS'ers refuse to honestly and objectively review the facts of intellegent design as it destroys their 'god' evolution.
Not that is does not have merit, it does not fit your dogma. Prove me wrong.
Dont insult my intellegence or just say Im wrong. Evidence. Non simulated evidence.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"what is so hard to understand?" Measured IQ is not based on knowledge. It is based on the ability to correctly discern conclusions from presented facts. It's not based on pre-existing knowledge. You can have an extremely high IQ even as a child, without much exposure to the educational system.
garyrob 2 years ago
Yes as a drug popping teenager I was recorded off the charts in all those tests
so I am not arguing this.
What I am saying is the test itself is based on an acedemia bias.
It is also based on the assumption
that the natural world is all there is.
LOL! the truth is, I can take such a test, believe one thing but know to answer another way that would be suited to the hoped out come of the test.
How does this help anything?
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
OK, I don't think there's much sense in discussing the IQ thing further. You have a perception about what an IQ test is that is totally different from mine. (For instance I don't think they have any assumptions regarding natural vs supernatural realities.)
garyrob 2 years ago
No it isn't...I am simply saying who is interpreting the data? I bet you can see the result in many different ways.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"No it isn't...I am simply saying who is interpreting the data? I bet you can see the result in many different ways." I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you. What result do you mean? I'm just asking, since we agree that small changes can occur that involve changes to the genes, whether over a lot of time, many such small changes can occur that add up to a substantial number of changed genes.
garyrob 2 years ago
Oops...that was intended for the Iq test..not the genetics.
The point with the genetics is it does not happen for the purpose of evolution but for
survial. It adapts to enviroment but not to cause drastic change to another form.
We should have less organs if it were so.
Human has always been human and has always had the same genentics as far as we can see. There is only speculation otherwise. That speculation is based on a lot of fairy tail and man made charts.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"The point with the genetics is it does not happen for the purpose of evolution but for
survial." Evolutionary theory agrees with you there... small changes can happen for survival. (It does posit other mechanisms, such as one sex of a species evolving traits that are more attractive to the other sex, but that's not core -- the theory would be fundamentally the same without those niceties, so we can ignore them in this discussion.)
garyrob 2 years ago
(following up from my previous post). Suppose a bacteria adapts to a situation where there is a particular medicine, so that it has resistance to it. That is a matter of survival. Now suppose there is some other thing it can do to survive better... that makes it more efficiently turn food into energy, for example, so it needs less food, thereby increasing its chances for survival. So, in a situation like that, we might see a lineage with two changes to its genome. Is that correct?
garyrob 2 years ago
(following up from my previous post) Both of those changes were for survival's sake, and now there are two changes. Then, once can imagine a series of a lot more changes, over a long period of time, all driven by survival. Could that happen?
garyrob 2 years ago
Comment removed
garyrob 2 years ago
(following up) Actually even the sexual attractiveness thing is considered to be for survival because the more attractive variant has more offspring on average. I just meant to say, for completeness, that sometimes in the theory changes occur for reasons other than survival; evidence points us in that direction. But the main driving force is survival, which agrees with your point about our example bacteria adapting against a medicine.
garyrob 2 years ago
How about if I told you that I believe genetics could change rapidly, as in hours or even minutes?
I've never seen it happen but why not?
What hold us back from shape shifting?
After all matter and energy are the same thing right? E =MC^2....
How about that even with all we can see under the microscope, we don't know the 1/1,000,000,000, nevermind the 1/2.
The more science realizes the more questions it is forced to ask.
The Bible has great answers tested
over time.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Ok, As much as I get of this... you responded to me on a comment some months old or more, to argue with me about evolution vs. creation... Which in fact is a pretty dumb thematic... as there is actually nothing you can posibly have against evolution. And as good as nothing which could speak for creation...
I also believe you're American... (Only americans and muslim do believe in creation and criticize evolution...) I'll check later on your profile.
Anyway... Let me say this:
nomineZERO 2 years ago
I am an american of Italian decent if you really must know.
(Only americans and muslim do believe in creation and criticize evolution...)
This is hardly a factual statement and clearly not well thought out on your part.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Ahm... There are few fanatics also elsewhere, who believe all the shit that comes from the US... But not really note worthy...
Oh and there's something you should know: Not all religious people are creationists. Why? Cause they don't close their eyes in front of nature... They actually see that every time a new species emerges in the micro level and also in bug or small birds level... In longer time zones even on bigger animals... and so on
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Just show me this proof...that is all I ask.
Also I told you I belive in adaption. I dont believe in transformation....unless you are talking Optimus Prime of course.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Oh... And your decent doesn't matter to me actually... I don't care if your ancestors came from Italy, America or Mars...
And also It's useless to show you any examples of evolution (which happens after each living being is born - in other words: all the time). Cause out of experience you creationists try to excuse everything with "microevolution". Which is simply pathetic... And I'm done here.
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Ah so you imply decent and nationality and now you dont care? Interesting....
Again....I do believe in the ability of speices to adapt.
Done? Nto one bit of evidence
and you are done?
So I win the argument then?
Sweet!
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
If you seriously believe:
-That life or universe is much too complex to have always existed or to came out spontaneously,
and that there must have been an EVEN MORE COMPLEX being... which created it all...
You must be simply mad, or ignorant of every logic...
nomineZERO 2 years ago
Please...show me how this is so.
Prove me wrong. I like to learn.
I like also to observe what I learn.
I like theory, even real way out there
theories....but dont tell me they are fact until you can obsevre them...now...today
and yesterday...you still an't without a lot of faith and a lot of serious imagination.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago