No schooling, and religious people = cretards. I know calling them stupid wont hep, but it makes me feel good. I wish they would live in reality, and not push their fairy tails on schools and reality.
It amazes me how many people take what this video is saying as gospel. You have total faith in someone who most likely never went to look at the evidence anywhere other than an atheist web site and definitely has never looked at the evidence with an open mind.
Wrong. The population of the earth is what is is from 5- 6000 years. IF evoluion is true you would believe man s population is what it is from 100,000 years. I dissagree strongly as that doesnt line up with KNOWN history.
@bebop7c2 No I believe God can walk on water. Well I certainly don't believe whales evolved from a land dwelling mammal..which had no ability to swim or hunt under water. Der.
@jiminiflix The mammal ancestors of the whale did hunt underwater, that's the only way they could have evolved into whales.
I'm sorry, I just said something factual, you'll never understand that. What I should have done was write down what I wanted to say in a book, had the book mistranslated and butchered for 2000 years, then tell you God made it and tell you this is the truth.
Here I was in the real world, when I should have been using magic an lies to convince you.
@bebop7c2 Hi I just got back from a holiday in the south pacific. I saw whales, as we all know they are incredable creatures and absolutely massive. You said mammal ancestors of whales did hunt underwater and you apologised for stating a fact to me like I am some 5 year old. Firstly , you lied. Whale ancestors are not factual nor proven to ever exist except in mans imagination.Fossils, bones do not prove anything especially scientifically. Its not scientific practice to lie is it?
@jiminiflix You know if you personally disagree with a statement, that doesn't make it a lie. The idea that you can't learn anything from fossils is simply laughable. You can learn morphology, when and where it lived, what it ate, how it moved and much more, depending on the completeness of the fossil.
There are many mammals that live partially in land and water. To reject whale evolution because you don't believe its ancestors could hunt underwater is ridiculous.
@Impaler1815 I reject evolution because its not scientifically possible. Even if you had a trillion years, information doesn't come from nowhere and mutations do not increase information nor contribute enough wrong information to change a population. If survival of the fittest is applied mutations don't benefit the lifeforms survival. The uphill fallacy that all information came from the first cell and overtime grew and increased in information is a scientific impossibility. Life needs life.
@jiminiflix This is what you said: "Well I certainly don't believe whales evolved from a land dwelling mammal..which had no ability to swim or hunt under water."
Do you now concede that statement, and change your reasons for not believing whales could evolve from land mammals?
You need to research how evolution works. Also, look for a measurable definition of information. You will find, despite being asked many times, creationists have not given one.
@Impaler1815 How can a land dwelling mammal get the instinct to hunt under the ocean?That creature would need to have many changes biologically for aquatic survival. How do you know how evolution works?You have never observed it except in a text book.? Its a "theory"- not an observable LAW of science. The meaning of information is complex though all information needs a sender and a reciever. Information has logic and design. It is not a result of chance and error like the design of a microchip
@jiminiflix You know mammals don't have to live entirely in the water, or entirely out of it. There are plenty of animals that are advantaged by water despite not having all the features of a whale.
We have actually observed the mechanisms of evolution. Despite what creationists have claimed, the only difference between micro and macroevolution is scale. No valid barrier between the two has ever been observed.
@Impaler1815 The whale has what you believe are vestigial organs that you would say were once its legs. Isn't this mere imagination? Those bones are actually important for the whale to procreate, they are part of its sex organs. Why do you call that science? The whale can dive to many km down and needs to to collect krill. How did it learn to do that?If it had a tale already and no feet how did it get into the ocean?So where did its tale come from? How did it mate and what with?
@jiminiflix You haven't put much thought into this. Again; mammals don't have to live entirely in the water, or entirely out of it. There are plenty of animals that are advantaged by water despite not having all the features of a whale.
You know when you ask "where did x come from" the answer is always going to be the same: Natural selection of random mutation. It's not like these features aren't coded for by DNA.
@Impaler1815 You're joking right? A land mammal does not have in its DNA the potential to grow a TALE unless it could POSSIBLY mate with creature with a tale. This is an extreme example but that would be like a donkey trying to have sex with a dolphin. Its not an observable natural possibility. Natural selection is a fact no doubt, random mutation is a fact no doubt- there are no issues there . Put them together and you don't get evolution, you get nothing anyone would notice in the population.
@jiminiflix Tails are coded for by DNA, land mammals have DNA, their DNA can change. So, yeah, it does have the potential.
You obviously know nothing of biology, different species cannot breed, no one says evolution works that way, whales did not evolve from donkeys and dolphins evolved from land mammals too. Just go to wikipedia, spend half an hour reading about cetacean evolution. At least try to learn the bare minimum.
@Impaler1815 So a whale tale is possibly coded into other land mammals? I am not a biologist so excuse the imperfect phrasing, but thats horse shit. "different species cannot breed, no one says evolution works that way"
Can you please explain how the tree of life in evolution is possible if tran speciation is impossible. LOL you need to read something other than wikipedia. Please show me HOW the cetacean species came from a walking land mammal of a different species , as you know biology.
@jiminiflix "So a whale tale is possibly coded into other land mammals?"
No. That would be magic. I said any piece of DNA has the potential to change into the DNA that codes tails. Learn how evolution works. It's pointless to continue if you don't even know anything about what you're arguing against. When you stop thinking evolution is interspecies cross breeding, know what mutations are, and know what natural selection is, you can return.
@jiminiflix So you're saying mutations exist, and natural selection exists, but natural selection doesn't work on mutations? You know we have observed that happening. Like, all the time. I mean, no amount of evolution, micro or macro, could occur without it.
I notice you've totally avoided the information issue. I guess you're looking for a definition from a creationist website. Take you're time. You'll need it.
@Impaler1815 Interbreeding within species has been termed micro evolution, and I agree IF evolution is real micro and macro would be interlinked. Interbreeding within species, kinds, genus is natural and as I believe God designed all life to pro-create. As we KNOW all life needs all life to exist on earth to exist -puts evolution biologists into a head spin.Natural or man made interbreeding within species is not evidence of macro evolution. Trans speciation has never been observed in nature.
@Impaler1815 Information comes from intelligence, no matter what it is. Can you tell me of any information in english that came about by accident? How can ANY lifeform grow and with such amazing ability,to be able to even reproduce without some intelligent organisation and" blueprint"? A cell is much more complex than the most complex micro chip yet you actually believe a cell has no intelligence behind it? God spoke life into being.Information is complex but life without it is impossible.
@jiminiflix Considering there is no english information in any DNA that's not exactly a relevant definition. You still haven't explained how to actually measure information. How can you make any claims about information content if you can't measure it?
I do read lots of things besides wikipedia. But that's where you should start. When you understand the gist of evolution you can move on. It's clear you don't actually understand it if you think it's random chance.
@Impaler1815 I was as using English as an example. Are you dull?Funny you never answer any of my questions.I have explained information as a term is complex, what type of information do YOU mean? All life is it not as a result of some form of information. Codes within the DNA strand?. You are alive and unique based on the unique information in your genetic make up to make you-you. That is information. Complex design requires information- do you see or choose not to see design in flora and fauna?
@Impaler1815 Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have seen no increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.
@jiminiflix Oh, so you're saying an increase in the number of bases and/or genes in a genome is an increase in information? Well why didn't you say so! Look up gene duplication and insertions. Your welcome.
@jiminiflix So genome size is not what you mean by information? Well then, what is in an increase in information? To put it in a way a scientifically literate person would understand; what would a mutation that increased information look like?
I don't know what it looks like but it seems to me if it takes two genes to now do the role of one gene, thats not a greatly beneficial increase (if its an increase at all). Do you know of any examples of new functions in organisms due to gene duplication?
@jiminiflix If you don't know what an increase in information looks like, how do you know it doesn't happen? Are you saying a new function is an increase in information?
@Impaler1815 It may be. Can you explain what an increase of information in the genome is? If its real, what evidence is there to prove that gene duplication has changed all lifeforms over millions of years and why is it that there are million year old fossils of creatures no different today? Why hasn't there been evolutionary change in them? Can you also answer this ,How could DNA evolve if DNA needs the very proteins it makes?
@jiminiflix You are really determined not to answer the question, aren't you? Why would I need to explain what in increase in information is, when I'm not the one using it in an argument? Just admit it, you don't actually know what information is. You just read it from a creationist website, and didn't even stop to think about what it actually is before posting it.
@jiminiflix "You are alive and unique based on the unique information in your genetic make up to make you-you. That is information. Complex design requires information"
Okay, and how does one differentiate an increase in information from a decrease in information? That's your whole argument, remember?
@jiminiflix That definition doesn't explain how to measure information. Remember, how can you claim information doesn't increase, if you don't know what an increase in information looks like?
Again, research how evolution works. It's not random chance. We know that for a fact. And look up what a scientific theory is. It's not the same as the common definition. You will find gravity, atoms and diseases are all scientific theories.
@Impaler1815 "how can you claim information doesn't increase, if you don't know what an increase in information looks like?" The only way evolution could work is if mutational change was able to increase the amount of info in the genome, one such is through gene duplication. Much study and effort has gone into proving that increasing information makes evolution possible, but evolution is supposed to be a natural process. HAve YOU ever observed evolution in nature?
@jiminiflix Yeah, that still doesn't explain how to measure information. Again, if you can't actually measure information how do you know it doesn't increase? How do you know it's even necessary for evolution.
You know when evolution's observed in the lab, it's still a natural process. Unless some changes are made to the mechanisms of evolution, the mechanisms are the same as those in nature, which we also observe.
@jiminiflix You're acting like you are five, but I'm guessing you're an adult that cares more about your fictional religious world then the real world.
Whales started off as dog like creatures, then over time adapted and evolved into the whales we know and love. There are fossils, a good few transitional ones to boot, but you'd never think to google them I'm sure.
I'm sorry you don't understand evolution, reality, what is real and not, but if you want to learn there are book on this stuff.
@bebop7c2 Its a theory and one that hasn't been tested because you never saw those bones (of other creatures) alive. To say I don't understand evolution is an assumption on your part. The fossil record proves nothing and evolutionists know that. If you want to talk actual science prove trans speciation. Prove that a species that is a walking mammal with teeth and four legs can ACTUALLY via' mutation' becaome a magnificent whale. This is not science though anymore, but imagination.
@jiminiflix The theory of evolution is a theory, but evolution its-self is a fact, change does happen over time. The fossil record proves many things, not nothing.
Proving a walking mammal turned into a whale is a lot like proving a murder that no one witnessed. You look at the evidence and make a judgement on facts that support that. I'm sure if you weren't religious about your views you'd see the fossils, radiometric dating methods, and all other evidence points to evolution.
@bebop7c2 The term religious is a common criticism for those that believe in God. I atleast admit that my belief is based on faith and evidence. You cannot dispute that faith is equally your foundation for why you believe in evolution. To say that evolution is a fact is a lie. A fact is something that actually exists, something verifiable from observation or experience. Yet you haven't observed evolution, your faith says everything is millions of years old and evolution is too slow to see.
@bebop7c2 I have some questions for you to think about. " Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop. Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen. Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones. " Can you explain any of that to me? Probably not.
@jiminiflix The first life on this planet was single celled, bacteria or something like it, complexity happens over millions of years.
Take the eye, the eye started as a light sensor and became more complex. The eye was useful as a light sensor to help creatures survive, and so it evolved and become better. Just look up Jelly fish, a creature with some staying power.
Gills evolved into lungs and light sensors evolved into eyes. I think you're missing the point of Darwin's discovery.
@bebop7c2 In order to discuss this issue with you, do you admit evolution mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary?Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. We disagree on the limits of variation. No mutation in fruit fly studies has changed the whole population. They are still fruit flys.Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.Thus...
@jiminiflix Evolution breaks down what we know of the world and examins what is most likley to be real. Creationist believe that something we know nothing about could have made living things.
There are plenty of small scale example of evolution, because the small stuff adds up to be big stuff in millions of years, I know it's hard to understand the time span, it's not like people should understand millions of years. We only live for 70 after all.
@bebop7c2 Creationism and evolution are both historical sciences and BOTH require faith to believe in them. Both are religious. Creationsists atleast admit that. You follow something you've neither seen nor can fully explain or prove. The lie that ALL LIVING THINGS are transitional lifeforms is not a scientific fact. Even the fossil record shows apparent 40 million year old creatures that have NOT changed to todays. There should be evidence everywhere for evolution, but its not. Admit it.
@jiminiflix All the plantes in our solar system were once lifeless, and at some point from then until now earth formed life. If you believe it was magic, that's fine, but my reality/reason based belief is more justified.
Evolutution may be slowed/stop if a creatures current state is extreamly capable of survival in the environment and able to survive prey. That's why we see some creatures never change, Crocs haven't changed over 200 million years, exept for their size.
@bebop7c2 Firstly science says that dark matter exist everywhere in space (or there must be) because planets are spinning too fast so there must be more mass for more gravity. The mass cannot be seen so its called dark matter. But no one knows WHAT dark matter is?SO you call my belief "magic". In the beginning God CREATED. Thats it. Thats my stance. Does everything look orderly and with design? ask an astrophysicist- absolutely yes. I admit a creator- you believe everything came from nothing.
@jiminiflix We may not know what dark matter is, but we still have evidence that something of mass exists out there. We don't have any evidence, at all, that an omnipotent being exists. We don't have any evidence that anything can ever be thought into existence.
If complexity and order requires a designer, then God must require a designer.
Again, no one believes everything came from nothing. Stop using straw men. God doesn't approve of false witnesses, remember?
@Impaler1815 I can tell you now if you believe in dark matter then you can believe in God, both require faith and Jesus said all you need is faith the size of a mustard seed to let God show you who he is. He knows your heart and if you seek Him you will find, if you knock the door will be opened. Through Him all things were created including you, infact He knew you before you were born. God exists outside of time and has always been. Science believes theres 11 dimensions.
@bebop7c2 " small stuff adds up to be big stuff in millions of years" Thats an assumption and not a proven scientific fact at all. The fossil record for evolution proves NOTHING! They are dead but you cannot know what offspring they had or if they survived. Millions of years is a belief. No scientific dating method can be trusted, so all methods may be used. They NEVER agree. Also no one can assume elements are ever constant over such time.The dates are preassumed according to where its found.
@bebop7c2 the eye evolving from a light sensitve cell I believe is a mockery to actual science. Its a computer simulation without real world elements. The human eye or even a light sensor would have been always useless if the brain wasn't first existing which is by far more complex. SOme of the earliest arthropods had better compound eyes than flies. How can this be evolution? How could gills evolve into lungs- the fish would have died before "evolving". :-)
@jiminiflix The brain or nerves of Jellyfish would have come first you're right. Evolution isn't climb up a vertical cliff, but a slow walk up a hill to complexity.
Light sensors that clustered together like that of flies, allow for better site then just 1 or 2 sensors. Flies eyes send singnals to their nerves faster then our eyes too. They may now see a clearly as us but they see quicker, so it's a good eye for them to have.
@bebop7c2 Regarding the eye : The fly's lens is a complicated "design" . No man has been able to make an eye at micro level that complicated. Yet you speak as if evolution has intelligence. The fly's eye is not just a "cluster of light sensors". You have swallowed the "most gullible student" pill. Most people take the fly for granted but it is an amazing insect. Their eyes are compound made up of many hundreds or thousands of eyes, so called ommatidiums, each with anti reflection 'technology'.
@jiminiflix Evolution is a design process, one which is molded by the world and things in it that affect the creatures and plants.
I'm sure man could make an eye like a flies, or even better some day. Evolution has reason and purpose behind it. That's why the flies eye, which probably started out like beatles eyes, changed into the eye we see today. Muations happend that, very slowly, that made the eye better for them, so they stuck.
@bebop7c2 "Evolution is a design process, one which is molded by the world and things in it that affect the creatures and plants" This is classic "evolution of theory". How can an unintelligent invisible non entity that you call evolution have the mind and intellience to be a desin process. Evolution is a series of events, randomly affecting outcomes like lotto balls bouncing. Its not a design process. Evolution in that case could never start , the first life had nothing to exist along side it.
@jiminiflix More straw men. Evolution is not random. Darwin himself could have told you that. You're 150 years behind.
We have at least some evidence that life can form naturally. That's infinite times the evidence you have for life being thought into existence. Regardless, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. It would be just as valid if abiogenesis were falsified.
@bebop7c2 "I'm sure man could make an eye like a flies" I am sure your correct but thats not evolution. The fly has been there from day one. There are no evolved flies. Cross matching them for years has ended up with flies. Flies don't come from beetles - its impossible. They have always been as complex as they are and their eyes are a million times more complex than a camera made by man. The human eye is equally as complex. Mutations do not explain life and its origins.Admit it.
@jiminiflix Claiming an organism must be designed because humans can't make what they have is a very poor argument. Humans have not had billions of years of trial and error to make anything.
Mutations were never meant to explain the origin of life. They do however explain the diversity of life just fine.
@Impaler1815 All life is complex. If you saw a chair in the bush would you assume its grown there or that someone made it? If you look at the ant, and study it up close, how could such a complex and intelligent insect have evolved without intelligence behind it? Its intelligently designed perfectly for its purpose, to reproduce, clean up the forrest and be food to other creatures. If mutations cannot explain abio-genesis how can it explain life in our time? It cannot in my oppinion.
@jiminiflix Are there natural mechanisms that result in chairs? Are chairs subject to imperfect replication and natural selection? Is the structure of furniture entirely dependant on the arrangement of four bases?
"If mutations cannot explain abio-genesis how can it explain life in our time?"
That makes no sense. Why would you compare mutations in life with a process that doesn't involve mutations? Are you sure you know what mutations, abiogenesis and evolution are?
@jiminiflix You say things have always been the same with such certainty, when at one point there was no life on Earth at all. It had to come from somewhere and in a rational real world evolution explains how life become more complex.
@bebop7c2 The eyes on arthropods have complex compound eyes. How can you call that evolution? Look rationally at the science. Fossils even show instant life. Where are lifeforms lower in evolution than crustacians and arthropods? These lifeforms are the same to todays creatures and very complex still the same. Why are there so many fossils? There was a global flood- a castastrophic event thus why we have so many layers in the earths crust. Thats why fossils/ oil exists and whales on mountains.
@jiminiflix Fossils don't show instant life, they show a clear record of evolution from less complex ocean creatures to more complex creatures and with greater diversity.
Sponge and Stromatolites lived all over the worlds oceans 3-2 billion years ago, (their like coral today kinda) and were here before arthropods. Stromatolites are nearly existinct, but it must have taken billions of years for Stromatolites to make all the fossils they have, the worlds convered in them after all.
@Cnidarious "Only Mutations which are suitable are able to Persist"
May I ask what determines whether a mutation is "suitable" and what determines whether they "persist"?
The "environment" is indeed random, and "selection" has no ability to create anything since that process is limited to what already exists. I don't see where you have any cards left. Perhaps Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff can assist.
You can purchase one of your own on eBay. Simply search for "trilobite soft tissue" and checkmark "Include title and description" box. How do evolutionists explain this? Miraculous preservation !!!
The video's argument fails to account for Noah's descendents having 600 yr. lifespans which would create an initial growth curve unlike anything possible today. This explanation is not ad hoc since Gen 11:10-11 EXISTED BEFORE this debate. Evolutionists argue homo sapiens grew 0% in 200,000 years. - UNLIKELY
The video uses a strawman argument that humans can't populate exponentially because BACTERIA would have filled the universe given the same opportunity. Humans are smarter than bacteria and NOTHING limits them from populating exponentially NOW, even though resources are tighter. Much more so in the past when fewer people meant less competition, spreading epidemics, & wars. The equation N2 = N1 * e^(rt) explains why population is accelerating NOW vs. a pure farming & technology explanation.
Where did you get your numbers from? If you just were to have the basic knowledge of the Bible, you would know this: Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the whole world was going to be numbered, right? The population at the time of Christ was about 250 million.
So Evolution did it through Random occurrences. The Random occurrences in the DNA randomly arranged the trillions of pairs in the molecule and randomly came up with eyes, limbs, brains, nervous systems, bones, feelings art, music, computers,
Thank you. that really clears it up now.
first nothing, then jumble around the DNA and abracadabra...eyes.....abracadabra...bones.
Forget that history stuff. Inventing stories is so much more fun..
Yes, it works. You can play the game of evolution just using a dice and a piece of paper.
Let us pretend, the genetical code of an eye would be represented by the number: 123
Now we start rolling our "dice of evolution". We do this many times. As soon as we have a "1" our creature has developed a certain sensitivity to light.
This gives it some advantage in the competitive game of life. Therefore it is more successful in having offspring.
Oh pardon me. the mutations that supposedly create all of these new limbs, systems, brains, eyes, bones, etc. where none have been before, are not accidental they are random.
That clears it all up. It is not an accidental mistake in the DNA it is a RANDOM mistake in the DNA.
OH, I feel so much better now. that is such good science. Wow EVOLUTION did it by random mistakes in the DNA that just happened to make eyes, brains, bones, feelings.
It never happened! Wake up you are dreaming again.
Actually it is supposed to work that way. Given enough time and enough accidental mutations, Evolutionism says that we will eventually see...well...every type of organism that exists.
I have seen the fossil record. it also contradicts gradualism. That is why Gould from Harvard invented punctuated equilibrium. Because Gradualism is Bull. Unfortunately for him so is punctuated equilibrium.
That's bull and you know it. we have seen adaptations in organisms. However, there is no indication that any organism can mutate sufficiently to eventually become an entirely new organism with never before seen systems appendages and organs.
Just what we see? What we see is that there is a limit to how much we can change an animal. It will never accumulate enough mutations to change it into another type of animal. That is what we see. We have tried in the lab through millions of generations of various organisms. We can't even make it happen. Change happens but there is a limit.
Ask any breeder if there is a limit and they will tell you that there absolutely is.
No I'm not complaining about the story that evolutionists tell. I'm just stating that it is not science and it is not true. Change in Allelic frequency is recorded and observed. that is only one definition of the term evolution.
"If you Refuse to ever change your mind when empirical evidence is given to you, Then your not doing it at all."
Exactly correct, and as the empirical evidence piles up against Evolutionism and its followers continue to refues to change their mind, it is obvious that they are not doing science at all.
When you create a fairy tale and then try to contort observations to fit the tale, that is not science. At least the creationists didn't create the bible It was handed down by our forefathers and is the most accurate ancient text known to man.
Science provides evidence for the bible every day. most branches of science were started by creationists. Evolutionism on the other hand is a fairy tale for grown ups. long long ago and far away there was nothing, Then it exploded.
Actually there is evidence for the gradual evolution of trilobites. You see trilobites are great for backing up the theory of evolution because their hard exoskeletons make for numerous fossils. You the ancestor for the tribolites are Profallotaspis jakutensis,Fritzaspis sp,Hupetina antiqua and the Serrania gordaensis. Now here is where the cool part comes in. Becaus tribolites make for numerous fossils we can pretty accuratley track their evolution from the early cambrian to the premian era
You jackass The bible is not literal . The Earth go's around the sun not the other way around that proofs that one thing in the bible is wrong which means many more things are.
if 4400 years there where 8 people, the population would have to grow at a given rate.creationists are trying to prove this rate is a valid (possible) rate
Sound arguments; however, I propose that 3 children per family is only a recent, modern development. History & Anthropology shows that men typically sired dozens of children.
Using the Bible, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (a common ancient practice), if he sired 3 children from each, that's 3,000 offspring. More likely, however, is that he had 1,000s more than that.
This supports creationism; Adam & Eve had dozens of kids, not just the three mentioned.
"This supports creationism; Adam & Eve had dozens of kids, not just the three mentioned. "
That would suggest something even worse than kissing cousins. Siblings knocking kids out of each other usually leads to subject material for movies like "The Hills Have Eyes." or "Deliverance".
Its a core reason why incest is universally considered unhealthy.
Face it, Creationism is crap, and has been found out.
You fail to consider that a few standards could have been different way back when. You think it's some "secret" that in a world started by 2 orginal humans, that siblings must have had sex together? Only Biblically illiterate people would be "surprised" by that? But back then, humans were commanded to multiply, and there wasn't a lot of choices who to marry and mate with. And the genetics wasn't so deteriorated as now, so "incest" restrictions came later.
if u use a constant rate throughout then you can dispute past events, however i think ppl fucked and had a lot more children in the past. that's how you got those 1 million armies.... :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guys video is pointless! What matters is this 6 billion in 1999,5B in 1987 4B in 1975
3B in 1960 2B in 1930 1B in 1930, 200 million
at the time of christ and falling....Evolution needs millions of years to make a man out of you, but that luxury does not exist! This guys statements of past populations cannot change the facts. And think
about this: Our grandparents keep doubling as we go back in time. 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 etc etc Turns out we are all related! Good day!
You never calculated the numbers on these values, did you? For the first part, it's around 1.5%, but you gave the population of 1930 as both 1B and 2B people.I'll go with the 2B number because it's closer. That would mean an average growth rate between the years 1 and 1930 of 0.12% which is way lower than the other rates which are around 1.5%.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry about the 1B mess up. I actually noticed
that boo boo after it was posted. It should have read 2B 1930 & 1B about 1850ish. I noticed peoples responce to my post. Funny thing is... i am not a creationist, but i totally believe in creation. I am one of Jehovahs Witnesses. The creation around us is
so utterly complex and awesome, as are our own
bodies that i am convinced this is no accident
If you are interested in some info in support of this conclusion feel free to ask.Love the subject
If you think its unlikely that we happened "by accident" because we are too complex. Then what about the complexity of the being that you believe created life the universe and everything in all its complexity?
All of your world population figures are post industrial revolution, let alone post agricultural stage.
For the vast majority of the time Humans have existed, we were hunter gatherers.
The fact that you can't get around is that the human population cannot significantly outgrow the lands ability to produce subsistence, search Thomas Malthus.
I don't think the creationist model, of a 0.5% increase per year, is considering anything, besides the rate required to get todays population from 8 people 4,400 years ago. I didn't bother considering mortality when it came to Sargon, it's best to give the creationists the maximum benifit of the doubt.
mejc2: if you see transitions from the minor single celled organisms found in the precambrian level to the billions of creatures found in the cambrian level be specific and let the world know what they are. considering the billions of creatures trapped all over the planet in the same strata(not by a global flood ahem)
**************
Um, there are no humans, rabbits, lizards, eagles, horses, tigers, snakes, bats, frogs, dogs, or apple trees in Cambrian strata.
Creationists should stay away from numbers! Numbers are precise and figures and calculations made by creationists can easily be debunked. Creationists just stick to vague and mendacious discourse that's what they're good at!...sorta.
Just giving you guys a tip because your delusions amuse me. =P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NUMBERS? trying to pin a evolutionist down to numbers is near impossible. Even when they do give a vague reference to a number they are soooo quick to change it when the numbers don'e work out. When they began their story the earth was 200,000,000 years old. It didn't fit thier theory so now it is 4.5 bil.What a joke. How many morophological changes did it take to go from a land animal to a whale and how long does each change take. Two questions that should be easy but evolutionists won't reply
hahahahaha, the only reason dates change like that, is becuase we develop more advanced ways of measuring decays etc, so we can pinpoint dates down., and for your second BOOM headshot for the evennin... since we will never find all fossils, so that question is just a strwman
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Strawman? There is no theory of evolution. It's a big joke on the people of the world. Ok, if there is a theory of evolution, let's have it. put it in quotes. what is the theory that accounts for the billions and billions of creatures that have ever lived on the planet. again in quotes please I would like to see it.
lol, so there is no thoaery of evolution??? then what u fightin against? thats your 1st "arugment" shot down in flames. Secondly, look at talkoriginsdotorg, that will help you with the second. O, and please explain this. If your creator made everything, and they never chnage, when did he 1st make them? like y did he start witht eh cambrian, then work its way to us? sounds like hge shoulda just skipped to us, doesnt it? so thats aaa.... BOOM HEADSHOT, fundie boy
it doesn't, but it does rant in the face of a slow gradual change from single celled organisms to the billions of rediculously complex organisms with hundreds of billions of bits of new information in their DNA that are found in the cambrian.
"it doesn't, but it does rant in the face of a slow gradual change" - Id call 6million yours pretty slow, and again, theres evidence showing there WAS a progression from simple to complex, doesnt matter how much you say it cant work if the evidence is there is MUST...
The scientists call it the cambrian explosion for a reason. They don't call it the cambrian gradual slow appearance of more and more complex organisms over time. they have evidence of single celled creatures, which are in no way simple, and then bam millions of ultra complex complete creatrues all trapped in one layer all over the planet. that is what the evidence shows. You can now start your manipulation of the evidence to support your fairy tale. go right ahead if it makes you feel better.
you youve ignored the progression of spundges, juts one example...just to add it was called an explosion as for the longest time it was single cell, the time frame was still 6million years, Im kinda getting bored, you make a comment, I say why is doesnt work, and you just repeat it...
"It isn't "BAM!". That "BAM!" you speak of took 6 MILLION years.
Certainly not 6,000, and certainly not "BAM!"
sure 6,000,000 years and no precursors to the millions and millions of creatures found fully formed and complex in the cambrian explosion. You guys ignore facts. you just say oh it took 6 million years and that is supposed to make it all better. fact is that there are millions of complex creatures found all over the globe in one layer with no prior creatures to account for them.
"You guys ignore facts. you just say oh it took 6 million years and that is supposed to make it all better. fact is that there are millions of complex creatures found all over the globe in one layer with no prior creatures to account for them." - how does this prove biblical creation??????????????...have you watched thunderf00t vid on this topic??????
you need to also take into account the increasing formation of single cells colanies, the formation of primative coral, spundges, planctons..look up the hydra, also you argue it shoots down gradual change, the cambrian isnt the only sample of the fossil record we have...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Explained? Telling a story of what you think might have happened isn't an explanation.
creationists have an historical account that is supported by scientists from every discipline.
Evolutionists look at the evidence and then make up a story to fit the evidence, when they find new evidence they change their story.what they do is not prediction it is postdiction.
Even if there were no "precursors" to Cambrian-age fossils, it wouldn't matter. Everything AFTER that does have obvious precursors and they have been found.
How in the hell would that prove creation?
Furthermore, I'm no expert, but I'd almost guarantee the "there are no precursors to Cambrian-age fossils" is bullshit. If there indeed has not been any found, then they just haven't been found YET, or conditions were not right...Like if they all had soft bodies which would decompose very fast.
This subject is braught up more than Simpson repeats. Typical creationist double standards and turning a blind eye, yet theyll try to find the tinyest detail to critacise the evolutionists.
No schooling, and religious people = cretards. I know calling them stupid wont hep, but it makes me feel good. I wish they would live in reality, and not push their fairy tails on schools and reality.
bebop7c2 3 months ago
@bebop7c2 I feel for you man. Just don't facepalm. It starts hurting after a while ;-)
d007ization 1 month ago in playlist Weitere Videos von Impaler1815
1+1=4.5 creationists math is not good math, math bad hoo hoo hoo msttthh badd
bebop7c2 5 months ago
It amazes me how many people take what this video is saying as gospel. You have total faith in someone who most likely never went to look at the evidence anywhere other than an atheist web site and definitely has never looked at the evidence with an open mind.
ArboriusOwns 9 months ago
I am really puzzled that young earth creationists still exist!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Comment removed
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy
When I read this, I can see that you are not even a wannabe intellectual, you are not an intellectual at all.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Comment removed
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy
If you say it!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Which the Bible confirms.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
Which the Bible confirms.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
Wrong. The population of the earth is what is is from 5- 6000 years. IF evoluion is true you would believe man s population is what it is from 100,000 years. I dissagree strongly as that doesnt line up with KNOWN history.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix
Did you even watch the video?
sweatytoothmadman 1 year ago
@jiminiflix
What do you know about "known" history.
I think that you only know a little part of "known" history.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@jiminiflix This guy thinks magic is real and people walk on water, he's not to bright people, leave him alone.
bebop7c2 5 months ago
@bebop7c2 No I believe God can walk on water. Well I certainly don't believe whales evolved from a land dwelling mammal..which had no ability to swim or hunt under water. Der.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix The mammal ancestors of the whale did hunt underwater, that's the only way they could have evolved into whales.
I'm sorry, I just said something factual, you'll never understand that. What I should have done was write down what I wanted to say in a book, had the book mistranslated and butchered for 2000 years, then tell you God made it and tell you this is the truth.
Here I was in the real world, when I should have been using magic an lies to convince you.
bebop7c2 5 months ago
@bebop7c2 Hi I just got back from a holiday in the south pacific. I saw whales, as we all know they are incredable creatures and absolutely massive. You said mammal ancestors of whales did hunt underwater and you apologised for stating a fact to me like I am some 5 year old. Firstly , you lied. Whale ancestors are not factual nor proven to ever exist except in mans imagination.Fossils, bones do not prove anything especially scientifically. Its not scientific practice to lie is it?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You know if you personally disagree with a statement, that doesn't make it a lie. The idea that you can't learn anything from fossils is simply laughable. You can learn morphology, when and where it lived, what it ate, how it moved and much more, depending on the completeness of the fossil.
There are many mammals that live partially in land and water. To reject whale evolution because you don't believe its ancestors could hunt underwater is ridiculous.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 I reject evolution because its not scientifically possible. Even if you had a trillion years, information doesn't come from nowhere and mutations do not increase information nor contribute enough wrong information to change a population. If survival of the fittest is applied mutations don't benefit the lifeforms survival. The uphill fallacy that all information came from the first cell and overtime grew and increased in information is a scientific impossibility. Life needs life.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix This is what you said: "Well I certainly don't believe whales evolved from a land dwelling mammal..which had no ability to swim or hunt under water."
Do you now concede that statement, and change your reasons for not believing whales could evolve from land mammals?
You need to research how evolution works. Also, look for a measurable definition of information. You will find, despite being asked many times, creationists have not given one.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 How can a land dwelling mammal get the instinct to hunt under the ocean?That creature would need to have many changes biologically for aquatic survival. How do you know how evolution works?You have never observed it except in a text book.? Its a "theory"- not an observable LAW of science. The meaning of information is complex though all information needs a sender and a reciever. Information has logic and design. It is not a result of chance and error like the design of a microchip
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You know mammals don't have to live entirely in the water, or entirely out of it. There are plenty of animals that are advantaged by water despite not having all the features of a whale.
We have actually observed the mechanisms of evolution. Despite what creationists have claimed, the only difference between micro and macroevolution is scale. No valid barrier between the two has ever been observed.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 The whale has what you believe are vestigial organs that you would say were once its legs. Isn't this mere imagination? Those bones are actually important for the whale to procreate, they are part of its sex organs. Why do you call that science? The whale can dive to many km down and needs to to collect krill. How did it learn to do that?If it had a tale already and no feet how did it get into the ocean?So where did its tale come from? How did it mate and what with?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You haven't put much thought into this. Again; mammals don't have to live entirely in the water, or entirely out of it. There are plenty of animals that are advantaged by water despite not having all the features of a whale.
You know when you ask "where did x come from" the answer is always going to be the same: Natural selection of random mutation. It's not like these features aren't coded for by DNA.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 You're joking right? A land mammal does not have in its DNA the potential to grow a TALE unless it could POSSIBLY mate with creature with a tale. This is an extreme example but that would be like a donkey trying to have sex with a dolphin. Its not an observable natural possibility. Natural selection is a fact no doubt, random mutation is a fact no doubt- there are no issues there . Put them together and you don't get evolution, you get nothing anyone would notice in the population.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Tails are coded for by DNA, land mammals have DNA, their DNA can change. So, yeah, it does have the potential.
You obviously know nothing of biology, different species cannot breed, no one says evolution works that way, whales did not evolve from donkeys and dolphins evolved from land mammals too. Just go to wikipedia, spend half an hour reading about cetacean evolution. At least try to learn the bare minimum.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 So a whale tale is possibly coded into other land mammals? I am not a biologist so excuse the imperfect phrasing, but thats horse shit. "different species cannot breed, no one says evolution works that way"
Can you please explain how the tree of life in evolution is possible if tran speciation is impossible. LOL you need to read something other than wikipedia. Please show me HOW the cetacean species came from a walking land mammal of a different species , as you know biology.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "So a whale tale is possibly coded into other land mammals?"
No. That would be magic. I said any piece of DNA has the potential to change into the DNA that codes tails. Learn how evolution works. It's pointless to continue if you don't even know anything about what you're arguing against. When you stop thinking evolution is interspecies cross breeding, know what mutations are, and know what natural selection is, you can return.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix So you're saying mutations exist, and natural selection exists, but natural selection doesn't work on mutations? You know we have observed that happening. Like, all the time. I mean, no amount of evolution, micro or macro, could occur without it.
I notice you've totally avoided the information issue. I guess you're looking for a definition from a creationist website. Take you're time. You'll need it.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 Interbreeding within species has been termed micro evolution, and I agree IF evolution is real micro and macro would be interlinked. Interbreeding within species, kinds, genus is natural and as I believe God designed all life to pro-create. As we KNOW all life needs all life to exist on earth to exist -puts evolution biologists into a head spin.Natural or man made interbreeding within species is not evidence of macro evolution. Trans speciation has never been observed in nature.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 Information comes from intelligence, no matter what it is. Can you tell me of any information in english that came about by accident? How can ANY lifeform grow and with such amazing ability,to be able to even reproduce without some intelligent organisation and" blueprint"? A cell is much more complex than the most complex micro chip yet you actually believe a cell has no intelligence behind it? God spoke life into being.Information is complex but life without it is impossible.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Considering there is no english information in any DNA that's not exactly a relevant definition. You still haven't explained how to actually measure information. How can you make any claims about information content if you can't measure it?
I do read lots of things besides wikipedia. But that's where you should start. When you understand the gist of evolution you can move on. It's clear you don't actually understand it if you think it's random chance.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 I was as using English as an example. Are you dull?Funny you never answer any of my questions.I have explained information as a term is complex, what type of information do YOU mean? All life is it not as a result of some form of information. Codes within the DNA strand?. You are alive and unique based on the unique information in your genetic make up to make you-you. That is information. Complex design requires information- do you see or choose not to see design in flora and fauna?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "I was as using English as an example."
Yes, and you're example is irrelevant. No one says a piece of writing evolved.
"Funny you never answer any of my questions."
Sure I do, the ones that aren't attempts to divert from the topic at hand.
"I have explained information as a term is complex"
That's fine. I'll accept a link or private message if you can't fit your definition here.
"what type of information do YOU mean?"
The type you say can't increase, don't you remember?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have seen no increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Oh, so you're saying an increase in the number of bases and/or genes in a genome is an increase in information? Well why didn't you say so! Look up gene duplication and insertions. Your welcome.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 No I didn't say that. Anyway what about gene duplication? Do you say that this increases information?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix So genome size is not what you mean by information? Well then, what is in an increase in information? To put it in a way a scientifically literate person would understand; what would a mutation that increased information look like?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
I don't know what it looks like but it seems to me if it takes two genes to now do the role of one gene, thats not a greatly beneficial increase (if its an increase at all). Do you know of any examples of new functions in organisms due to gene duplication?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix If you don't know what an increase in information looks like, how do you know it doesn't happen? Are you saying a new function is an increase in information?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 It may be. Can you explain what an increase of information in the genome is? If its real, what evidence is there to prove that gene duplication has changed all lifeforms over millions of years and why is it that there are million year old fossils of creatures no different today? Why hasn't there been evolutionary change in them? Can you also answer this ,How could DNA evolve if DNA needs the very proteins it makes?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You are really determined not to answer the question, aren't you? Why would I need to explain what in increase in information is, when I'm not the one using it in an argument? Just admit it, you don't actually know what information is. You just read it from a creationist website, and didn't even stop to think about what it actually is before posting it.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "You are alive and unique based on the unique information in your genetic make up to make you-you. That is information. Complex design requires information"
Okay, and how does one differentiate an increase in information from a decrease in information? That's your whole argument, remember?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix That definition doesn't explain how to measure information. Remember, how can you claim information doesn't increase, if you don't know what an increase in information looks like?
Again, research how evolution works. It's not random chance. We know that for a fact. And look up what a scientific theory is. It's not the same as the common definition. You will find gravity, atoms and diseases are all scientific theories.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 "how can you claim information doesn't increase, if you don't know what an increase in information looks like?" The only way evolution could work is if mutational change was able to increase the amount of info in the genome, one such is through gene duplication. Much study and effort has gone into proving that increasing information makes evolution possible, but evolution is supposed to be a natural process. HAve YOU ever observed evolution in nature?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Yeah, that still doesn't explain how to measure information. Again, if you can't actually measure information how do you know it doesn't increase? How do you know it's even necessary for evolution.
You know when evolution's observed in the lab, it's still a natural process. Unless some changes are made to the mechanisms of evolution, the mechanisms are the same as those in nature, which we also observe.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You're acting like you are five, but I'm guessing you're an adult that cares more about your fictional religious world then the real world.
Whales started off as dog like creatures, then over time adapted and evolved into the whales we know and love. There are fossils, a good few transitional ones to boot, but you'd never think to google them I'm sure.
I'm sorry you don't understand evolution, reality, what is real and not, but if you want to learn there are book on this stuff.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 Its a theory and one that hasn't been tested because you never saw those bones (of other creatures) alive. To say I don't understand evolution is an assumption on your part. The fossil record proves nothing and evolutionists know that. If you want to talk actual science prove trans speciation. Prove that a species that is a walking mammal with teeth and four legs can ACTUALLY via' mutation' becaome a magnificent whale. This is not science though anymore, but imagination.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix The theory of evolution is a theory, but evolution its-self is a fact, change does happen over time. The fossil record proves many things, not nothing.
Proving a walking mammal turned into a whale is a lot like proving a murder that no one witnessed. You look at the evidence and make a judgement on facts that support that. I'm sure if you weren't religious about your views you'd see the fossils, radiometric dating methods, and all other evidence points to evolution.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 The term religious is a common criticism for those that believe in God. I atleast admit that my belief is based on faith and evidence. You cannot dispute that faith is equally your foundation for why you believe in evolution. To say that evolution is a fact is a lie. A fact is something that actually exists, something verifiable from observation or experience. Yet you haven't observed evolution, your faith says everything is millions of years old and evolution is too slow to see.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 I have some questions for you to think about. " Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop. Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen. Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones. " Can you explain any of that to me? Probably not.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix What did I tell you about your attempts to distract from the topic at hand? Concede or refute, don't change the subject.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix The first life on this planet was single celled, bacteria or something like it, complexity happens over millions of years.
Take the eye, the eye started as a light sensor and became more complex. The eye was useful as a light sensor to help creatures survive, and so it evolved and become better. Just look up Jelly fish, a creature with some staying power.
Gills evolved into lungs and light sensors evolved into eyes. I think you're missing the point of Darwin's discovery.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 In order to discuss this issue with you, do you admit evolution mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary?Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. We disagree on the limits of variation. No mutation in fruit fly studies has changed the whole population. They are still fruit flys.Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.Thus...
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Evolution breaks down what we know of the world and examins what is most likley to be real. Creationist believe that something we know nothing about could have made living things.
There are plenty of small scale example of evolution, because the small stuff adds up to be big stuff in millions of years, I know it's hard to understand the time span, it's not like people should understand millions of years. We only live for 70 after all.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 Creationism and evolution are both historical sciences and BOTH require faith to believe in them. Both are religious. Creationsists atleast admit that. You follow something you've neither seen nor can fully explain or prove. The lie that ALL LIVING THINGS are transitional lifeforms is not a scientific fact. Even the fossil record shows apparent 40 million year old creatures that have NOT changed to todays. There should be evidence everywhere for evolution, but its not. Admit it.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix All the plantes in our solar system were once lifeless, and at some point from then until now earth formed life. If you believe it was magic, that's fine, but my reality/reason based belief is more justified.
Evolutution may be slowed/stop if a creatures current state is extreamly capable of survival in the environment and able to survive prey. That's why we see some creatures never change, Crocs haven't changed over 200 million years, exept for their size.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 Firstly science says that dark matter exist everywhere in space (or there must be) because planets are spinning too fast so there must be more mass for more gravity. The mass cannot be seen so its called dark matter. But no one knows WHAT dark matter is?SO you call my belief "magic". In the beginning God CREATED. Thats it. Thats my stance. Does everything look orderly and with design? ask an astrophysicist- absolutely yes. I admit a creator- you believe everything came from nothing.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix We may not know what dark matter is, but we still have evidence that something of mass exists out there. We don't have any evidence, at all, that an omnipotent being exists. We don't have any evidence that anything can ever be thought into existence.
If complexity and order requires a designer, then God must require a designer.
Again, no one believes everything came from nothing. Stop using straw men. God doesn't approve of false witnesses, remember?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 I can tell you now if you believe in dark matter then you can believe in God, both require faith and Jesus said all you need is faith the size of a mustard seed to let God show you who he is. He knows your heart and if you seek Him you will find, if you knock the door will be opened. Through Him all things were created including you, infact He knew you before you were born. God exists outside of time and has always been. Science believes theres 11 dimensions.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "I can tell you now if you believe in dark matter then you can believe in God"
Dark matter has evidence, God does not. So, no, believing in dark matter is not the same as believing in God.
"if you seek Him you will find"
And what exactly is the evidence God shows you after you "seek him"?
"God exists outside of time and has always been."
Nope, doesn't answer the question. He's still complex and orderly, so according to your logic he must have been designed.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 " small stuff adds up to be big stuff in millions of years" Thats an assumption and not a proven scientific fact at all. The fossil record for evolution proves NOTHING! They are dead but you cannot know what offspring they had or if they survived. Millions of years is a belief. No scientific dating method can be trusted, so all methods may be used. They NEVER agree. Also no one can assume elements are ever constant over such time.The dates are preassumed according to where its found.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 the eye evolving from a light sensitve cell I believe is a mockery to actual science. Its a computer simulation without real world elements. The human eye or even a light sensor would have been always useless if the brain wasn't first existing which is by far more complex. SOme of the earliest arthropods had better compound eyes than flies. How can this be evolution? How could gills evolve into lungs- the fish would have died before "evolving". :-)
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix The brain or nerves of Jellyfish would have come first you're right. Evolution isn't climb up a vertical cliff, but a slow walk up a hill to complexity.
Light sensors that clustered together like that of flies, allow for better site then just 1 or 2 sensors. Flies eyes send singnals to their nerves faster then our eyes too. They may now see a clearly as us but they see quicker, so it's a good eye for them to have.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 Regarding the eye : The fly's lens is a complicated "design" . No man has been able to make an eye at micro level that complicated. Yet you speak as if evolution has intelligence. The fly's eye is not just a "cluster of light sensors". You have swallowed the "most gullible student" pill. Most people take the fly for granted but it is an amazing insect. Their eyes are compound made up of many hundreds or thousands of eyes, so called ommatidiums, each with anti reflection 'technology'.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Evolution is a design process, one which is molded by the world and things in it that affect the creatures and plants.
I'm sure man could make an eye like a flies, or even better some day. Evolution has reason and purpose behind it. That's why the flies eye, which probably started out like beatles eyes, changed into the eye we see today. Muations happend that, very slowly, that made the eye better for them, so they stuck.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 "Evolution is a design process, one which is molded by the world and things in it that affect the creatures and plants" This is classic "evolution of theory". How can an unintelligent invisible non entity that you call evolution have the mind and intellience to be a desin process. Evolution is a series of events, randomly affecting outcomes like lotto balls bouncing. Its not a design process. Evolution in that case could never start , the first life had nothing to exist along side it.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix More straw men. Evolution is not random. Darwin himself could have told you that. You're 150 years behind.
We have at least some evidence that life can form naturally. That's infinite times the evidence you have for life being thought into existence. Regardless, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. It would be just as valid if abiogenesis were falsified.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 "I'm sure man could make an eye like a flies" I am sure your correct but thats not evolution. The fly has been there from day one. There are no evolved flies. Cross matching them for years has ended up with flies. Flies don't come from beetles - its impossible. They have always been as complex as they are and their eyes are a million times more complex than a camera made by man. The human eye is equally as complex. Mutations do not explain life and its origins.Admit it.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Claiming an organism must be designed because humans can't make what they have is a very poor argument. Humans have not had billions of years of trial and error to make anything.
Mutations were never meant to explain the origin of life. They do however explain the diversity of life just fine.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 All life is complex. If you saw a chair in the bush would you assume its grown there or that someone made it? If you look at the ant, and study it up close, how could such a complex and intelligent insect have evolved without intelligence behind it? Its intelligently designed perfectly for its purpose, to reproduce, clean up the forrest and be food to other creatures. If mutations cannot explain abio-genesis how can it explain life in our time? It cannot in my oppinion.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Are there natural mechanisms that result in chairs? Are chairs subject to imperfect replication and natural selection? Is the structure of furniture entirely dependant on the arrangement of four bases?
"If mutations cannot explain abio-genesis how can it explain life in our time?"
That makes no sense. Why would you compare mutations in life with a process that doesn't involve mutations? Are you sure you know what mutations, abiogenesis and evolution are?
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@jiminiflix You say things have always been the same with such certainty, when at one point there was no life on Earth at all. It had to come from somewhere and in a rational real world evolution explains how life become more complex.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@bebop7c2 The eyes on arthropods have complex compound eyes. How can you call that evolution? Look rationally at the science. Fossils even show instant life. Where are lifeforms lower in evolution than crustacians and arthropods? These lifeforms are the same to todays creatures and very complex still the same. Why are there so many fossils? There was a global flood- a castastrophic event thus why we have so many layers in the earths crust. Thats why fossils/ oil exists and whales on mountains.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Fossils don't show instant life, they show a clear record of evolution from less complex ocean creatures to more complex creatures and with greater diversity.
Sponge and Stromatolites lived all over the worlds oceans 3-2 billion years ago, (their like coral today kinda) and were here before arthropods. Stromatolites are nearly existinct, but it must have taken billions of years for Stromatolites to make all the fossils they have, the worlds convered in them after all.
bebop7c2 4 months ago
@Cnidarious "Only Mutations which are suitable are able to Persist"
May I ask what determines whether a mutation is "suitable" and what determines whether they "persist"?
The "environment" is indeed random, and "selection" has no ability to create anything since that process is limited to what already exists. I don't see where you have any cards left. Perhaps Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff can assist.
atechworld 1 year ago
@Cnidarious "[trilobite citation] reveals a profound lack of insight into the theory of evolution."
A picture provides profound insight into evolution theory failure:
atechworld. com/photo/misc/trilobite.jpg (remove space)
You can purchase one of your own on eBay. Simply search for "trilobite soft tissue" and checkmark "Include title and description" box. How do evolutionists explain this? Miraculous preservation !!!
atechworld 1 year ago
The video's argument fails to account for Noah's descendents having 600 yr. lifespans which would create an initial growth curve unlike anything possible today. This explanation is not ad hoc since Gen 11:10-11 EXISTED BEFORE this debate. Evolutionists argue homo sapiens grew 0% in 200,000 years. - UNLIKELY
atechworld 1 year ago
The video uses a strawman argument that humans can't populate exponentially because BACTERIA would have filled the universe given the same opportunity. Humans are smarter than bacteria and NOTHING limits them from populating exponentially NOW, even though resources are tighter. Much more so in the past when fewer people meant less competition, spreading epidemics, & wars. The equation N2 = N1 * e^(rt) explains why population is accelerating NOW vs. a pure farming & technology explanation.
atechworld 1 year ago
Bah, you got to it before I did. /watch?v=Hvqp9xfzzeo
Seems like we broke it down into the same points but yours is prettier.
RichardMNixon 2 years ago
The "correct word" is Natural Selection which is not random.
And there is no such thing as 'Creation science', because it is not science.
Keep up the fight against stupid.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
Where did you get your numbers from? If you just were to have the basic knowledge of the Bible, you would know this: Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the whole world was going to be numbered, right? The population at the time of Christ was about 250 million.
MarlinMr 2 years ago
Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the whole world was going to be numbered, right?"
Jesus was born in Bethlenem because that's where him mother was at the time.
world was going to be numbered ??
WTF does that mean?
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
Why would she be there? Why not at home? Why ride all that way of an ass? Why were there no room for them? Go chek you history and your Bible.
MarlinMr 2 years ago
Read your bible. they were traveling because they had to pay their taxes.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
OH, Random Occurrence. A thousand apologies.
So Evolution did it through Random occurrences. The Random occurrences in the DNA randomly arranged the trillions of pairs in the molecule and randomly came up with eyes, limbs, brains, nervous systems, bones, feelings art, music, computers,
Thank you. that really clears it up now.
first nothing, then jumble around the DNA and abracadabra...eyes.....abracadabra...bones.
Forget that history stuff. Inventing stories is so much more fun..
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes, it works. You can play the game of evolution just using a dice and a piece of paper.
Let us pretend, the genetical code of an eye would be represented by the number: 123
Now we start rolling our "dice of evolution". We do this many times. As soon as we have a "1" our creature has developed a certain sensitivity to light.
This gives it some advantage in the competitive game of life. Therefore it is more successful in having offspring.
We start rolling our dice again, ...
flamifer 2 years ago
successful in sight does not automatically equal successful in reproduction.
mejc2 2 years ago
Being able to sense light will always be an evolutionary advantage, unless you live in a cave like most Bible worshippers.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago 4
Evolutionary advantage only works if the organism reproduces more successfully.
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh pardon me. the mutations that supposedly create all of these new limbs, systems, brains, eyes, bones, etc. where none have been before, are not accidental they are random.
That clears it all up. It is not an accidental mistake in the DNA it is a RANDOM mistake in the DNA.
OH, I feel so much better now. that is such good science. Wow EVOLUTION did it by random mistakes in the DNA that just happened to make eyes, brains, bones, feelings.
It never happened! Wake up you are dreaming again.
mejc2 2 years ago
Actually it is supposed to work that way. Given enough time and enough accidental mutations, Evolutionism says that we will eventually see...well...every type of organism that exists.
I have seen the fossil record. it also contradicts gradualism. That is why Gould from Harvard invented punctuated equilibrium. Because Gradualism is Bull. Unfortunately for him so is punctuated equilibrium.
mejc2 2 years ago
That's bull and you know it. we have seen adaptations in organisms. However, there is no indication that any organism can mutate sufficiently to eventually become an entirely new organism with never before seen systems appendages and organs.
mejc2 2 years ago
Just what we see? What we see is that there is a limit to how much we can change an animal. It will never accumulate enough mutations to change it into another type of animal. That is what we see. We have tried in the lab through millions of generations of various organisms. We can't even make it happen. Change happens but there is a limit.
Ask any breeder if there is a limit and they will tell you that there absolutely is.
mejc2 2 years ago
No I'm not complaining about the story that evolutionists tell. I'm just stating that it is not science and it is not true. Change in Allelic frequency is recorded and observed. that is only one definition of the term evolution.
mejc2 2 years ago
you are correct. if that is your definition then there is no debate
mejc2 2 years ago
"If you Refuse to ever change your mind when empirical evidence is given to you, Then your not doing it at all."
Exactly correct, and as the empirical evidence piles up against Evolutionism and its followers continue to refues to change their mind, it is obvious that they are not doing science at all.
Also, I assure you, I am not a moron.
mejc2 2 years ago
Neither is Evolutionism science.
When you create a fairy tale and then try to contort observations to fit the tale, that is not science. At least the creationists didn't create the bible It was handed down by our forefathers and is the most accurate ancient text known to man.
mejc2 2 years ago
Science provides evidence for the bible every day. most branches of science were started by creationists. Evolutionism on the other hand is a fairy tale for grown ups. long long ago and far away there was nothing, Then it exploded.
mejc2 2 years ago
Actually there is evidence for the gradual evolution of trilobites. You see trilobites are great for backing up the theory of evolution because their hard exoskeletons make for numerous fossils. You the ancestor for the tribolites are Profallotaspis jakutensis,Fritzaspis sp,Hupetina antiqua and the Serrania gordaensis. Now here is where the cool part comes in. Becaus tribolites make for numerous fossils we can pretty accuratley track their evolution from the early cambrian to the premian era
Mapleship 2 years ago
You jackass The bible is not literal . The Earth go's around the sun not the other way around that proofs that one thing in the bible is wrong which means many more things are.
jakle52 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Imagines
mejc2 2 years ago
My rebuttal is the only thing here that is fact based.
A+
mejc2 2 years ago
""The trilobites mentioned are fully formed imeasurably complex organisms. no evidence at all for a slow gradual evolution. "
This statement reveals a profound lack of insight into the theory of evolution.
can you guess why?"
I know why, because it NEVER HAPPENED!
mejc2 2 years ago
Without using a growth percentage, I made some spreadsheet calculations:
geocities(dot)com/mikebforjesus/WolrdPopEst(dot)xls
I used an average lifespan of 50 (low est., to account for plague, famine, etc.), & average of 2.25 children per couple. Seems reasonable.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
if 4400 years there where 8 people, the population would have to grow at a given rate.creationists are trying to prove this rate is a valid (possible) rate
a01011399 2 years ago
You know we could have an old earth with a great flood
thegreatcheesedemon 3 years ago
we could have a old earth yes. But there was no global flood. Sorry. But it is not true. The geological facts are not supporting it.
philateliceun 2 years ago
I know, that's just me saying that this population stuff has nothing to do with evolution or creation. Just whether the Noah's Arc story is literal.
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
lol 0:45 if there were only one person alive one hundred thousand years ago there would be no people alive today.
Nanosempai 3 years ago
haha Win!!
Mariusstr 3 years ago
Sound arguments; however, I propose that 3 children per family is only a recent, modern development. History & Anthropology shows that men typically sired dozens of children.
Using the Bible, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (a common ancient practice), if he sired 3 children from each, that's 3,000 offspring. More likely, however, is that he had 1,000s more than that.
This supports creationism; Adam & Eve had dozens of kids, not just the three mentioned.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
It wasn't a common ancient practice to have 700 wives and 300 concubines. For that, we would need women to commonly out populate men by 1000:1.
It gets even more ludicrous to suggest that one man, on average, could get 1000 women up the spout, three times each.
Maybe you have a point, maybe the wheel was invented to carry bronze age mans bollocks around in a wheel barrow.
Or it could be the case that there is an even bigger load of bollocks already existing on this thread.
velapulsar 3 years ago
"This supports creationism; Adam & Eve had dozens of kids, not just the three mentioned. "
That would suggest something even worse than kissing cousins. Siblings knocking kids out of each other usually leads to subject material for movies like "The Hills Have Eyes." or "Deliverance".
Its a core reason why incest is universally considered unhealthy.
Face it, Creationism is crap, and has been found out.
velapulsar 3 years ago
To velapulsar:
You fail to consider that a few standards could have been different way back when. You think it's some "secret" that in a world started by 2 orginal humans, that siblings must have had sex together? Only Biblically illiterate people would be "surprised" by that? But back then, humans were commanded to multiply, and there wasn't a lot of choices who to marry and mate with. And the genetics wasn't so deteriorated as now, so "incest" restrictions came later.
"Make love, not war." ?
pronatalist 2 years ago
if u use a constant rate throughout then you can dispute past events, however i think ppl fucked and had a lot more children in the past. that's how you got those 1 million armies.... :)
mathewjohn5174 3 years ago
hehe funny video
ShellySummers 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guys video is pointless! What matters is this 6 billion in 1999,5B in 1987 4B in 1975
3B in 1960 2B in 1930 1B in 1930, 200 million
at the time of christ and falling....Evolution needs millions of years to make a man out of you, but that luxury does not exist! This guys statements of past populations cannot change the facts. And think
about this: Our grandparents keep doubling as we go back in time. 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 etc etc Turns out we are all related! Good day!
1953musicdaddy 3 years ago
Uh, 1953musicdaddy's comment is worthy of a nod to Thunderf00t's video series named:
Why people laugh at creationists.
itry2brational 3 years ago 9
And he need a kick in the nuts....
(not Thunderf00t, he needs a frickin medal)
Avatra1 3 years ago 8
You never calculated the numbers on these values, did you? For the first part, it's around 1.5%, but you gave the population of 1930 as both 1B and 2B people.I'll go with the 2B number because it's closer. That would mean an average growth rate between the years 1 and 1930 of 0.12% which is way lower than the other rates which are around 1.5%.
Next time, do the math or shut up.
ManicEightBall 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry about the 1B mess up. I actually noticed
that boo boo after it was posted. It should have read 2B 1930 & 1B about 1850ish. I noticed peoples responce to my post. Funny thing is... i am not a creationist, but i totally believe in creation. I am one of Jehovahs Witnesses. The creation around us is
so utterly complex and awesome, as are our own
bodies that i am convinced this is no accident
If you are interested in some info in support of this conclusion feel free to ask.Love the subject
1953musicdaddy 3 years ago
If you think its unlikely that we happened "by accident" because we are too complex. Then what about the complexity of the being that you believe created life the universe and everything in all its complexity?
Search Ultimate 747.
velapulsar 3 years ago
Something tells me that MusicDaddy didn't even watch this video.
AntidoteY 3 years ago
All of your world population figures are post industrial revolution, let alone post agricultural stage.
For the vast majority of the time Humans have existed, we were hunter gatherers.
The fact that you can't get around is that the human population cannot significantly outgrow the lands ability to produce subsistence, search Thomas Malthus.
velapulsar 3 years ago
Are these figures considering the mortality rate as well?
messiahjonz 3 years ago
I don't think the creationist model, of a 0.5% increase per year, is considering anything, besides the rate required to get todays population from 8 people 4,400 years ago. I didn't bother considering mortality when it came to Sargon, it's best to give the creationists the maximum benifit of the doubt.
Impaler1815 3 years ago
LOL, that nobody dies? Those silly creationists!
messiahjonz 3 years ago
Excellent video. Well done, mate!
itry2brational 3 years ago
mejc2, about the pre-Cambrian fossil record.
~580-600 Mya: sponges, cnidarians, eggs, & embryos
~580-600 Mya: 1st bilaterally symmetrical animal (microscopic)
~565-575 Mya: Ediacaran fauna appeared
~555 Mya: macroscopic bilaterians found in Ediacaran strata
~550 Mya: "small shelly fauna" first appear
~543--542 Mya: base of the Cambrian period
~530 Mya: trilobites appear and the so-called Cambrian "Explosion" begins
DNAunion 3 years ago
mejc2, if you want to see some "living intermediates" in the transition from unicellular to multicelluar life, look at the Volvocaceans.
DNAunion 3 years ago
**************
mejc2: if you see transitions from the minor single celled organisms found in the precambrian level to the billions of creatures found in the cambrian level be specific and let the world know what they are. considering the billions of creatures trapped all over the planet in the same strata(not by a global flood ahem)
**************
Um, there are no humans, rabbits, lizards, eagles, horses, tigers, snakes, bats, frogs, dogs, or apple trees in Cambrian strata.
DNAunion 3 years ago 2
Creationists should stay away from numbers! Numbers are precise and figures and calculations made by creationists can easily be debunked. Creationists just stick to vague and mendacious discourse that's what they're good at!...sorta.
Just giving you guys a tip because your delusions amuse me. =P
Drekoguk 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NUMBERS? trying to pin a evolutionist down to numbers is near impossible. Even when they do give a vague reference to a number they are soooo quick to change it when the numbers don'e work out. When they began their story the earth was 200,000,000 years old. It didn't fit thier theory so now it is 4.5 bil.What a joke. How many morophological changes did it take to go from a land animal to a whale and how long does each change take. Two questions that should be easy but evolutionists won't reply
mejc2 4 years ago
hahahahaha, the only reason dates change like that, is becuase we develop more advanced ways of measuring decays etc, so we can pinpoint dates down., and for your second BOOM headshot for the evennin... since we will never find all fossils, so that question is just a strwman
lordbyrne 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Strawman? There is no theory of evolution. It's a big joke on the people of the world. Ok, if there is a theory of evolution, let's have it. put it in quotes. what is the theory that accounts for the billions and billions of creatures that have ever lived on the planet. again in quotes please I would like to see it.
mejc2 3 years ago
lol, so there is no thoaery of evolution??? then what u fightin against? thats your 1st "arugment" shot down in flames. Secondly, look at talkoriginsdotorg, that will help you with the second. O, and please explain this. If your creator made everything, and they never chnage, when did he 1st make them? like y did he start witht eh cambrian, then work its way to us? sounds like hge shoulda just skipped to us, doesnt it? so thats aaa.... BOOM HEADSHOT, fundie boy
lordbyrne 3 years ago
The bacteria thing blew my mind.
Startmenu4 4 years ago
Great job! That is really nice research you have done.
jebus6kryst 4 years ago
mejc2 I have a question how does the pre cambrian prove biblical creation?
Elcristoph 4 years ago
it doesn't, but it does rant in the face of a slow gradual change from single celled organisms to the billions of rediculously complex organisms with hundreds of billions of bits of new information in their DNA that are found in the cambrian.
mejc2 4 years ago
"it doesn't, but it does rant in the face of a slow gradual change" - Id call 6million yours pretty slow, and again, theres evidence showing there WAS a progression from simple to complex, doesnt matter how much you say it cant work if the evidence is there is MUST...
Elcristoph 4 years ago
The scientists call it the cambrian explosion for a reason. They don't call it the cambrian gradual slow appearance of more and more complex organisms over time. they have evidence of single celled creatures, which are in no way simple, and then bam millions of ultra complex complete creatrues all trapped in one layer all over the planet. that is what the evidence shows. You can now start your manipulation of the evidence to support your fairy tale. go right ahead if it makes you feel better.
mejc2 4 years ago
you youve ignored the progression of spundges, juts one example...just to add it was called an explosion as for the longest time it was single cell, the time frame was still 6million years, Im kinda getting bored, you make a comment, I say why is doesnt work, and you just repeat it...
Elcristoph 4 years ago
It isn't "BAM!". That "BAM!" you speak of took 6 MILLION years.
Certainly not 6,000, and certainly not "BAM!"
Theworldiswonderful 4 years ago
"It isn't "BAM!". That "BAM!" you speak of took 6 MILLION years.
Certainly not 6,000, and certainly not "BAM!"
sure 6,000,000 years and no precursors to the millions and millions of creatures found fully formed and complex in the cambrian explosion. You guys ignore facts. you just say oh it took 6 million years and that is supposed to make it all better. fact is that there are millions of complex creatures found all over the globe in one layer with no prior creatures to account for them.
mejc2 4 years ago
"You guys ignore facts. you just say oh it took 6 million years and that is supposed to make it all better. fact is that there are millions of complex creatures found all over the globe in one layer with no prior creatures to account for them." - how does this prove biblical creation??????????????...have you watched thunderf00t vid on this topic??????
Elcristoph 4 years ago
it doesn't prove creation it just shoots the shit out of slow gradual evolution.
mejc2 4 years ago
I missed the part where you are a genius scientist who has disproved one of the greatest theory's in science.
Let me know when this fantasy actually happens.
Theworldiswonderful 4 years ago
you need to also take into account the increasing formation of single cells colanies, the formation of primative coral, spundges, planctons..look up the hydra, also you argue it shoots down gradual change, the cambrian isnt the only sample of the fossil record we have...
Elcristoph 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Explained? Telling a story of what you think might have happened isn't an explanation.
creationists have an historical account that is supported by scientists from every discipline.
Evolutionists look at the evidence and then make up a story to fit the evidence, when they find new evidence they change their story.what they do is not prediction it is postdiction.
mejc2 4 years ago
Even if there were no "precursors" to Cambrian-age fossils, it wouldn't matter. Everything AFTER that does have obvious precursors and they have been found.
How in the hell would that prove creation?
Furthermore, I'm no expert, but I'd almost guarantee the "there are no precursors to Cambrian-age fossils" is bullshit. If there indeed has not been any found, then they just haven't been found YET, or conditions were not right...Like if they all had soft bodies which would decompose very fast.
Theworldiswonderful 4 years ago
95% of all fossils on the planet had soft bodies that would decompose very fast.
mejc2 4 years ago
dude, if i had the time I would promote these.... v. good vids!
Thunderf00t 4 years ago
This subject is braught up more than Simpson repeats. Typical creationist double standards and turning a blind eye, yet theyll try to find the tinyest detail to critacise the evolutionists.
CommanderFox89 4 years ago 2
Holy blessed shit I love this
LittleTruckingBozo 4 years ago
Excellent video. Well thought out and put together. 5 stars.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Using your "facts" is all very well and good, but you'll need an all-powerful invisible friend to convince Creationists.
Adnara 4 years ago
Great vid. It's very entertaining watching creationists trying to argue against this sort of logic.
saibod 4 years ago
Excellent video.
CadicusTheDamned 4 years ago
nice vid, nadiaTeeze provided a link.
Nice work!
Paxmax 4 years ago