@kdash64: You mean the same Kent Hovind who is currently serving prison time for tax evasion? Hovind was/is a hack of the worst sort and scientifically illiterate.
@Pacisdiligo Not because hes in jail does not hurt his creditability, of how he destroyed every Evolutionist he debated. Second, because hes in jail, it only makes him look more Bodacious.
@kdash64: Hovind's arguments were severely hampered by his ignorance and faulty reasoning. He was a laughingstock to those who actually understand (and respect) the scientific method and the theory of evolution itself.
@Pacisdiligo Thats what you believe, but he has converted a lot of evolutionist and he has defeated many of them in debates. So, your argument is invalid.
How is my argument "invalid"? I argue that Hovind is scientifically illiterate and doesn't even understand how true scientific inquiry is conducted. He makes absurd and easily falsifiable claims. Out of curiosity, who has he converted from accepting the fact of evolution to believing in his brand of young-earth-creationism?
do they not understand there are "kinds" they don't have to be the exact type,but only the same kind of animals etc..yes Noah had dinosaurs which God Calls in other names..oh yeah ,Noahs ark has been found for awhile now and testing of what is in it..would end every evolutionist job...
Every Genome was separately created in Abiogenesis, and is effective to work out diversity through Mendelian Genetics, not Evolution , and every Genome has it's own life span, which makes the entire line of zygotes become no longer VIABLE and thus EXTINCT. That the Genome itself wears out and dies, proves that the Genomes are not the product of Evolution from simpler Genomes to more complex. Every Genome is slowly DYING, not evolving to higher efficiency or to Immortality .
Take a normal Human Being by our Genome, you breed too closely until the Chromosome Damages begin to result in Down's Syndrome, which have the effect of increasing the Chromosome count by X Fragmentations, and then keep breeding the Down's Syndrome Patients and then another break down of the Chromosomes begins to resemble how the Apes devolved away from the Human Being, showing Evolutionists are reading Medical Facts in Reverse Logic to suggest a forward Evolution. False Theory.
The Human Being was Created by Intelligent Notions, not by Random Chance. The creatures, such as a modern horse and an ancient horse is very compatible to adaptations they share. the Radical change from the Human Being to the short lived, degenerated chromosome fitted Apes, has the fact in Medical Sciences. not in the Theory of Evolution. The Human Genome is the Parent, the Original. The Apes are examples of degeneration and destruction of the Genome, being read backwards by Evolutionists.
What the chimpanzees and apes suggest is not a common ancestor, such that it was neither ape or man, but that it is perfectly supported by Medical Science, that an ancient normal human being, DEVOLVED, by cause of degenerative diseases such as Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Radiation Damage to Chromosomes, and Retro Viral Infections. The apes are not our own origins, but the Genome for the normal human being was the place the apes began to devolve and fall away from. Logical.
Adaptations within a species , within the Genome, is a micro evolution, that is really not Evolution at all, but the use of Mendel's Law of Inherited Traits. The new adaptations are not forever, they come and they can be dismissed , and the idea that adaptations within the Genome proves anything about Macro Evolution of Life overall, is a Far Fetched Hypothesis without Empirical Evidence to support the conclusion. DNA for a plant is never evolving into DNA for Animals.
Every unique life form on Earth, is not the product of Evolution, It was not one first cell and then all came from that. That is false. DNA began as a celestial visitor among the clouds of the heavens above, raining on earth , then ingested by the planet, becoming Earth Bound Seeds that by Mendelian Genetics, produced billions of original distinct life forms, not one, and then the community of living things now earth bound, foraged and factored into closed Genomes until Extinct.
There is no common ancestor between a DNA for a blade of grass, and an Elephant. Evolution fails the test, one must think about Abiogenesis, which is not Evolution, but a Creation Methodology of Consumption and Capturing , not evolving anything, to produce seeds of each type of life, so that it's DNA had an origins without Evolution at all, and then proceeded to live until the Genome became itself Extinct, and with some micro evolution , which really is Mendel's Laws.
Got to love people who use genetics to disprove it when all genetics prove as a whole how.closely we are related and just where and when the divergenc of the new species took root.
Since Evolution tied itself to Mendelian Genetics, all bets are off that simply creatures that appear as transitional , by outward appearances, shall not be concluded to bear out the fact of Mendel's Laws, because different Genomes entirely can produce similar looking creatures, and draw false conclusions that they are ancestral. Totally unique Genomes in the same environment use different genes to produce similar designs, and so seeing in not believing, there must be Genetic Proof.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your fallacy is attempting to find an organic god. You say all life on earth has one common ancestor, That is a religious concept , that instead of the Creator, who would be able to create life infinitely, you believe in some cosmic living cell, that is materially "god" . You are basically a crackpot to think this idea. Gaia Earth stuff . DNA is a form of behavior, something in motion, due to higher powers acting to cause things to move, DNA is not god
Time is the barrier that prevents Evolution from being proven as the fact of the past order. Mendel's Law of Genetics can be proven today , by eliminating the requirement of time ,as if Evolution is purchased only by time itself and thus in the present tense, no amount of technology can present a single fact ,except it fall into the category of Mendel's Laws in the present case of a Genome, but we have nothing at all to call a "FACT" in principle to apply as technological craft to "Evolve"
@ScientificBob separate creations of life have some microevolution, mostly bad, none of which is empirically the evidence for macroevolution. What is actually happening to change within the species is the Mendelian Law of Inherited Traits, not an evolution of increased information in the Genome. You are confusing the visual effects of altering the Zygotes , with imagining their Genomes are evolving, One fact does not prove the other Hypothesis as true, and it is not true.
@CarmineFragione You are completely in denial. You completely ignore the fact that mutations happen, that these mutations insert or change function and that those mutations are inherited by off spring.
You also completely ignore the fact that beneficial mutations achieving fixation have been observed.
I'm also very positive that what you consider to be "macro" evolution is a huge strawman, something that would actually falsifly evolution. Can you please define "macro" evolution for me?
@ScientificBob slight variations within the Genome of a given species can move to a slight change in the zygote without detecting any real evolution to the actual Genome. And such adaptations, like the Nylon Eating Bacteria, has been finally shown to be not evolution , and the ability is simply synthesized out of Mendelian Genetics, and those acquired changes can disappear, without the Genome ever evolving at all. The Genome remains stable while the zygotes vary= Mendel's Law.
I wouldn't be so quick or gracious to accept Buckley to the Darwinian side just because he has mastered the fine art ambulatory eloquence. He may have a reputation as a formidable intellect but I believe it is falsely earned. Since conservatism is a disease of the mind for which there is no known cure, I would at best charitably ascribe his performance here to advancing senility.
this guy trying to shove a book in of Noah in this guys face is comical..he is an idiot beyond idiots..as if he knows Gods work,,they guy will surely see hell for he is of his father Satan..demon
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Fred Hoyle co-worker William Alfred Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s pioneering efforts So what are talking about or is that an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation in the name of False theory of Evolution?
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule."A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. ...Fred Hoyle. astronomer and mathematician
Ken Miller best argument is a lay The National Geographic Magazine has always promoted evolution. In the November 2001 issue they gave a picture of a land animal - Ambulocetus - said to be a stage in the evolution of the whale - but their artist falsified webs between its claws to make it look as if it were adapting to living in the sea. The rear legs were also positioned as though they were developing into fins. The article said the digits ended in small hooves
The drawing seems to show claws. It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal that has been pressed into use as an intermediary between mammals and whales. Evolutionists are truly desperate about the absence of this link.
Ambulocetus had long fingers that extended into tiny hooves, confirming its lineage with land animals. It was very adapted to an aquatic lifestyle though.
"Ken Miller It showing it As if these drawing are facts."
How often do I have to tell you that the drawings don't matter? The fossils exist. They are there. They can't just be waved away, despite valiant efforts on the side of the creationists.
@MomoTheBellyDancer reconstructed skeleton of this fossil notes that it is “missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones.in other word speculation and imagination of the artist the only thing that is complete.
Like I already said: the interpretation of an artist is of no importance scientifically. But scientists can still make very good guesses about how an organism looked with the fossil material they have, by comparing it with other organisms, both fossilized and living.
@MomoTheBellyDancer #2 ‘ … since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.’
@MomoTheBellyDancer #1 this is misleading, bordering on deceitful and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram…). Without this, it’s presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation. His fellow evolutionist Annalisa Berta pointed out:
@MomoTheBellyDancer " He said that paleontologists mostly found teeth and skulls, but also a whole fossil. There's nothing misleading about his whole presentation." >... are Skulls and teeth Are Assumption for the rest of the body?Look If you want to believe in False theory of evolution be my guest Just say for what it is An Assumption Based on weak Hypothesis. don't to put someone drawing as fact and than declare a victory in a debate
We are not making "assumptions" when we observe genetic change in organisms. So, do yourself a favor and research before you make ignorant statements as you just did.
youtube einstein's idiots...there are about 24 videos...this explains how science is full of contradictions....ofcourse atheists have to believe in youtube, so I'm not sure if they do..
Revelation 13:16-17..the 'mark of the beast'...The Bible written 2000 years ago, tells how man will have a 'mark' required on their right hand or forehead to be able to buy or sell anything..The verichip, an 'implant', goes beneath your skin, and houses all of your health and financial information..It's been around since the 90's,it's backed by ibm. Some parts of the world are using it, including USA(FDA approved).Right now, some are rejecting it as violating rights, but it will happen.
Evolution and God don't go together, because in the Bible, He created man in his image, not globs to monkeys to man....You create a child with your wife...Does it go from a sperm to a turtle, to a a gorilla to a baby--ofcourse not.....This would cause mass confusion, even if you had a transitional phase...Even Darwin himself said transitional phases could cause great problems....Darwin wasn't Dawkins, as Darwin later became more uncertain about his theory, based on some of his quotes...
The drawing seems to show claws. It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal that has been pressed into use as an intermediary between mammals and whales. Evolutionists are truly desperate about the absence of this link.
Of course. What did you expect: an abnormal land animal? The predecessor of whales was suited for life on land, and its offspring got more and more adapted to life in the water.
Ken Miller best argument is a lay The National Geographic Magazine has always promoted evolution. In the November 2001 issue they gave a picture of a land animal - Ambulocetus - said to be a stage in the evolution of the whale - but their artist falsified webs between its claws to make it look as if it were adapting to living in the sea. The rear legs were also positioned as though they were developing into fins. The article said the digits ended in small hooves,
Let's get a close-up on that chart, are those "vestigial legs" in the high light circle under the whale?? LOL If so, Mr. Miller shows even more ignorance than when he published Haeckle's embryos! Those "vestigial legs" serve a biological function, holding the member in place during procreation. O the egg that must be scraped off the face of such a reknown "scientist," WOW
Darwinian evidence seems to suggest we have a common ancestor. Or does it suggest we have a common maker? Richard Dawkins speaks of type of signature that would be left if there was a designer. Could this be the signature he seeks?
@capoman1 Evidence? If you listened, much of the evidence is artistic representation....Did you know the b.s. photo of ape to man is simply a artistic representation without the skulls ect to back it up? Yet it is still pushed as fact.....Remember the earth was flat too, acording to the scientific community--which was called fact for a long time..
@76reliant Now let's see what the CURRENT "Christian religious community" STILL upholds: A Noahrkian flood, a young earth, that an unknown presence singularly created an original couple of humans, but somehow the descendants of those 2 humans did not commit incess, that same being came to earth in human form, but through natural birth, but his mother was a virgin, he then walked on water, healed the sick, fed the masses with a fish and a loaf....
@capoman1 In order to believe in a young earth, you have to think that all geological formations were either formed in the last 6-10 thousand years, or were "placed" here in their current form. You must also think that all of the fossils found are 6-10 thousand years old, and either fossilized in the last 6-10 thousand years, or were PLACED under the ground and in the rock in their current form HIERARCHICALLY during the creation! Whew.
@capoman1 In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve to 'replenish' the earth..Replenish implies something was there before them....The age of the earth could be very old...The age adam and eve to now, is not very long...As far as your incest point--Many parts of the world, even today marry their family members.In 1800's America 1st cousins were also.Only recently has that been frowned upon by culture...God could create this vast universe, which would mean he could create a virgin birth and on and on..
@76reliant The more you try to rationalize things in the way you just have, the more we see that religion has corrupted your ability to reason coherently. We all rather enjoy it; it's like a written history of irrationality.
@capoman1 The world corrupts, not God...If you can look out into the stars and see and accident...If you can look at your body and heart and brain and see an accident...If you can look at these END TIMES that we are living, and not see the Bible is true...Then we will agree to disagree....Humanism and Atheism don't get you anything but depression and sadness, as you have nothing to look forward to, but man keeps guessing....How many times has government, science, family, ect been wrong?-alot..
@capoman1 The world corrupts, not God...If you can look out into the stars and see and accident...If you can look at your body and heart and brain and see an accident...If you can look at these END TIMES that we are living, and not see the Bible is true...Then we will agree to disagree....Humanism and Atheism don't get you anything but depression and sadness, as you have nothing to look forward to, but man keeps guessing....How many times has government, science, family, ect been wrong?-alot..
@76reliant More irrationality sir. You haven't said a word to lend credence to your chosen way of thinking; you have only displayed your heavy bias.
And it's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree." It's a matter of "you and I decide the truth value of claims in TOTALLY different ways." You come from an assumed conclusion that you INSIST must be true, I am looking for evidence objectively, and from scratch. So let's not be dishonest and act like this is just a matter of disagreement; it's not.
@76reliant Are you trying to say the entire discipline of hominid paleontology doesn't exist or is fraudulent? You tend to believe in things that seem shocking and conspiratorial, don't you?
Here is a quote from John Paul the second to prove he is not from God: "By the end of this decade we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations...a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of survival. One world government is inevitable."
This proves he is part of a conspiracy to bring about a new world order. Have you red the bible? The mother of all harlots is the catholic church... new world order = new age = Satan :)
I wanna see actual photographs of the "fossil record" and these transitional species. I can draw pictures to fill in the gaps too but I've never seen the bones they find... Anyone know where i can find them?
Many museums have some excellent evolutionary trees lined up with actual fossils, let alone photographs. Your local museum of natural history would be a good place to start.
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14% = NEWSWEEK
@lizazoon I just debunked you on that quote, I have looked it up, and has not in fact, been written in newsweek, but actually only over all kinds of creationist sites whom hold only incredible false literature by nature. As usual, more bs to be put in the creationists lies bin
@saintpine "ooops "he made a mistake carbon dating does not prove the earth to be billions of years old""
Exactly. I wonder whether he knows/knew what carbon dating is/was all about. Being an evolutionist, it is one of the more important things to know. If he doesn't know what results carbon dating can give, this is far more serious than a mistake.
9:10 Ah the fine tunning crap. Is the universe tuned for life? hmmmm Wheres the fucking life? we exist on 1 planet that has had 99.9% of all species that have ever EVER existed Become extinct! Wheres the life in the solar system? Wheres the life on the firey hellish surface of venus??? WHERE!!!! lol hehe
@MomoTheBellyDancer They say that all the time. There is a building 35 blocks from me at the university that house many transitional fossils and outlines all the finds we have in varied branches of life. It all matches precisely with what the DNA evidence has also shown. They are right there. I can look at them. I could probably touch them if I ask nicely. What are they looking for? Because we obviously must be thinking of different things.
@saxoman1 Of course they are! Any time you debate AGAINST the scientific process and the mountains of evidence you're gonna get your ass handed to you! It's absoutely insane that even when the transitional forms are displayed to them, the creationists STILL will not admit they're wrong! Unfreaking-believable!!
Mr. Buckley did not answer Mr. Lynn’s question (this was a great question). I think that question needs to be asked of all the creationists.
Mr. Johnson refused to defend the creationist’s book because he knows it is silly and cannot be defined. Wow, Dr. Miller is kicking so much ass in this whole debate. Look at how frustrated Mr. Johnson looks while Dr. Miller is asking his question. Mr. Johnson’s only response is his personal incredulity.
@rationalanarchy articles.. dude show me a fish can become a mammal! show me and i will believe no problem. dont just tell me and explain, show me!! if you can literally show me that a species can evolve into a completely different species than i will believe. iv stated before that i have no problem believing in Christianity and evolution at the same time. i really have no problem with it, so sharky can shut the hell up about that one. just prove to me that this can happen.
@rationalanarchy lol don't worry it's like trying to solve the hardest rubix cube in the world trying to convince religious people that what they believe in doesn't have any evidence behind it and its basically greed because there so scared of dieing without an afterlife.
@rationalanarchy you can demonstrate it all you want, there is no proof that this great chain of events can or had occurred. Darwin himself said that the fossil records were not helping him but could later be explained and proven later. from the day of his death (1882) this theory still has not been proven. they keep making more explanations and think they don't have to prove them.
@rationalanarchy from Darwin himself "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" even with the fossils, one species simply cannot evolve into another. it just cant happen and hasn't been proven. a dog can evolve in to a bigger dog, but it is still a dog.
@rationalanarchy if you read on of my previous comments you would see one refuting evolution. but no matter, i shall provide another for you. i would comment about the big bang however since evolutionists have easily proven that something can come from nothing they also seem to keep saying that mammals came from fish. how? why? and proof. are all things I'd like to see answered. evolutionists BELIEVE in evolution
you gatta face it, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. here is an example.
evolutionary geologists think there is a dynamo in the molten core of the earth wich is suppose to generate energy for the dipole magnet for more than 3bil. years. there is no such evidence that supports this theory. or how the energy would be able to run it if there was such a thing.
Sharkshockey19. That is simply not true. The bible does not declare the world is $10,000 years old. There are many Christian scientist who believe both the bible and evolution.
So Phil Johnson gets confronted with not just one, but THREE transitional fossils ... and simply fails to acknowledge them. How dishonest can you get?
William Buckley was such a brilliant man in so many respects, and such a glaring moron denying any and all obvious facts (that are accepted by his church) and offering not one good reason for doing so.
if life just came from chemicals mixing over billions of years turning into an amoeba from that to a fish and from that into a kind of frog finally into a man its like saying the frog turned into a prince just adding billions of years to me evolution is just a fairy tale look at all the harm it caused in the past making racism more acceptable Ive seen so many documentrys on how in the early 20th century english though they were most evolved of europeans just because of skulls they observed.
Rebellion is usual, and by excluding that the biblical story of creation is literally true and that God is omnipresent and active in the creation, it is possible to interpret almost anything in evolutionary way. The truth, however, is that it is not random mutations and struggle for survival that adapts animals to new circumstances. It is God´s omnipresence that makes all the biological changes. God is continuously maintaining everything and he is even adding new things to the creation.
so is everyone on this planet... so that comment goes without saying. religion is/was (this aplies more to the past) a way of controlling a population, their way of life, their views of good and bad. it is possibly the most detrimental plague that has cursed our earth.
that was insane what you just said. you can rationalize your hate for religion by blindly saying that is just bad without one scholarly sentence. "a way of controlling a population" that was just stupid. i mean yea some religions were such as the Aztecs, Egyption gods and stuff like that. but if your gunna say ALL religion is a way of controlling, that's just ridiculous .
Uh, yeah, actually.Only people who are desperate to cling to mythology because they can't handle the fact that they're animals. If they're animals, they're not special, if they're not special they're not going to live forever see it as a problem.
Every fossil is transitional between two forms.
The creationists just keep going, "Aha! now there are two more gaps!" Every time a transitional is found.
uh, yea, actually. only those who cling to evolution so dearly are those who just want to refuse the only alternative of Evolution, Intelligent design.
Evolutionists just cant seem to come up with what they claim to have, 100% FACTS!!! notice how it is still a THEORY
@marineboy090 lol do you think evolutionist want it to be true that there is no god. all evolutionists say is evolution is pretty well impossible to debate against. and they like to say that the earth is not 10 thousand years old is that what you believe if you don't then you don't believe in Christianity.
@sharkshockey19 yes because the only alternative to evolution is creation, wich means there is a god out there somewhere (NO WAY!!)
evolution is NOT impossible to debate. i do believe it is a good debate which is why i enjoy it, but the evolutionists cant really debate all that well. i use to believe in evolution and was still a christian. but i started really looking into it, and there is still a good debate about it.. i just want facts.. which no one can seem to give me
@marineboy090 ok I know that evolution doesn't disprove god but it does disprove Christianity if you don't believe that just read the bible and you will see that adam and eve started everything. But okay lets say evolution is not true, all it does is disprove something that we know has many flaws, like the bible saying the earth is 10,000 years old which we know for a fact is untrue would you agree?Dinosaurs died millions of years ago and did not live with humans would you take this as a fact?
@sharkshockey19 please, would you be so kind as to show me where in the Christian Bible it says that the earth is 10,000 years old. Also, while you are looking things up, show me where i ever said "i believe the world is 10,000 years old."
@marineboy090 I know I realized it after I said that, you weren't saying that any religion that we've come up with is correct but that evolution doesn't disprove that there is a god because what if a god had put evolution in a planet, thats possible. I thought you said you were a Christian how didn't you realize that they state the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years old im not going to bother you anymore because you obviously haven't studied anything you believe in.
@sharkshockey19 Christianity is becoming a very loose term now a day. how dare you even think of mocking me when you cant answer one damn question i have asked. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE WORLD IS 6-10,000 YEARS OLD!! and SHOW ME SOME DAMN 100% EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACT AND NOT A THEORY!!!! i dont want anyone to answer this question except for this sharkshock guy who apparently knows everything about everyone!!
@marineboy090 lol your so aggressive sorry I've heard it from my own families priest and I keep hearing it from Christians around me I'm not going to take the time to look it up because it's stupid really what are we fighting about it's not that big of a deal either you don't believe in god and you go to hell or you go nowhere. and if you do believe in god you either go to heaven or nowhere, either way were just wasting are time arguing about something so stupid, would you agree with that lol
@sharkshockey19 ok so #1 dont judge people when you dont even know them, i know 100 times more about my religion than you do in your evolution crap. #2 your making claims about things you don't even KNOW!! so here is some advice for you because obviously your completely ignorant. before you make claims, make sure you got your facts straight and don't tread into waters you have now experience in.
@marineboy090 what do you mean I know and knew for a fact that the bible said the earth is 6-10 thousand years old Im just not very good at explaining it to someone because I thought all people knew that the bible said this even people who haven't read it but I guess I was wrong sorry for thinking you knew a lot about a religion you were involved in. you just judged me by saying I don't anything about evolution way to contradict yourself. I also learned about Christianity for 10 years of my life
@sharkshockey19 show me the verses, shouldn't bet that hard since you know so much. oh wait, you must be one of those people that just goes with the crowed. "oh iv heard someone say this so it must be true" why don't you do your own research for once. show me where i said you know nothing about evolution. please.. i would like to see where i contradicted myself... (you cant) stop putting words in my mouth and read. and seems to me you need to learn more about christianity
@marineboy090 this is fun lol did you see in your inbox I sent you a website talking about what the bible says. so do you truly believe that cats dogs humans and dinosaurs all lived at once. we have no cat, dog or human bones that are in the millions of years old range. so what this does is it pretty well disproves creationism and thats what makes me think the debate is stupid at least evolution doesn't have this much evidence against it. If I went with the crown I would believe in Christianity
@marineboy090 well how do you know that I don't know anything about evolution thats what i meant by contradicting yourself . Heres a question for you what do you believe in?
@sharkshockey19 i said i know more about my beliefs than you do about evolution, infact im pretty sure i know more about evolution than a lot of evolutionists. and thank you so much for asking, i will be more than happy to answer that. i believe in the Gap Theory.
@marineboy090 wow thats an interesting belief, is the gap theory the one that says science is right about everything before the last 6- ten thousand years where God started everything. I think mormons would have a better time convincing me of their religion verse this one. But let me know what the basis of the theory is I think I might be wrong because what i said was pretty ridiculous. What type of evolution courses have you taken?
@sharkshockey19 ok so the Gap Theory is that there is an amount of time between the first verse of Genesis and the second. where in the beginning He created the heavens(sky) and the earth and everything after that was RE-created. such proof of the re-creation words are in the Latin and i think the Hebrew bible too.
believe it or not, i have taken no evolution courses. i worked with my father studying and researching. and my father is studying to be a drug abuse councilor.
@marineboy090 I just don't like to take anything from the bible because it was clearly plagiarized stories about gods that were written before the bible were saying the same things as in the bible that we look at today. they would say a god had a son put him on the earth it was born of a virgin birth it was resurrected after death in the exact time that the current bible states. So I just see the people who wrote the bible as lazy people who couldn't come up with their own fake story.
@marineboy090 I got it from not a great source but if you watch religulous you will learn a lot more about this. i will give you a link for the movie and for the source
@sharkshockey19 your baising this topic (that has strayed away from the original topic) on a movie you saw? this is ridiculous. give me proof, give me facts, not a movie, they say anything. heres what i really really want though. proof of evolution. i have no problem believing in evolution at the same time carrying on with my religion if they can just give me some proof. which after time and time of debating, i have yet to receive.
@marineboy090 you obviously dont need proof to believe in a religion, but anyways I've been giving you information on whyyour side is wrongthats all. I'm not an evolutionist but I know enough about it to realize it's a lot less ridiculous then the Christian theory or gap theory. this argument is going nowhere disproving God is easy for me but proofing evolution isn't because I don't know enough about it. Your gap theory obviously doesnt follow the bible then, if the earth is older than 6000years
@sharkshockey19 can you not read my previous comment? it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation. you haven't disproved anything, just because you cant understand it doesn't mean its wrong. evolution just say crap and cant prove anything. show me your so called proof of evolution. i so long desire to see some proof of evolution and no one can seem to give it to me.
@marineboy090 how many times have I said it says in the bible that the earth is 6 thousand years old thats enough said. Thats all I need to understand about the bible and about Christianity theres a lot more that i guess you might think I was lieing about but c mon 6 thousand years old. evolution doesnt have something like this going against it give me something as significant as the earths age that makes evolution look disproved. give me proof the earth isalot older than 6000 years in the bible
@sharkshockey19 dude!! it does not say in the bible!! gah get it through your thick head! even the site you gave me said it wasn't in the bible, your contradict your own resources. no passage in the bible says "the earth is 6000 years old" there is nothing, nowhere! the site you gave me said "geologists found that the oldest human remains found was 6000 years ago and since adam and eve were the frist, they think that the earth is 6000 years old!! again! not!! in!! the!! BIBLE!! so stop saying it
@marineboy090 The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything. and i have a thick head wow. You must not know math but if you don't believe me please add up the years in the bible yourself since i can tell you will never take my word for it.
@sharkshockey19 yes you have a thick head, because i could have SWORN that i stated that the earth is not 6,000 years, nor does the Bible imply that. i really do hate repeating myself so i think i will save my energy and just say this GAP! THEORY!
@marineboy090 ok thats even more ridiculous then believing Christianity don't worry all of this stupid arguing doesn't matter when we die it will just be like before we were born I'm honestly not worried because Im privileged for this life and this life alone, I just feel like it's easy to get some people who feel there should be more life than this one to believe in something that would grant you it, end of argument.
@sharkshockey19 i would like to congratulate you with finally doing some research by providing something. however that site is hardly credible since they dont even put in some sitations of where they got their facts. but with that aside it is still not enough to say that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. i will say, however, it is not old enough to support the theory of evolution.
The fossil records indicate that life began as simple bacteria type cells and became more and more complex as creation progressed. This does not mean naturalistic evolution is true. It is a theory. Microevolution does explain much of the variations within a species - different types of finches for instance. Macroevolution's ability to produce through natural selection or mutations novel organs or a change in body plan is not proven fact. On the contrary, the fossil records show that species
The worldview biases of the debators impact on the interpretation of the data. One side sees similarities in structure as indicating transitional forms, while the other side sees separate life forms that may be similar in structure, but a leap of faith to make Darwinian evolution absolute fact. I am the latter, and believe that the similarities are because the same God created them. Science today is inherently flawed and designed to exclude God as a cause of anything. It does not seek truth.
Its quite scientifically conclusive that species lead to others. You're acting like comparative anatomy is the only thing evolution has going for it. But when DNA decoding and carbon dating and the distribution of life and all the other factors are involved, it is overwhelmingly conclusive that evolution is plainly real.
Science doesn't seek truth because it doesn't test for an untestable God? It doesn't take into account unicorns or leprechauns either.
If that is where the debate ended then your skeptism would be valid. However, please explain why Genetic theory supports evolution. To pretend that lack of or interpretation of transitional forms is the only evidence to support or discredit evolution is quite silly.
And going further, existence in transitional forms of vestigial appendages, organs, or other biological structures beg the question why? It really quite silly to prop up creationism as a valid explanation of the mechanism for the origin, modification, and variation of life on earth.
the fact that there is super complexity even within a single cell, much less larger organisms and species made up of trillions of complex cells, cells of different types to build the complex systems that enable the larger organism to function does not lead to a creator, but it should not rule out God as a plausibility. Science should be a search for causes, but instead of following the evidence where it leads, it starts with a no God presupposition since God won't lay down under a microscope.
@Eldeecue : As I replied to someone else, the evidence for God is all around you, clearly seen and undeniable. The mathematical pinpoint precision , systematic and purposeful order of the universe and all life within it is unmistakeable evidence of His intelligence and power. For you to equate God with inicorns and fairy tales goes beyond simple ignorance--it is willful blindness. You don't see because you don't want to see. No, it is wishful thinking on your part.
Oh Gosh, Kent Hovind would pwn'd these evolutionist, especially the guy who believes in the bible and evolution.
kdash64 3 weeks ago
@kdash64: You mean the same Kent Hovind who is currently serving prison time for tax evasion? Hovind was/is a hack of the worst sort and scientifically illiterate.
Pacisdiligo 2 weeks ago
@Pacisdiligo Not because hes in jail does not hurt his creditability, of how he destroyed every Evolutionist he debated. Second, because hes in jail, it only makes him look more Bodacious.
kdash64 2 weeks ago
@kdash64: Hovind's arguments were severely hampered by his ignorance and faulty reasoning. He was a laughingstock to those who actually understand (and respect) the scientific method and the theory of evolution itself.
Pacisdiligo 2 weeks ago
@Pacisdiligo Thats what you believe, but he has converted a lot of evolutionist and he has defeated many of them in debates. So, your argument is invalid.
The result says otherwise.
kdash64 2 weeks ago
How is my argument "invalid"? I argue that Hovind is scientifically illiterate and doesn't even understand how true scientific inquiry is conducted. He makes absurd and easily falsifiable claims. Out of curiosity, who has he converted from accepting the fact of evolution to believing in his brand of young-earth-creationism?
Pacisdiligo 2 weeks ago
@Pacisdiligo search the tube and you'll see.
take care
kdash64 2 weeks ago
@kdash64 Yeah......
Pacisdiligo 2 weeks ago
@Pacisdiligo lol love you man.
kdash64 2 weeks ago
do they not understand there are "kinds" they don't have to be the exact type,but only the same kind of animals etc..yes Noah had dinosaurs which God Calls in other names..oh yeah ,Noahs ark has been found for awhile now and testing of what is in it..would end every evolutionist job...
Projectinsighter 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every Genome was separately created in Abiogenesis, and is effective to work out diversity through Mendelian Genetics, not Evolution , and every Genome has it's own life span, which makes the entire line of zygotes become no longer VIABLE and thus EXTINCT. That the Genome itself wears out and dies, proves that the Genomes are not the product of Evolution from simpler Genomes to more complex. Every Genome is slowly DYING, not evolving to higher efficiency or to Immortality .
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take a normal Human Being by our Genome, you breed too closely until the Chromosome Damages begin to result in Down's Syndrome, which have the effect of increasing the Chromosome count by X Fragmentations, and then keep breeding the Down's Syndrome Patients and then another break down of the Chromosomes begins to resemble how the Apes devolved away from the Human Being, showing Evolutionists are reading Medical Facts in Reverse Logic to suggest a forward Evolution. False Theory.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Human Being was Created by Intelligent Notions, not by Random Chance. The creatures, such as a modern horse and an ancient horse is very compatible to adaptations they share. the Radical change from the Human Being to the short lived, degenerated chromosome fitted Apes, has the fact in Medical Sciences. not in the Theory of Evolution. The Human Genome is the Parent, the Original. The Apes are examples of degeneration and destruction of the Genome, being read backwards by Evolutionists.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the chimpanzees and apes suggest is not a common ancestor, such that it was neither ape or man, but that it is perfectly supported by Medical Science, that an ancient normal human being, DEVOLVED, by cause of degenerative diseases such as Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Radiation Damage to Chromosomes, and Retro Viral Infections. The apes are not our own origins, but the Genome for the normal human being was the place the apes began to devolve and fall away from. Logical.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Adaptations within a species , within the Genome, is a micro evolution, that is really not Evolution at all, but the use of Mendel's Law of Inherited Traits. The new adaptations are not forever, they come and they can be dismissed , and the idea that adaptations within the Genome proves anything about Macro Evolution of Life overall, is a Far Fetched Hypothesis without Empirical Evidence to support the conclusion. DNA for a plant is never evolving into DNA for Animals.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every unique life form on Earth, is not the product of Evolution, It was not one first cell and then all came from that. That is false. DNA began as a celestial visitor among the clouds of the heavens above, raining on earth , then ingested by the planet, becoming Earth Bound Seeds that by Mendelian Genetics, produced billions of original distinct life forms, not one, and then the community of living things now earth bound, foraged and factored into closed Genomes until Extinct.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no common ancestor between a DNA for a blade of grass, and an Elephant. Evolution fails the test, one must think about Abiogenesis, which is not Evolution, but a Creation Methodology of Consumption and Capturing , not evolving anything, to produce seeds of each type of life, so that it's DNA had an origins without Evolution at all, and then proceeded to live until the Genome became itself Extinct, and with some micro evolution , which really is Mendel's Laws.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
Got to love people who use genetics to disprove it when all genetics prove as a whole how.closely we are related and just where and when the divergenc of the new species took root.
Seamn31 5 months ago
PWN'D
dustindo 6 months ago
Since Evolution tied itself to Mendelian Genetics, all bets are off that simply creatures that appear as transitional , by outward appearances, shall not be concluded to bear out the fact of Mendel's Laws, because different Genomes entirely can produce similar looking creatures, and draw false conclusions that they are ancestral. Totally unique Genomes in the same environment use different genes to produce similar designs, and so seeing in not believing, there must be Genetic Proof.
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"different Genomes entirely can produce similar looking creatures"
Yes, superficially similar, but they will have many morphological differences.
"and draw false conclusions that they are ancestral."
In the end, ALL life on earth shares a common ancestor.
"there must be Genetic Proof"
And there is.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your fallacy is attempting to find an organic god. You say all life on earth has one common ancestor, That is a religious concept , that instead of the Creator, who would be able to create life infinitely, you believe in some cosmic living cell, that is materially "god" . You are basically a crackpot to think this idea. Gaia Earth stuff . DNA is a form of behavior, something in motion, due to higher powers acting to cause things to move, DNA is not god
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
Time is the barrier that prevents Evolution from being proven as the fact of the past order. Mendel's Law of Genetics can be proven today , by eliminating the requirement of time ,as if Evolution is purchased only by time itself and thus in the present tense, no amount of technology can present a single fact ,except it fall into the category of Mendel's Laws in the present case of a Genome, but we have nothing at all to call a "FACT" in principle to apply as technological craft to "Evolve"
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione "but we have nothing at all to call a "FACT" in principle to apply as technological craft to "Evolve"
That is a lie. Speciation is observed all the time in the wild, the lab and the farm.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob separate creations of life have some microevolution, mostly bad, none of which is empirically the evidence for macroevolution. What is actually happening to change within the species is the Mendelian Law of Inherited Traits, not an evolution of increased information in the Genome. You are confusing the visual effects of altering the Zygotes , with imagining their Genomes are evolving, One fact does not prove the other Hypothesis as true, and it is not true.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
@CarmineFragione You are completely in denial. You completely ignore the fact that mutations happen, that these mutations insert or change function and that those mutations are inherited by off spring.
You also completely ignore the fact that beneficial mutations achieving fixation have been observed.
I'm also very positive that what you consider to be "macro" evolution is a huge strawman, something that would actually falsifly evolution. Can you please define "macro" evolution for me?
ScientificBob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob slight variations within the Genome of a given species can move to a slight change in the zygote without detecting any real evolution to the actual Genome. And such adaptations, like the Nylon Eating Bacteria, has been finally shown to be not evolution , and the ability is simply synthesized out of Mendelian Genetics, and those acquired changes can disappear, without the Genome ever evolving at all. The Genome remains stable while the zygotes vary= Mendel's Law.
CarmineFragione 3 months ago
every single creationist keeps talking in circles....
1986hr 7 months ago
I wouldn't be so quick or gracious to accept Buckley to the Darwinian side just because he has mastered the fine art ambulatory eloquence. He may have a reputation as a formidable intellect but I believe it is falsely earned. Since conservatism is a disease of the mind for which there is no known cure, I would at best charitably ascribe his performance here to advancing senility.
Upstreamswimmer 8 months ago
this guy trying to shove a book in of Noah in this guys face is comical..he is an idiot beyond idiots..as if he knows Gods work,,they guy will surely see hell for he is of his father Satan..demon
Revivalkingdom 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Fred Hoyle co-worker William Alfred Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s pioneering efforts So what are talking about or is that an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation in the name of False theory of Evolution?
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"such a notable astronomer "
Indeed, Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer your friends talked about other forms of evolutions and religion in this debates not only Biology
drshamast 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshamast
"your friends talked about other forms of evolutions and religion in this debates not only Biology"
Could you rephrase this in a way that makes sense?
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Comment removed
drshamast 10 months ago
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule."A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. ...Fred Hoyle. astronomer and mathematician
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"Fred Hoyle"
.. was often wrong, like about the steady-state universe,
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Comment removed
drshamast 10 months ago
Ken Miller best argument is a lay The National Geographic Magazine has always promoted evolution. In the November 2001 issue they gave a picture of a land animal - Ambulocetus - said to be a stage in the evolution of the whale - but their artist falsified webs between its claws to make it look as if it were adapting to living in the sea. The rear legs were also positioned as though they were developing into fins. The article said the digits ended in small hooves
drshamast 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ken Miller bast argument is lay
The drawing seems to show claws. It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal that has been pressed into use as an intermediary between mammals and whales. Evolutionists are truly desperate about the absence of this link.
drshamast 10 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@drshamast
"The drawing seems to show claws."
Ambulocetus had long fingers that extended into tiny hooves, confirming its lineage with land animals. It was very adapted to an aquatic lifestyle though.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer are saying that as Fact or speculation? B/c Ken Miller It showing it As if these drawing are facts. which is Total Lay
drshamast 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshamast
"Ken Miller It showing it As if these drawing are facts."
How often do I have to tell you that the drawings don't matter? The fossils exist. They are there. They can't just be waved away, despite valiant efforts on the side of the creationists.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer reconstructed skeleton of this fossil notes that it is “missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones.in other word speculation and imagination of the artist the only thing that is complete.
drshamast 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshamast
"speculation and imagination of the artist "
Like I already said: the interpretation of an artist is of no importance scientifically. But scientists can still make very good guesses about how an organism looked with the fossil material they have, by comparing it with other organisms, both fossilized and living.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer #2 ‘ … since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.’
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal"
Yes, HINDERS, but it doesn't make it impossible. Also, it doesn't hinder determining lineage. You're simply being disingenuous.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Comment removed
drshamast 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer #1 this is misleading, bordering on deceitful and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram…). Without this, it’s presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation. His fellow evolutionist Annalisa Berta pointed out:
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram."
He said that paleontologists mostly found teeth and skulls, but also a whole fossil. There's nothing misleading about his whole presentation.
"the all-important pelvic girdle was not found"
Important for what? There are other indicators of the relation between the fossils, such as the aforementioned skulls and teeth.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer " He said that paleontologists mostly found teeth and skulls, but also a whole fossil. There's nothing misleading about his whole presentation." >... are Skulls and teeth Are Assumption for the rest of the body?Look If you want to believe in False theory of evolution be my guest Just say for what it is An Assumption Based on weak Hypothesis. don't to put someone drawing as fact and than declare a victory in a debate
drshamast 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshamast
"are Skulls and teeth Are Assumption for the rest of the body?"
Sure. At the very least you can tell something about the organism's lineage.
"Just say for what it is An Assumption"
An assumption with loads of evidence in its favor.
"don't to put someone drawing as fact "
Who's doing that? Certainly not Ken Miller or his colleagues. You're being disingenuous.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@drshamast
We are not making "assumptions" when we observe genetic change in organisms. So, do yourself a favor and research before you make ignorant statements as you just did.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
youtube einstein's idiots...there are about 24 videos...this explains how science is full of contradictions....ofcourse atheists have to believe in youtube, so I'm not sure if they do..
76reliant 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@76reliant
"einstein's idiots...there are about 24 videos"
Bill Gaede is an idiot himself. He doesn't even understand the theories he's attacking.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Revelation 13:16-17..the 'mark of the beast'...The Bible written 2000 years ago, tells how man will have a 'mark' required on their right hand or forehead to be able to buy or sell anything..The verichip, an 'implant', goes beneath your skin, and houses all of your health and financial information..It's been around since the 90's,it's backed by ibm. Some parts of the world are using it, including USA(FDA approved).Right now, some are rejecting it as violating rights, but it will happen.
76reliant 10 months ago
@76reliant
"The Bible written 2000 years ago, tells how man will have a 'mark' required on their right hand or forehead "
That was a common practice in those days. Merchants got a mark without which they were not allowed to conduct business.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Evolution and God don't go together, because in the Bible, He created man in his image, not globs to monkeys to man....You create a child with your wife...Does it go from a sperm to a turtle, to a a gorilla to a baby--ofcourse not.....This would cause mass confusion, even if you had a transitional phase...Even Darwin himself said transitional phases could cause great problems....Darwin wasn't Dawkins, as Darwin later became more uncertain about his theory, based on some of his quotes...
76reliant 10 months ago
@76reliant
"Evolution and God don't go together"
And since there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for any gods, where does that leave you?
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
everytime ken miller talks he destroys the creationists and just makes them nervous haha.
Feralus69 10 months ago
part 2 ken Miller bast argument is lay
The drawing seems to show claws. It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal that has been pressed into use as an intermediary between mammals and whales. Evolutionists are truly desperate about the absence of this link.
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal"
Of course. What did you expect: an abnormal land animal? The predecessor of whales was suited for life on land, and its offspring got more and more adapted to life in the water.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Ken Miller best argument is a lay The National Geographic Magazine has always promoted evolution. In the November 2001 issue they gave a picture of a land animal - Ambulocetus - said to be a stage in the evolution of the whale - but their artist falsified webs between its claws to make it look as if it were adapting to living in the sea. The rear legs were also positioned as though they were developing into fins. The article said the digits ended in small hooves,
drshamast 10 months ago
@drshamast
"heir artist falsified webs between its claws "
What artists do is of no importance. But yes, Ambulocetus had adaptations for both living on land as well as in the water.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
Let's get a close-up on that chart, are those "vestigial legs" in the high light circle under the whale?? LOL If so, Mr. Miller shows even more ignorance than when he published Haeckle's embryos! Those "vestigial legs" serve a biological function, holding the member in place during procreation. O the egg that must be scraped off the face of such a reknown "scientist," WOW
salmagnum 11 months ago
Darwinian evidence seems to suggest we have a common ancestor. Or does it suggest we have a common maker? Richard Dawkins speaks of type of signature that would be left if there was a designer. Could this be the signature he seeks?
zaccckk 11 months ago
Lots of smiles to go around while the creationist side dishonestly denies evidence. Disgusting.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1 Evidence? If you listened, much of the evidence is artistic representation....Did you know the b.s. photo of ape to man is simply a artistic representation without the skulls ect to back it up? Yet it is still pushed as fact.....Remember the earth was flat too, acording to the scientific community--which was called fact for a long time..
76reliant 10 months ago
@76reliant Now let's see what the CURRENT "Christian religious community" STILL upholds: A Noahrkian flood, a young earth, that an unknown presence singularly created an original couple of humans, but somehow the descendants of those 2 humans did not commit incess, that same being came to earth in human form, but through natural birth, but his mother was a virgin, he then walked on water, healed the sick, fed the masses with a fish and a loaf....
These things are held as FACT by Christians!
capoman1 10 months ago
@capoman1 In order to believe in a young earth, you have to think that all geological formations were either formed in the last 6-10 thousand years, or were "placed" here in their current form. You must also think that all of the fossils found are 6-10 thousand years old, and either fossilized in the last 6-10 thousand years, or were PLACED under the ground and in the rock in their current form HIERARCHICALLY during the creation! Whew.
capoman1 10 months ago
@capoman1 In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve to 'replenish' the earth..Replenish implies something was there before them....The age of the earth could be very old...The age adam and eve to now, is not very long...As far as your incest point--Many parts of the world, even today marry their family members.In 1800's America 1st cousins were also.Only recently has that been frowned upon by culture...God could create this vast universe, which would mean he could create a virgin birth and on and on..
76reliant 10 months ago
@76reliant The more you try to rationalize things in the way you just have, the more we see that religion has corrupted your ability to reason coherently. We all rather enjoy it; it's like a written history of irrationality.
capoman1 10 months ago
@capoman1 The world corrupts, not God...If you can look out into the stars and see and accident...If you can look at your body and heart and brain and see an accident...If you can look at these END TIMES that we are living, and not see the Bible is true...Then we will agree to disagree....Humanism and Atheism don't get you anything but depression and sadness, as you have nothing to look forward to, but man keeps guessing....How many times has government, science, family, ect been wrong?-alot..
76reliant 10 months ago
@capoman1 The world corrupts, not God...If you can look out into the stars and see and accident...If you can look at your body and heart and brain and see an accident...If you can look at these END TIMES that we are living, and not see the Bible is true...Then we will agree to disagree....Humanism and Atheism don't get you anything but depression and sadness, as you have nothing to look forward to, but man keeps guessing....How many times has government, science, family, ect been wrong?-alot..
76reliant 10 months ago
@76reliant More irrationality sir. You haven't said a word to lend credence to your chosen way of thinking; you have only displayed your heavy bias.
And it's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree." It's a matter of "you and I decide the truth value of claims in TOTALLY different ways." You come from an assumed conclusion that you INSIST must be true, I am looking for evidence objectively, and from scratch. So let's not be dishonest and act like this is just a matter of disagreement; it's not.
capoman1 10 months ago
@76reliant
"The world corrupts, not God"
And who, according to your religion, created the world? Right ...
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@76reliant
"God could create this vast universe, which would mean he could create a virgin birth and on and on."
Yes, but there is no evidence for any of that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@76reliant Are you trying to say the entire discipline of hominid paleontology doesn't exist or is fraudulent? You tend to believe in things that seem shocking and conspiratorial, don't you?
rrpostalagain 10 months ago
Here is a quote from John Paul the second to prove he is not from God: "By the end of this decade we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations...a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of survival. One world government is inevitable."
This proves he is part of a conspiracy to bring about a new world order. Have you red the bible? The mother of all harlots is the catholic church... new world order = new age = Satan :)
axe414 1 year ago
Woooooow! The floor just got swept with the creationist's absentminded naivities. OWNED!
pointguard12 1 year ago
What are evolutionists afraid of. I sense such fear in them.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
@pbaylis1 They are afraid of the dark ages returning.
udoloh 1 year ago
Why do they find fossils that are essentialy the same today as then,some species do not evolve OK why do some evolve and some do not.
glendaweil 1 year ago
Imagination Are not Facts He is presenting something is very Artistic As usual drawing is not fact No self respective scientist would take as fact
drshamast 1 year ago
Imagination Are not Facts He is presenting something is very Artistic As usual drawing is not fact No self respective scientist would take as fact
drshamast 1 year ago
I wanna see actual photographs of the "fossil record" and these transitional species. I can draw pictures to fill in the gaps too but I've never seen the bones they find... Anyone know where i can find them?
khamesbanan 1 year ago
@khamesbanan
Many museums have some excellent evolutionary trees lined up with actual fossils, let alone photographs. Your local museum of natural history would be a good place to start.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Ken Miller is the man.
lapkine77 1 year ago 7
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14% = NEWSWEEK
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon I just debunked you on that quote, I have looked it up, and has not in fact, been written in newsweek, but actually only over all kinds of creationist sites whom hold only incredible false literature by nature. As usual, more bs to be put in the creationists lies bin
splicedenergy 1 year ago
ooops "he made a mistake carbon dating does not prove the earth to be billions of years old"
saintpine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintpine "ooops "he made a mistake carbon dating does not prove the earth to be billions of years old""
Exactly. I wonder whether he knows/knew what carbon dating is/was all about. Being an evolutionist, it is one of the more important things to know. If he doesn't know what results carbon dating can give, this is far more serious than a mistake.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
9:10 Ah the fine tunning crap. Is the universe tuned for life? hmmmm Wheres the fucking life? we exist on 1 planet that has had 99.9% of all species that have ever EVER existed Become extinct! Wheres the life in the solar system? Wheres the life on the firey hellish surface of venus??? WHERE!!!! lol hehe
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Miller: "You keep saying: where are the transitional forms? Paleontologists dig them up. What's the matter with them?"
Johnson: "Whaaa.. blubber... snort...."
Yes, Mr. Johnson. Very convincing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 16
@MomoTheBellyDancer They say that all the time. There is a building 35 blocks from me at the university that house many transitional fossils and outlines all the finds we have in varied branches of life. It all matches precisely with what the DNA evidence has also shown. They are right there. I can look at them. I could probably touch them if I ask nicely. What are they looking for? Because we obviously must be thinking of different things.
rrpostalagain 10 months ago
I know there is no "winner" or "loser," but the creationists are getting their asses handed to them xD
saxoman1 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@saxoman1
"I know there is no "winner" or "loser," but the creationists are getting their asses handed to them xD"
-
As always, it never changes.
nolobede 1 year ago
@saxoman1 Of course they are! Any time you debate AGAINST the scientific process and the mountains of evidence you're gonna get your ass handed to you! It's absoutely insane that even when the transitional forms are displayed to them, the creationists STILL will not admit they're wrong! Unfreaking-believable!!
tjweiler1 1 year ago
What? Biological phenomenon? Dr. Scott, Dr. Behe’s quote was not about biology.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Mr. Buckley did not answer Mr. Lynn’s question (this was a great question). I think that question needs to be asked of all the creationists.
Mr. Johnson refused to defend the creationist’s book because he knows it is silly and cannot be defined. Wow, Dr. Miller is kicking so much ass in this whole debate. Look at how frustrated Mr. Johnson looks while Dr. Miller is asking his question. Mr. Johnson’s only response is his personal incredulity.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy articles.. dude show me a fish can become a mammal! show me and i will believe no problem. dont just tell me and explain, show me!! if you can literally show me that a species can evolve into a completely different species than i will believe. iv stated before that i have no problem believing in Christianity and evolution at the same time. i really have no problem with it, so sharky can shut the hell up about that one. just prove to me that this can happen.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy lol don't worry it's like trying to solve the hardest rubix cube in the world trying to convince religious people that what they believe in doesn't have any evidence behind it and its basically greed because there so scared of dieing without an afterlife.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy you can demonstrate it all you want, there is no proof that this great chain of events can or had occurred. Darwin himself said that the fossil records were not helping him but could later be explained and proven later. from the day of his death (1882) this theory still has not been proven. they keep making more explanations and think they don't have to prove them.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy from Darwin himself "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" even with the fossils, one species simply cannot evolve into another. it just cant happen and hasn't been proven. a dog can evolve in to a bigger dog, but it is still a dog.
marineboy090 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxReekoxXx 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy if you read on of my previous comments you would see one refuting evolution. but no matter, i shall provide another for you. i would comment about the big bang however since evolutionists have easily proven that something can come from nothing they also seem to keep saying that mammals came from fish. how? why? and proof. are all things I'd like to see answered. evolutionists BELIEVE in evolution
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 why did you bring up the big bang. did you realize that God also would have had to come from something it just didn't appear did it.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
why doesnt everything sound smarter when spoken with a British accent especially something as silly as the bible
slye1991 1 year ago
you gatta face it, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. here is an example.
evolutionary geologists think there is a dynamo in the molten core of the earth wich is suppose to generate energy for the dipole magnet for more than 3bil. years. there is no such evidence that supports this theory. or how the energy would be able to run it if there was such a thing.
marineboy090 1 year ago
Sharkshockey19. That is simply not true. The bible does not declare the world is $10,000 years old. There are many Christian scientist who believe both the bible and evolution.
atoburen 1 year ago
@atoburen I know it says the earth is 10,000 years old not $10,000 Im not that stupid lol.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
Moving the goalpost / raising the bar.....
100PercentGreen 1 year ago
So Phil Johnson gets confronted with not just one, but THREE transitional fossils ... and simply fails to acknowledge them. How dishonest can you get?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
William Buckley was such a brilliant man in so many respects, and such a glaring moron denying any and all obvious facts (that are accepted by his church) and offering not one good reason for doing so.
It was weird.
PencilsAreAwesome 1 year ago
04:19 "that's nothing to do with me" funny stuff
jeman94 1 year ago
Self awareness, how?
bonajab 1 year ago
if life just came from chemicals mixing over billions of years turning into an amoeba from that to a fish and from that into a kind of frog finally into a man its like saying the frog turned into a prince just adding billions of years to me evolution is just a fairy tale look at all the harm it caused in the past making racism more acceptable Ive seen so many documentrys on how in the early 20th century english though they were most evolved of europeans just because of skulls they observed.
exuro22 2 years ago
hahahahaha fail troll is fail
lordbyrne 2 years ago
@exuro22 Personal incredulity is no excuse. Go read a biology book.
mornmeril 1 year ago
@exuro22
"if life just came from chemicals mixing over billions of years turning into an amoeba"
No, it didn't. Get an education.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
smelly creationists
Brushles83 2 years ago
Rebellion is usual, and by excluding that the biblical story of creation is literally true and that God is omnipresent and active in the creation, it is possible to interpret almost anything in evolutionary way. The truth, however, is that it is not random mutations and struggle for survival that adapts animals to new circumstances. It is God´s omnipresence that makes all the biological changes. God is continuously maintaining everything and he is even adding new things to the creation.
mikilavush 2 years ago
Religion inspires Ignorance!!! FACT
AllyMelling101 2 years ago
@allymelling101
you yourself are ignorant
marineboy090 1 year ago
so is everyone on this planet... so that comment goes without saying. religion is/was (this aplies more to the past) a way of controlling a population, their way of life, their views of good and bad. it is possibly the most detrimental plague that has cursed our earth.
AllyMelling101 1 year ago
@allymelling101
that was insane what you just said. you can rationalize your hate for religion by blindly saying that is just bad without one scholarly sentence. "a way of controlling a population" that was just stupid. i mean yea some religions were such as the Aztecs, Egyption gods and stuff like that. but if your gunna say ALL religion is a way of controlling, that's just ridiculous .
marineboy090 1 year ago
@Eliasauras
Uh, yeah, actually.Only people who are desperate to cling to mythology because they can't handle the fact that they're animals. If they're animals, they're not special, if they're not special they're not going to live forever see it as a problem.
Every fossil is transitional between two forms.
The creationists just keep going, "Aha! now there are two more gaps!" Every time a transitional is found.
It's childish.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
@eliasauras
uh, yea, actually. only those who cling to evolution so dearly are those who just want to refuse the only alternative of Evolution, Intelligent design.
Evolutionists just cant seem to come up with what they claim to have, 100% FACTS!!! notice how it is still a THEORY
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 lol do you think evolutionist want it to be true that there is no god. all evolutionists say is evolution is pretty well impossible to debate against. and they like to say that the earth is not 10 thousand years old is that what you believe if you don't then you don't believe in Christianity.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 yes because the only alternative to evolution is creation, wich means there is a god out there somewhere (NO WAY!!)
evolution is NOT impossible to debate. i do believe it is a good debate which is why i enjoy it, but the evolutionists cant really debate all that well. i use to believe in evolution and was still a christian. but i started really looking into it, and there is still a good debate about it.. i just want facts.. which no one can seem to give me
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 ok I know that evolution doesn't disprove god but it does disprove Christianity if you don't believe that just read the bible and you will see that adam and eve started everything. But okay lets say evolution is not true, all it does is disprove something that we know has many flaws, like the bible saying the earth is 10,000 years old which we know for a fact is untrue would you agree?Dinosaurs died millions of years ago and did not live with humans would you take this as a fact?
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 please, would you be so kind as to show me where in the Christian Bible it says that the earth is 10,000 years old. Also, while you are looking things up, show me where i ever said "i believe the world is 10,000 years old."
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 I know I realized it after I said that, you weren't saying that any religion that we've come up with is correct but that evolution doesn't disprove that there is a god because what if a god had put evolution in a planet, thats possible. I thought you said you were a Christian how didn't you realize that they state the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years old im not going to bother you anymore because you obviously haven't studied anything you believe in.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 Christianity is becoming a very loose term now a day. how dare you even think of mocking me when you cant answer one damn question i have asked. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE WORLD IS 6-10,000 YEARS OLD!! and SHOW ME SOME DAMN 100% EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACT AND NOT A THEORY!!!! i dont want anyone to answer this question except for this sharkshock guy who apparently knows everything about everyone!!
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 lol your so aggressive sorry I've heard it from my own families priest and I keep hearing it from Christians around me I'm not going to take the time to look it up because it's stupid really what are we fighting about it's not that big of a deal either you don't believe in god and you go to hell or you go nowhere. and if you do believe in god you either go to heaven or nowhere, either way were just wasting are time arguing about something so stupid, would you agree with that lol
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 ok so #1 dont judge people when you dont even know them, i know 100 times more about my religion than you do in your evolution crap. #2 your making claims about things you don't even KNOW!! so here is some advice for you because obviously your completely ignorant. before you make claims, make sure you got your facts straight and don't tread into waters you have now experience in.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 what do you mean I know and knew for a fact that the bible said the earth is 6-10 thousand years old Im just not very good at explaining it to someone because I thought all people knew that the bible said this even people who haven't read it but I guess I was wrong sorry for thinking you knew a lot about a religion you were involved in. you just judged me by saying I don't anything about evolution way to contradict yourself. I also learned about Christianity for 10 years of my life
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 show me the verses, shouldn't bet that hard since you know so much. oh wait, you must be one of those people that just goes with the crowed. "oh iv heard someone say this so it must be true" why don't you do your own research for once. show me where i said you know nothing about evolution. please.. i would like to see where i contradicted myself... (you cant) stop putting words in my mouth and read. and seems to me you need to learn more about christianity
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 this is fun lol did you see in your inbox I sent you a website talking about what the bible says. so do you truly believe that cats dogs humans and dinosaurs all lived at once. we have no cat, dog or human bones that are in the millions of years old range. so what this does is it pretty well disproves creationism and thats what makes me think the debate is stupid at least evolution doesn't have this much evidence against it. If I went with the crown I would believe in Christianity
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 crowd*
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@marineboy090 well how do you know that I don't know anything about evolution thats what i meant by contradicting yourself . Heres a question for you what do you believe in?
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 i said i know more about my beliefs than you do about evolution, infact im pretty sure i know more about evolution than a lot of evolutionists. and thank you so much for asking, i will be more than happy to answer that. i believe in the Gap Theory.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 wow thats an interesting belief, is the gap theory the one that says science is right about everything before the last 6- ten thousand years where God started everything. I think mormons would have a better time convincing me of their religion verse this one. But let me know what the basis of the theory is I think I might be wrong because what i said was pretty ridiculous. What type of evolution courses have you taken?
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 ok so the Gap Theory is that there is an amount of time between the first verse of Genesis and the second. where in the beginning He created the heavens(sky) and the earth and everything after that was RE-created. such proof of the re-creation words are in the Latin and i think the Hebrew bible too.
believe it or not, i have taken no evolution courses. i worked with my father studying and researching. and my father is studying to be a drug abuse councilor.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 I just don't like to take anything from the bible because it was clearly plagiarized stories about gods that were written before the bible were saying the same things as in the bible that we look at today. they would say a god had a son put him on the earth it was born of a virgin birth it was resurrected after death in the exact time that the current bible states. So I just see the people who wrote the bible as lazy people who couldn't come up with their own fake story.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 please give me proof of this plagiarized theory.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 I got it from not a great source but if you watch religulous you will learn a lot more about this. i will give you a link for the movie and for the source
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 your baising this topic (that has strayed away from the original topic) on a movie you saw? this is ridiculous. give me proof, give me facts, not a movie, they say anything. heres what i really really want though. proof of evolution. i have no problem believing in evolution at the same time carrying on with my religion if they can just give me some proof. which after time and time of debating, i have yet to receive.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 you obviously dont need proof to believe in a religion, but anyways I've been giving you information on whyyour side is wrongthats all. I'm not an evolutionist but I know enough about it to realize it's a lot less ridiculous then the Christian theory or gap theory. this argument is going nowhere disproving God is easy for me but proofing evolution isn't because I don't know enough about it. Your gap theory obviously doesnt follow the bible then, if the earth is older than 6000years
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 can you not read my previous comment? it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation. you haven't disproved anything, just because you cant understand it doesn't mean its wrong. evolution just say crap and cant prove anything. show me your so called proof of evolution. i so long desire to see some proof of evolution and no one can seem to give it to me.
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 how many times have I said it says in the bible that the earth is 6 thousand years old thats enough said. Thats all I need to understand about the bible and about Christianity theres a lot more that i guess you might think I was lieing about but c mon 6 thousand years old. evolution doesnt have something like this going against it give me something as significant as the earths age that makes evolution look disproved. give me proof the earth isalot older than 6000 years in the bible
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 dude!! it does not say in the bible!! gah get it through your thick head! even the site you gave me said it wasn't in the bible, your contradict your own resources. no passage in the bible says "the earth is 6000 years old" there is nothing, nowhere! the site you gave me said "geologists found that the oldest human remains found was 6000 years ago and since adam and eve were the frist, they think that the earth is 6000 years old!! again! not!! in!! the!! BIBLE!! so stop saying it
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything. and i have a thick head wow. You must not know math but if you don't believe me please add up the years in the bible yourself since i can tell you will never take my word for it.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 yes you have a thick head, because i could have SWORN that i stated that the earth is not 6,000 years, nor does the Bible imply that. i really do hate repeating myself so i think i will save my energy and just say this GAP! THEORY!
marineboy090 1 year ago
@marineboy090 ok thats even more ridiculous then believing Christianity don't worry all of this stupid arguing doesn't matter when we die it will just be like before we were born I'm honestly not worried because Im privileged for this life and this life alone, I just feel like it's easy to get some people who feel there should be more life than this one to believe in something that would grant you it, end of argument.
sharkshockey19 1 year ago
@sharkshockey19 i would like to congratulate you with finally doing some research by providing something. however that site is hardly credible since they dont even put in some sitations of where they got their facts. but with that aside it is still not enough to say that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. i will say, however, it is not old enough to support the theory of evolution.
marineboy090 1 year ago
He shows three supposed transitional forms and thinks that ends the argument?
Eliasauras 2 years ago
generally appear suddenly and remain basically stable throughout their existence. The missing link is still missing. It does not exist.
BU83GRAD 2 years ago
The fossil records indicate that life began as simple bacteria type cells and became more and more complex as creation progressed. This does not mean naturalistic evolution is true. It is a theory. Microevolution does explain much of the variations within a species - different types of finches for instance. Macroevolution's ability to produce through natural selection or mutations novel organs or a change in body plan is not proven fact. On the contrary, the fossil records show that species
BU83GRAD 2 years ago
The worldview biases of the debators impact on the interpretation of the data. One side sees similarities in structure as indicating transitional forms, while the other side sees separate life forms that may be similar in structure, but a leap of faith to make Darwinian evolution absolute fact. I am the latter, and believe that the similarities are because the same God created them. Science today is inherently flawed and designed to exclude God as a cause of anything. It does not seek truth.
aletheuo777 2 years ago
Its quite scientifically conclusive that species lead to others. You're acting like comparative anatomy is the only thing evolution has going for it. But when DNA decoding and carbon dating and the distribution of life and all the other factors are involved, it is overwhelmingly conclusive that evolution is plainly real.
Science doesn't seek truth because it doesn't test for an untestable God? It doesn't take into account unicorns or leprechauns either.
ChaseKittens 2 years ago
If that is where the debate ended then your skeptism would be valid. However, please explain why Genetic theory supports evolution. To pretend that lack of or interpretation of transitional forms is the only evidence to support or discredit evolution is quite silly.
moxypirate 2 years ago
And going further, existence in transitional forms of vestigial appendages, organs, or other biological structures beg the question why? It really quite silly to prop up creationism as a valid explanation of the mechanism for the origin, modification, and variation of life on earth.
moxypirate 2 years ago
the fact that there is super complexity even within a single cell, much less larger organisms and species made up of trillions of complex cells, cells of different types to build the complex systems that enable the larger organism to function does not lead to a creator, but it should not rule out God as a plausibility. Science should be a search for causes, but instead of following the evidence where it leads, it starts with a no God presupposition since God won't lay down under a microscope.
cdjjj7 2 years ago
God won't lay down under a microscope? Neither do unicorns.
Science is designed to find the truth, via evidence. God is designed to be a comforting fairy tale via delusion and wishful thinking.
Making unverifiability an inherent quality of your claim does not make it true, or even competitive. Or worth anyone's time.
Eldeecue 2 years ago
@Eldeecue : As I replied to someone else, the evidence for God is all around you, clearly seen and undeniable. The mathematical pinpoint precision , systematic and purposeful order of the universe and all life within it is unmistakeable evidence of His intelligence and power. For you to equate God with inicorns and fairy tales goes beyond simple ignorance--it is willful blindness. You don't see because you don't want to see. No, it is wishful thinking on your part.
aletheuo777 2 years ago
Why do creationists continually move the goalposts while demanding that we accept their bollocks without any evidence at all.
Tavereen 2 years ago