its funny he mentions those who believe in evolution have been indoctrinated. The only thing that science today shows us is that evolution is indeed a fact. Everything we discover points to evolution being true. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly not a scientist. And if students really couldn't give him good reasons for why macro evolution is true is just evidence of how bad our schools in america have become.
@golffore79 when your school takes something that hasn't been proved as fact and teaches it as a fact is indoctrination. unfortunately, schools today offer no other alternative to believing evolution.
intelligent design makes so much more sense than evolution. if you really think about the odds that go into a theory of evolution, they're so astronomically small (and by astronomically I mean 10 to the 500 millionth power to one) intelligent design is much more believable. there's no debating that
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University.
@Galmozzi99 I looked this up and ended up on a quote mining page.Seems like creationists tend to misquote Gould often,40% of the quote mining,was about punctuated equilibrium. Gal could you point me to the original article you got this from?
@pandorachild You can find Gould discussing it in more detail in Gould’s book "The Richness of Life", pages 263 and 264. His solution to the problem was to deduce his theory of punctuated equilibrium, a reasonable idea, and an honest attempt to recognize & explain the absence of the needed millions of gradual transitions. His theory has not received much support due to lack of direct evidence and an unwillingness to address or even acknowledge the issue. Instead the problem just sits there.
Oh, you know… they discover the usual things Darwinists have been hiding for the past 150 years, like lies in textbooks, fudging evidence to fit their Darwinian beliefs, ignoring irreducible complexity that suggests intelligent design. There is much to keep the Discovery Institute busy for years. I suggest you go to their web site and discover more.
@Hornadayfan "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
'Intelligent Design' is just 'Creation Science' repackaged after repeated and resounding defeats in court cases. Look up the 'wedge' documents. Having utterly failed in open debate, the fundamentalists behind ID have admittedly taken to subversive tactics to push their agendas. If there was a God, would he approve of such behavior? Sounds more like Machiavelli.
Odinata is a sick pervert who since years has colonized the Why do People Laugh at Creationists thread, where he labours in a group of HIGHLY corrosive and rather intellectually substandard scientific atheists for the purpose of bashing anybody critical of the Evolutionist narrative, whatever the latest version is.
This male individual presents himself as a woman, cannot formulate an argument and actually STALKS me over the web is not worth talking to.
This was a perfect example of the rhetoric evo's were spewing which they've had to change because the rhetoric is eventually exposed for the shit it is.
@odinata And you do? Why? Because why else would trained biologist be teaching it as if it were true, provable, undeniably the best explanation? Besides, even if you could know God created you and creation science was more reasonable, you couldn't stomach the thought of that being true, huh? That's called condemnation before investigation and it leads to eternal damnation. Eternal meaning there is no more pats on the back and atta boy's! Your time will simply be exhausted, forever.
@odinata "The facts are in. Genetics proves that organisms evolve."
That depends on the definition of evolve, you use. If you mean organisms change over time within a strict realm of possible changes, then I agree. If you believe organisms can change from one creature to another over time, that's speculative.
If there is a god, it used evolution to produce the organisms we see."
I can't argue that. The question is "can nature create life from a purely unguided mechanism?" That's not possible.
You haven't described that "strict realm of possible changes", defined an "strict realm", proposed any mechanisms for such a "strict real", demonstrated that it is limited to any "strict realm", and none of the actual science indicates that their are any such limitations so far unnamed by you.
What's further is that we have the evidence--physical, genetic, behavioral, paleontological, and otherwise, that indeed, EVOLUTION HAPPENS in a way that your opinions prohibit acceptance of.
@odinata If we were to remove ourselves and every living organism, what would be left is oblivion. nothing, thinking, nothing seeing, nothing having any knowledge or purpose. That can not, logically be the springboard for creation. Way too much literal work is involved for even one simple cell, let alone thousands.
It is arguably sound just to say genetics are engineered, different body parts are designed to do different things and man does account for such organization as intelligent design.
You seem to think that your ignorance, or even mankind's ignorance about how something works, or how it happens, is indicative that your personal religious opinions are a cause.
There is no evidence for such an assertion, and your logic is fallacious.
Life happens, and you have failed to give any answers.
@odinata How do u get that from what I said? We do know perfectly well that engineering is a produt of intelligence.
What Darwin proposed in the first place was an alternate explanation for that fact. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious but I guess I have to for atheist. What is it with you guy's? What is so scary about facing the fact that life is better explained as a product of God? You are creationists, just like we are. There is no other explanation for the fact that we're here, it...
@odinata ....It's a matter of who or what created us. If you think science has proven that billions of years ago a cell formed itself from lightening bolts and mud puddles or asteroids and mountain sides, be my guest! But don't think for one minute that science has advanced to the point of sending someone back to check. The science community is very careless about presenting Evolution theory in the proper context that it belongs. It's as far from fact as a million years can put it! It is Theory.
@odinata And, It's a theory that embellishes its boundaries by leaps and bounds. All we really know, according to the observed, factual data is that Kinds of animals adapt, speciate, mutate, build immunities. They change color, gender, height, weight, grow and shed hair or fur! There is not one single recorded instance where they change from one kind of animal to a different kind of animal, except in theory.
So spare me the song and dance. God, theoretically, qualifies as an alternate answer.
@lederereddy The list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow. Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis. Nothing changes to a different kind of animal. Humans are still apes
@gregrutz "Nothing changes to a different kind of animal. Humans are still apes"
Then that means apes are still fish. And fish are still single celled organisms. Nice argument. Maybe you should study science. I think it would help you.
Thank God for truth. Stephen Meyers continues presenting I D theory in awesome debates with big name evolutionists and stopping the flood of BS that's had such freedom due to the complacency of scientists who understandably didn't want to lose their job or take the heat for making waves against the propaganda machine of evo. That list is thousands now! :)
If we've not seen a change in Genus then it's just faith that it happens. Bacteria that were created to live in salt water doesn't prove that they evolved and it doesn't prove that abiogenesis can start in salt water, which was my main point.
@5tonyww ~Sorry...Marine Iguanas cannot interbreed with Green Iguanas. Green Iguanas are terrestrial, although climbing trees. Marine Iguanas live and feed on algae in the sea...they come ashore to warm up. Green Iguanas canot tolerate salt...Marine a Iguanas are the only Genus that can. You are yet unable to grasp the concept: that a change of species is evolution (microevolution, if you will). A change of Genus is macroevolution...deny all you wish, but that IS the definition.BTW bacteria...
@5tonyww Since you are so manifestly ignorant, you fail to understand that evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not genus, not family, and not order; you have no clue as to what evolution is. The cited animals are not only of different species, but different Genera. This, you pathetically-addled ignoramus, is evidence of evolution.Your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is becoming quite apparent--you are so inept you cannot tell you are inept.You never studied & won't research. Sad
@pontecanis "evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not genus, not family, and not order"
Excellent, so you finally admit that evolution doesn't account for how new creatures arise (genus, family and order), only how they change slightly within those pre-existing constraints. Thanks for proving my point.
You evolutionists can't get your story straight, LOL, Priceless.
@5tonyww YOUR WORDS:"If we've not seen a change in Genus then it's just faith that it happens" Then you were shown the Marine Iguana taxonomy---DIFFERENT species, DIFFERENT GENUS. Yet you deny, contrary to your own statement. Looks like you're a major-league hypocrite. Evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of GENUS, after all...what you fail to understand is that a change of species IS evolution; a change of genus is not required. Science for the win.
@pontecanis "Evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of GENUS"
I agree that Evolution proves that new a Genus doesn't come from nature and that Genus must have therefore been created by a creator God. You've just proven that God exists and that he created the Genuses, well done!
@5tonyww~ Unfortunately, given the known age of divergence of the Green Iguana and the Marine Iguana due to genome sequencing, it is quite clear that creation had no hand in it at all, but that this is demonstrably a case of macroevolution, contary to creatobibliolator lies.YOU have just proven conclusively that you are just too plain-ass lazy to do any research whatsoever and operate on the principal dogma today,dogma tomorrow, dogma forever, and any lies that support dogma are OK. As usual..
@pontecanis You are getting confused with yourself. You have admitted that evolution cannot account for the creation of a Genus or Family or Order. It's there in black and white for all to see. Don't go changing the subject and claiming to have 'won' when everyone can see that you've failed and explicitly admitted that evolution does not and cannot account for the origin of those Genuses etc. Creation is the only answer.
@5tonyww No, I have not admitted that evolution cannot account for the creation of a Genus or Family or Order. I explained to you that evolution occurs on a species-by-species bassis, not some kind of radical shift of Genus, Family,or Order, as is claimed by biblical idolators as necessary. the Marine Iguana disproves your statement, as it IS a different Genus. That you pay no attention and dishonestly try to play rhetorical games is an indication of your intellectual bancrupcy and dishonesty.
@5tonyww ~Unlike you, I am not omniscient, nor do I have the facility to travel through time. I can certainly direct you to explanations of divergence, but you won't accept any of them, so I won't bother . You are also far too lazy to perform the research yourself, which is easy to find, btw. I refuse to enable your feigned helplessness. Look it up for yourself.
@pontecanis It's not that you won't bother to direct me to the proof, it's that there isn't any, that's why you hide behind personal abuse and vague handwaving.
@5tonyww Thanks for proving my point...you just simply won't look anything up at all.Your lassitude is not evidence that the information doesn't exist, it is creationist rule #6, never look up any research for yourself, con the scientist into doing it, then say the evidence is invalid. NO SALE!!
@pontecanis I've looked, I can't find any. All I get is assertions that it 'must' have happened. It's obvious, if evolution only produces new species then where does a new Order or Family come from? Similar genes just show a common designer because similar creatures in different environment need changes to suit the environment, like a car being turned into a 4x4.
@5tonyww Boy, you really are an incompetent aren't you. I will post a small amount of information I found in less than 45 seconds. I spent considerably more time paring it down, editing for YooToob's idiot miniature format. You certainly didn't try very hard, or not at all...
The Mammal-like Reptiles, or Therapsids first appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. They were very successful until the Permian extinction, about 245 million years ago;nearly all of the species then living died out. New species evolved rapidly to fill this empty habitat, among them the first dinosaurs.
The earliest known mammals,the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe. They date from circa 220mya. These were likely montremes and still laid eggs Oh shit, transition between PHYLLA!!! Eight main lineages of mammals are known from the late Jurassic.
Crusafontia, looked like a tree shrew - its limbs show arboreal existence.Towards the end of the Jurassic 'multituberculates' appeared.Some of these species still alive only 30 million years ago (MYA ). Some of the later multituberculates possessed marsupial-like bone structures which indicate that they had pouches like marsupials, suggesting a similar life cycle involving live birth of very premature young. OH shit...a different order!!!!
By the middle of the Eocene (45 MYA) all the major groups of mammals alive today had come into existence, though not necessarily as we know them now. Primates for instance have been around since the beginning of the Paleocene, 65 MYA, but the distant bipedal ancestors of man only occurred for the first time 5 MYA. OH SHIT!!! Different Families!!! Source:
The Beginning of the Age of Mammals
Kenneth D. Rose Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University Press
@5tonyww Poor idiot---same genes same designer. Illiteracy scientificus personified! See the video by DonExodus2:' Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument.' His explanation is very cogent.
@pontecanis His video was pretty hard to follow so I still don't quite understand why a common designer wouldn't give similar creatures similar DNA. The DNA might be able to be constructed to show common descent but I see this as an artificial view of reality, just like how I could create similar paintings without one being descended from another. You might be able to 'see' some kind of inheritance based on similarity but this would be a false view.
@5tonyww As a painter, you learn from each experience. Thus each painting in sequence reflects an increase in your skill level and confidence. They may be entirely different subjects, but each reflects that increase in a unique way, perhaps technique ,perhaps material choce, perhaps more involved perspective, etc. Thus each painting is actually related to your first, the common ancestor. Using creationism, all were painted simultaneously, and none reflects any improvement or difference.
@pontecanis Hmm, I think I kind of see what you mean. I guess there's no real reason why an Elephant should have exactly the same genes as a Shrew or a Fish and from what you say it seems like there's quite a lot linking different creatures.
@5tonyww this is the way I see it too. The speculations made based on findings in evolution, which I try very hard to understand, always seem to strive for any conclusions that may support common decent. But they never seems to admit the many other connotations that their findings may give rise to. Evolutionary scientists appear to be incapable of being self-critical - which in my opinion stifles the progress of scientific discovery.
@5tonyww The clincher is that similar animals have similar non-functioning DNA, including ERVs, that either weren't in by a designer, or were put in by a designer who purposefully tried to make his work look like evolution.
@5tonyww As species change over time, the divergence from the ancestor and from isolated sister populations that new genera, families, etc. develop. But you knew that. Why do you play at this stupid game?
@odinata Science points to a creator God! How can you explain how the infinitely complex human body came about without resorting to an infinite God? The human body is just amazing, it's so detailed and complex that it had to be made by a Supreme God. It's just obvious!
@odinata I asked for evidence that evolution produces a new Genus etc, but was told that it doesn't and that it only accounts for new Species. Big wow.
Evolutionary biology has scant evidence, as even Darwin himself admitted.
My personal relationship with the Creator is based on emotion and truth, like every relationship is.
@5tonyww ~What is obvious is that your need for biblical literality blinds you to any other conceptual framework. since you worship the bible, your idol, you are an idolator.
@pontecanis "since you worship the bible, your idol, you are an idolator."
I don't worship the Bible, I worship the creator God who inspired it. It contains a lot of truth and is a light to the world, unlike evolution which can't even explain where a Genus comes from. The Bible clearly tells us where they come from. Duh!
@circusOFprecision ~Oh brilliant...I hate to inform you, and the loathsome idiot Meyer, but a cell can indeed be a virus...furthermore amino acids do not separate to become life, they join to a lattice "backbone' to form RNA and DNA...talk about a moron...you and Tony are only here to spout religious dogma, not examine anything factual...neither one of you has a scintilla of understanding of even basic chemistry or the functioning of an anoxic atmosphere. Your comments are drivel.
What are you on about? Take the genetic evidence, viruses are probably degraded cellular genomes. So what is your point? You want to say that a virus like HIV proves the validity of chemical evolution? Go right ahead, but you aren't saying anything serious, just stating your ill informed opinion.
The statement "common substance means common source" is a moot idea when you consider the eqation E=MC2 - which means ALL things are of a common substance. So you could in principle turn anyhting (of equal mass and energy) into anything else if the right physical interactions occured.
God is real. If you don't believe me ask Him. If you don't want to know Him you won't. If you seek to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. He,s not trying to send people to hell . He's done everything keep you out. The choice is yours. Ask Jesus to save you before it's to late!
Remember, the universe doesn't operate on your personal time scale. You are in tune with it, harmonizing with it for your survival. That being said, be careful what you wish for. Eye opening experiences can also be devastating to one's current situation.
No, you aren't God in this situation. The laws of nature have become your God subconsciously. Kind of like Darwinism has become your religion subconsciously.
Darwinism is a metaphysical presupposition that has everything to do with evolution, namely the idea that life and it's diversity arose from chance and necessity, and that matter is the fundamental starting point of nature. Has it been replaced with something else? But your position doesn't bother me, I respect it, so fair enough. And I acknowledge that you have no religion.
@circusOFprecision ''that life and it's diversity arose from chance'' No, evolution is driven by natural selection. Mutations are chance. Mass extinctions are chance.
Darwinism was a strict following of Darwin, not too good since some of his ideas are 150 years out of date.
Actually, I said chance and necessity, which equals mutations and natural selection in the case of evolutionary theory, which originated from Darwinian philosophy. I'm two or three whole levels above you on this conversation, but your comments keep bringing me down to this lower common denominator. It seems you want to argue superficially...? Feel free, but I will keep pointing it out when you quote me out of context.
His comments are designed to bring down the conversation. He will just keep saying things like "sorry evolution is a fact"- as i you are against any evolution of any kind. His goal is to win by making it appear to people who are not paying close attention that your view is an absurd one - one that you do not hold. That is called a star man and is one of the most simple and dumb fallacies you can put forth.
@circusOFprecision Actually I find that people like that are not so much in love with evolution as they are haters or bigots of religion and usually primarily Christianity. They know ID is not about disproving evolution- and they know ID is not about proving God- and they know ID is not a theory that is only supported by the Bible. But they just hate that ID supports the faiths of people who do believe. So they do straw men to try and attack ID and confuse the issue.
You are probably right, it's more about anti-religious motivation. But it isn't our fault that everywhere we look we see signs of intelligence. It isn't our fault that natural explanations fail to account for this intelligence at the fundamental levels of life and physics. ID is not the same as the design argument, but everyone argues against it in that way. I have a feeling that this argument will slowly lose appeal as more and more people recognize it as a straw man.
@circusOFprecision Yes I think that the last 100 years or so of Darwinian indoctrination and all of the Darwinians it produced have been the major hurdle for ID. But now that they have thrown all their stones ID is having its time to counteract all those fallacies. People are now learning all the talking points and primary issues and there is a more balanced and fair environment emerging. But it is not fair yet as there is still a lot of freedom to be fought for so ID can be taught alongside DE.
@gregrutz on the other hand biological philosphical naturalism is also a religion and a world view.....not science .
The idea that everything we experience has been brought about by random chaotic processes is a world view.....hardly science. The simple observation that nature exhibits order and information in its essence is merely a scientific observation and is valid. Everything coming out of nothing is a weak proposal.
@circusOFprecision There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
I never said evolution was wrong, at least the actual science of it. But there have been some tests that demonstrate the limits of natural selection. There have also been simulations that demonstrate the implausibility of chemical evolution. There is an information problem in biology, where did the information for the first genes come from? Chance and necessity? That's just hand waving. I'm just saying it seems more plausible that some sort of memory or intelligence was at play.
Think about the brain. We can look inside of it, but we don't see the subconscious mind (or our immediate awareness). All we see are correlations between mental activity and the brain in the physical stuff. Perhaps too, there is a "subconscious" aspect to the genetic expression system. For instance, we already know, at least tentatively, that embryos grow by following the pattern of a predetermined electromagnetic field.
@circusOFprecision ''a predetermined electromagnetic field.'' Correct, a natural process. Objects fall in a gravity field. A natural process. Plants and animals evolve, a natural process. Get it now?
They don't even listen to what you are saying because they can't win an actual scientific argument. These clowns need to read Signature of Controversy (and many other books) and get a life. But they won't, they are here only to preach their religion.
@circusOFprecision Very true..tell these morons ..now there talking about viruses..viruses are not alive!!!!..they need a host to function!!..just like amino acids floating around in there imaginary primordial earth that was such a perfect place for life to emerge..LOL..amino acids somehow stayed in the right place and separated ..to assemble into life..LOL..what Morons!
@circusOFprecision Chance and necessity? I don't understand the nuclear reactions in the center of the Sun. It is complex. So I worship Ra the Sun God.
@gregrutz is a complete moron ..how you been man.. RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If they really want t o simulate the correct experiment they need to conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids, they have ZERO testable repeatable observable for abiogenesis
Yeah, you just have to call it quits, or at least take a break at some point (which is what I did). Certain individuals don't want to actually tackle the real arguments and the real problems. They just operate on assumptions and close their minds off to the evidence that takes a fat dump on their assumptions. I read about chirality recently, the latest and greatest is a meteor that passes through a special magnetic anomaly near the sun blah blah, in other words they don't know.
@5tonyvvvv Oh crap...you show up here with the same old bogus chirality nonsense? What a one-trick pony!! And we have circus of imprecision demonstrating his usual incapacity for understanding. And of course Meyer, the incompetents incompetent, the guy who 'forgot' that there are cells other than modern Eukariotes, such as prokariotes (that have no nucleus, thus negating Meyer altogether), or cells that have no DNA at all, and no irganelles or molecular machines....bloody amateur nite!!
@pontecanis There are many stages to abiogenesis..LOL..let me know when scientists get past stage 1
I like how atheist ignore the major problem of chirality!!!
ZERO building blocks were made..
Go brainwash and indoctrinate MORONS like you!!!!!
All science is proving is under the right conditions in controlled labs under the right temperatures, scientists can copy and borrow pre existing information..
@5tonyvvvv Oh dear...just last night on NOVA; Science Now, Jack Shostak was shown synthesizing amino acids...no copying information, no borrrowing anything--->from scratch!! Too bad, so sad...btw, chirality has been shown to be irrelevent Tony...
@5tonyvvvv ~I suggest you watch the program...it was made quite clear that this was NOT a case of using some pre-existing template...the fact that it is well known that there are 4 amino acids in RNA, and only 4 in DNA (ACGU and ACGT respectively) is hardly anything new, and is hardly a template...at one point, the interviewer actually asks Shostak what made life on Earth. His answer: "CHEMISTRY". And, he is entirely correct. No magical sky daddy required...
@pontecanis These experiments are not geochemical relevant reactions..this would never happen on a primordial earth..it has NOTHING to do with origin of life research...these is scientists are copying bases and taking out what they want,..Chirality is still of Huge problem and everything is carefully protected ..You think these amino acids floating around in a test tube will assemble into life..LOL..what a joke
@5tonyvvvv Yeah, damn those atheist scientists and their controlled experiments! We want to see uncontrolled experiments with just a totally random set of chemicals and conditions because everything is always random everywhere and temperatures NEVER HAPPEN.
@5tonyww Yes these experiments are controlled and very unrealistic on a primordial earth, also these chemicals and compounds are copied in the first place..and prepared before hand..and impurities are always removed..what these moron atheist scientists never realize ..is that it takes intelligence to COPY life!!..why do u have a name similar to mine?
@5tonyvvvv Yeah, controlled experiments ARE NOT VALID SCIENCE, when will they learn? And they COPY the chemicals BEFORE they put them into the TEST TUBE. There wouldn't be a test tube in the primordial earth, all the hot lava would melt them anyway. Morons!!!
@5tonyww~~" All that salt would destroy any early life" : scientific reference please. Of course, you won't be able to provide any, as your hack-headed and incomprehensible misreading of chemistry is so out to lunch it is pathetic. Blithering minus-mind Meyer describes cellular development STARTING with modern Eukariotic cells. News for you, circusof imprecision, and doofus Meyer: prokariotes predate Eukariotes, and they have NO NUCLEUS...and yes, viruses ARE cells, as thimblebrain Meyer....
conveniently forgot, or more likely, never knew...if intelligent design creationism were true, ther e could be NO evolution of viruses...yet clearly they do evolve, as do bacteria, otherwise they could not develop resistance to or immunity from anibiotics and antivirals. Since ALL matter on Earth is either elements or compounds of elements(see Periodic Table), what the hell else is there to make life from? Some mystery substance yet undiscovered and undetectable? Not bloody likely...
All life comes from non-life, as there isn't anything else to make it from...in fact, non-life is necessary for life and without it, life would not exist. Religious dogma is not a substitute for information, it is merely an impediment to learning. Dump the dogma and get wise...
@pontecanis Everyone knows that salt water (saline) is used in medicine because of its antibacterial properties. Sure, bacteria and viruses evolve but into what? Other viruses and bacteria, they never turn into any other kind of life and it's never been shown to happen anywhere. I know that life is made of elements but it takes life to arrange those elements, everyone knows that, it just can't happen by happenstance chance.
@5tonyww ~Who said it happened by chance? Maybe Kent Hovind...it wasn't a scientist...btw...Darwin called it "Origin of the Species", not Origin of the Genus...of course Genus change has been seen (Marine Iguana), but evolution does not refer specifically to a change of Genus, but to a change of species...all the viruses and bacrteria turning into other species of bacteria or viruses IS WHAT EVOLUTION IS, silly twit. You may wish to investigate the origin of Mitochondria in Eukariotic cells...
@pontecanis So can you give me an example of a bacteria or virus evolving into something which isn't a bacteria or virus? What about the salt water issue too?
@5tonyww ~You need to pay better attention! Organisms seldom change Genus...it is quite rare in the short-term. Becoming different species, which is what evolution is about, is not uncommon at all...as an example, the frequent changes in influenza virus requiring annual flu shots...this is evolution at work. As for salt water, if an organism arises in salt water, it will be salt-water tolerant. There are extremophiles that live happily in the Dead Sea and in the salt marshes on its borders.
ok lets see your primitive cell without all these components..cells can live without DNA oligonucleotides, proteins,.molecular machines?.wow, you have? some imagination.I would love to see one.let me guess the conditions will never be right for one to form.....why cant science make a simple cell from scratch?,not by copying bases and using templates..
Simply declaring yourself an atheist is an intentional act that many religious people deem extremely antagonistic. So when I read about gatherings of you atheists, it’s like reading about a hypothetical group that gets together to celebrate the fact that human beings have noses. Yay us!
@Ricardius1710 The so-called "problem of evil" is not a problem once you've defined the good. If God is the only standard of good, then God is willing and able.
But you have to begin with God before getting into definitions of good and evil. As an atheist you have no moral standard to argue from, other than ones you must borrow from some form of theism. Doug Powell compares it to driving a stolen car.
@Paulomycin I don't borrow morals from theism, especially Christianity. I wouldn't dare stone to death my children for disobedience. Bart Ehrmans book, "Gods Problem" is pretty good as far as theodicy goes. Michael Shermers, "The science of Good and Evil" , and Sam Harris', The Moral Landscape are interesting as far as morals go. Oh, I don't begin with god, you do. I just said how do you account for Gods existence and nature, since your argument is "logical absolutes" derive from god?
@Ricardius1710 Then why is stoning children to death "bad?"
BTW, you are name-dropping authors as your own substitute argument. If you own the book, then you can reference it. If it was an inspirational read, then you can cite the argument right here.
Or, you're just being a pseudo intellectual poseur.
its funny he mentions those who believe in evolution have been indoctrinated. The only thing that science today shows us is that evolution is indeed a fact. Everything we discover points to evolution being true. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly not a scientist. And if students really couldn't give him good reasons for why macro evolution is true is just evidence of how bad our schools in america have become.
golffore79 1 month ago
@golffore79 when your school takes something that hasn't been proved as fact and teaches it as a fact is indoctrination. unfortunately, schools today offer no other alternative to believing evolution.
intelligent design makes so much more sense than evolution. if you really think about the odds that go into a theory of evolution, they're so astronomically small (and by astronomically I mean 10 to the 500 millionth power to one) intelligent design is much more believable. there's no debating that
FATRgames 1 week ago
Thankyou Stephen, you are doing a wonderful job, its a slow process but things are beginning to change.
020960108 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University.
Galmozzi99 3 months ago
snake oil salesman.
pandorachild 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99 I looked this up and ended up on a quote mining page.Seems like creationists tend to misquote Gould often,40% of the quote mining,was about punctuated equilibrium. Gal could you point me to the original article you got this from?
pandorachild 3 months ago
@pandorachild You can find Gould discussing it in more detail in Gould’s book "The Richness of Life", pages 263 and 264. His solution to the problem was to deduce his theory of punctuated equilibrium, a reasonable idea, and an honest attempt to recognize & explain the absence of the needed millions of gradual transitions. His theory has not received much support due to lack of direct evidence and an unwillingness to address or even acknowledge the issue. Instead the problem just sits there.
Galmozzi99 3 months ago
@Galmozzi99 you're speaking nonsense.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
Comment removed
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
Interesting video series, thks
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
1. Allele frequencies are continuously observed to change over time.
2. Interrelated of life (ERVs a striking example).
3 .fossil record showing increase in complexity over time.
4. frequent observation of speciation in isolated populations.
5. taxonomy, genetics, paleontology, etc. all give the same tree of life.
that wasn't so hard.
HConstantine 4 months ago
What are the top ten "discoveries" of the Discovery Institute?
DickJohnson3434 5 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 1. Make fat living fleecing religious nut jobs
2. Don't testify under oath.
rest ares till coming.
HConstantine 4 months ago
@DickJohnson3434
Oh, you know… they discover the usual things Darwinists have been hiding for the past 150 years, like lies in textbooks, fudging evidence to fit their Darwinian beliefs, ignoring irreducible complexity that suggests intelligent design. There is much to keep the Discovery Institute busy for years. I suggest you go to their web site and discover more.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56
If those are the kinds of things they are trying to discover, they should be called a watchdog group and not a think tank.
DickJohnson3434 4 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 I agree.
Entropy56 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Entropy56
You shills for the Wedge Strategy are the ones trying to silence the truth.
odinata 3 months ago
The Discovery Institute is full of shit, as is Stephen Meyer.
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan
Instead of ad hominem attacks, explain why you disagree with him. Meyer is a kind man and an intelligent one. I know him personally
ThinkingChristian29 8 months ago
@ThinkingChristian29
No, its true. Full of shit.
odinata 8 months ago
@odinata
Your argument is powerful and convincing
ThinkingChristian29 8 months ago
@ThinkingChristian29
The stench of the politically corrupt "Discovery" Institute is powerful.
And convincing.
odinata 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan The Moronic atheist needs to learn homocharility and racemic mixtures!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan LOL... all you can do is ridicule someone when they prove life was designed? Pathetic.....
Thistlesifter220 7 months ago
@Thistlesifter220 Who has done that? No one has ever heard anything about it.
HConstantine 4 months ago
@HConstantine Willful ignorance doesn't do away with the facts :-)
Thistlesifter220 4 months ago
@Thistlesifter220 My point exactly.
HConstantine 4 months ago
@Hornadayfan Hes way smarter than you, you stinking monkey.
Superapeaholic 7 months ago
Please, you people with Christian college degrees, stay away from science. Cause you never learned it, and never will.
JabberCT 8 months ago
Meyer is scary in the shadows....
amog45780 9 months ago
Why didn't Meyer show up in court and defend his ''Theory''?
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@tjobv Wrong, a transitional fossils is just what it says it is. It is what people demand to prove evolution is not just 'line'n up the fossils'. They clearly show one animal changing into another species.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers > Dino teeth with bird feathers. It is what proved evolution to normal people, you can stay in the Dark Ages. Just close you eyes and say LA LA LA until the facts go away.
gregrutz 9 months ago
God is real. Thank you Dr. Stephen Meyer.
piusvapor 10 months ago
'Intelligent Design' is just 'Creation Science' repackaged after repeated and resounding defeats in court cases. Look up the 'wedge' documents. Having utterly failed in open debate, the fundamentalists behind ID have admittedly taken to subversive tactics to push their agendas. If there was a God, would he approve of such behavior? Sounds more like Machiavelli.
stargate153 10 months ago
To all:
Odinata is a sick pervert who since years has colonized the Why do People Laugh at Creationists thread, where he labours in a group of HIGHLY corrosive and rather intellectually substandard scientific atheists for the purpose of bashing anybody critical of the Evolutionist narrative, whatever the latest version is.
This male individual presents himself as a woman, cannot formulate an argument and actually STALKS me over the web is not worth talking to.
Just a friendly message...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
I hardly think that being called a woman by misogynistic, pissed off Creationist trolls hardly counts as presenting myself as a woman.
Another Creationist loses yet another round.
Sorry!
odinata 10 months ago
This was a perfect example of the rhetoric evo's were spewing which they've had to change because the rhetoric is eventually exposed for the shit it is.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy
You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
odinata 10 months ago
@odinata And you do? Why? Because why else would trained biologist be teaching it as if it were true, provable, undeniably the best explanation? Besides, even if you could know God created you and creation science was more reasonable, you couldn't stomach the thought of that being true, huh? That's called condemnation before investigation and it leads to eternal damnation. Eternal meaning there is no more pats on the back and atta boy's! Your time will simply be exhausted, forever.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy
The facts are in. Genetics proves that organisms evolve.
If there is a god, it used evolution to produce the organisms we see.
That's demonstrable.
odinata 10 months ago
@odinata "The facts are in. Genetics proves that organisms evolve."
That depends on the definition of evolve, you use. If you mean organisms change over time within a strict realm of possible changes, then I agree. If you believe organisms can change from one creature to another over time, that's speculative.
If there is a god, it used evolution to produce the organisms we see."
I can't argue that. The question is "can nature create life from a purely unguided mechanism?" That's not possible.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy
You haven't described that "strict realm of possible changes", defined an "strict realm", proposed any mechanisms for such a "strict real", demonstrated that it is limited to any "strict realm", and none of the actual science indicates that their are any such limitations so far unnamed by you.
What's further is that we have the evidence--physical, genetic, behavioral, paleontological, and otherwise, that indeed, EVOLUTION HAPPENS in a way that your opinions prohibit acceptance of.
odinata 10 months ago
@odinata If we were to remove ourselves and every living organism, what would be left is oblivion. nothing, thinking, nothing seeing, nothing having any knowledge or purpose. That can not, logically be the springboard for creation. Way too much literal work is involved for even one simple cell, let alone thousands.
It is arguably sound just to say genetics are engineered, different body parts are designed to do different things and man does account for such organization as intelligent design.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy
You seem to think that your ignorance, or even mankind's ignorance about how something works, or how it happens, is indicative that your personal religious opinions are a cause.
There is no evidence for such an assertion, and your logic is fallacious.
Life happens, and you have failed to give any answers.
odinata 10 months ago
@odinata How do u get that from what I said? We do know perfectly well that engineering is a produt of intelligence.
What Darwin proposed in the first place was an alternate explanation for that fact. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious but I guess I have to for atheist. What is it with you guy's? What is so scary about facing the fact that life is better explained as a product of God? You are creationists, just like we are. There is no other explanation for the fact that we're here, it...
lederereddy 10 months ago
@odinata ....It's a matter of who or what created us. If you think science has proven that billions of years ago a cell formed itself from lightening bolts and mud puddles or asteroids and mountain sides, be my guest! But don't think for one minute that science has advanced to the point of sending someone back to check. The science community is very careless about presenting Evolution theory in the proper context that it belongs. It's as far from fact as a million years can put it! It is Theory.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@odinata And, It's a theory that embellishes its boundaries by leaps and bounds. All we really know, according to the observed, factual data is that Kinds of animals adapt, speciate, mutate, build immunities. They change color, gender, height, weight, grow and shed hair or fur! There is not one single recorded instance where they change from one kind of animal to a different kind of animal, except in theory.
So spare me the song and dance. God, theoretically, qualifies as an alternate answer.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy
You haven't ever taken any Biology courses, have you?
Its very evident.
You don't even have the terminology right...
We won't expect any answers from you.
Just baseless assertions.
odinata 10 months ago
@lederereddy The list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow. Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis. Nothing changes to a different kind of animal. Humans are still apes
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz "Nothing changes to a different kind of animal. Humans are still apes"
Then that means apes are still fish. And fish are still single celled organisms. Nice argument. Maybe you should study science. I think it would help you.
sicmetal 9 months ago
@sicmetal Yes, fish and apes are both vertebrates [cordates]. Nice try. Maybe YOU should study science.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Thank God for truth. Stephen Meyers continues presenting I D theory in awesome debates with big name evolutionists and stopping the flood of BS that's had such freedom due to the complacency of scientists who understandably didn't want to lose their job or take the heat for making waves against the propaganda machine of evo. That list is thousands now! :)
lederereddy 10 months ago
Religion isn't science. Meyers cute anecdotes aren't evidence. They are simply his personal opinions
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata he has more evidence than you have
johnnickson9 11 months ago
@johnnickson9
No he doesn't.
odinata 10 months ago
If we've not seen a change in Genus then it's just faith that it happens. Bacteria that were created to live in salt water doesn't prove that they evolved and it doesn't prove that abiogenesis can start in salt water, which was my main point.
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww ---Green Iguana~~
Genus: Iguana
Species: I. iguana
Marine Iguana~~
Genus:Amblyrhynchus
Species:A. cristatus
Pink Iguana~~
Genus: Amblyrhynchus
Species: A. rosata
OH SHIT!!! Different Genus, different species...same Genus, different species...same family--evolution confirmed!
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis They are just variations within the Iguana 'kind'. This doesn't show that bacteria evolve into ameoba.
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww ~Sorry...Marine Iguanas cannot interbreed with Green Iguanas. Green Iguanas are terrestrial, although climbing trees. Marine Iguanas live and feed on algae in the sea...they come ashore to warm up. Green Iguanas canot tolerate salt...Marine a Iguanas are the only Genus that can. You are yet unable to grasp the concept: that a change of species is evolution (microevolution, if you will). A change of Genus is macroevolution...deny all you wish, but that IS the definition.BTW bacteria...
pontecanis 11 months ago
haven't evolved into amoebae...the protists, of which the amoeba is the simplest, evolved from algae, which are not bacteria.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis Just because we have different types of Iguana doesn't mean they evolve, that's how they were created.
5tonyww 10 months ago
@5tonyww ~Silly bugger.
pontecanis 10 months ago
@pontecanis
What an excellent non-answer. You may as well just admit that I won and be done with it.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww Since you are so manifestly ignorant, you fail to understand that evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not genus, not family, and not order; you have no clue as to what evolution is. The cited animals are not only of different species, but different Genera. This, you pathetically-addled ignoramus, is evidence of evolution.Your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is becoming quite apparent--you are so inept you cannot tell you are inept.You never studied & won't research. Sad
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis "evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not genus, not family, and not order"
Excellent, so you finally admit that evolution doesn't account for how new creatures arise (genus, family and order), only how they change slightly within those pre-existing constraints. Thanks for proving my point.
You evolutionists can't get your story straight, LOL, Priceless.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww YOUR WORDS:"If we've not seen a change in Genus then it's just faith that it happens" Then you were shown the Marine Iguana taxonomy---DIFFERENT species, DIFFERENT GENUS. Yet you deny, contrary to your own statement. Looks like you're a major-league hypocrite. Evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of GENUS, after all...what you fail to understand is that a change of species IS evolution; a change of genus is not required. Science for the win.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis "Evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of GENUS"
I agree that Evolution proves that new a Genus doesn't come from nature and that Genus must have therefore been created by a creator God. You've just proven that God exists and that he created the Genuses, well done!
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww~ Unfortunately, given the known age of divergence of the Green Iguana and the Marine Iguana due to genome sequencing, it is quite clear that creation had no hand in it at all, but that this is demonstrably a case of macroevolution, contary to creatobibliolator lies.YOU have just proven conclusively that you are just too plain-ass lazy to do any research whatsoever and operate on the principal dogma today,dogma tomorrow, dogma forever, and any lies that support dogma are OK. As usual..
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis You are getting confused with yourself. You have admitted that evolution cannot account for the creation of a Genus or Family or Order. It's there in black and white for all to see. Don't go changing the subject and claiming to have 'won' when everyone can see that you've failed and explicitly admitted that evolution does not and cannot account for the origin of those Genuses etc. Creation is the only answer.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww No, I have not admitted that evolution cannot account for the creation of a Genus or Family or Order. I explained to you that evolution occurs on a species-by-species bassis, not some kind of radical shift of Genus, Family,or Order, as is claimed by biblical idolators as necessary. the Marine Iguana disproves your statement, as it IS a different Genus. That you pay no attention and dishonestly try to play rhetorical games is an indication of your intellectual bancrupcy and dishonesty.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
This is what you wrote: "Evolution is the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of GENUS"
If this is not true, then why say it?
Also, why can't you show me a new Family, Order or Class coming into existence?
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww ~Unlike you, I am not omniscient, nor do I have the facility to travel through time. I can certainly direct you to explanations of divergence, but you won't accept any of them, so I won't bother . You are also far too lazy to perform the research yourself, which is easy to find, btw. I refuse to enable your feigned helplessness. Look it up for yourself.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis It's not that you won't bother to direct me to the proof, it's that there isn't any, that's why you hide behind personal abuse and vague handwaving.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww Thanks for proving my point...you just simply won't look anything up at all.Your lassitude is not evidence that the information doesn't exist, it is creationist rule #6, never look up any research for yourself, con the scientist into doing it, then say the evidence is invalid. NO SALE!!
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis I've looked, I can't find any. All I get is assertions that it 'must' have happened. It's obvious, if evolution only produces new species then where does a new Order or Family come from? Similar genes just show a common designer because similar creatures in different environment need changes to suit the environment, like a car being turned into a 4x4.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww Boy, you really are an incompetent aren't you. I will post a small amount of information I found in less than 45 seconds. I spent considerably more time paring it down, editing for YooToob's idiot miniature format. You certainly didn't try very hard, or not at all...
pontecanis 8 months ago
The Mammal-like Reptiles, or Therapsids first appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. They were very successful until the Permian extinction, about 245 million years ago;nearly all of the species then living died out. New species evolved rapidly to fill this empty habitat, among them the first dinosaurs.
pontecanis 8 months ago
The earliest known mammals,the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe. They date from circa 220mya. These were likely montremes and still laid eggs Oh shit, transition between PHYLLA!!! Eight main lineages of mammals are known from the late Jurassic.
pontecanis 8 months ago
Crusafontia, looked like a tree shrew - its limbs show arboreal existence.Towards the end of the Jurassic 'multituberculates' appeared.Some of these species still alive only 30 million years ago (MYA ). Some of the later multituberculates possessed marsupial-like bone structures which indicate that they had pouches like marsupials, suggesting a similar life cycle involving live birth of very premature young. OH shit...a different order!!!!
pontecanis 8 months ago
By the middle of the Eocene (45 MYA) all the major groups of mammals alive today had come into existence, though not necessarily as we know them now. Primates for instance have been around since the beginning of the Paleocene, 65 MYA, but the distant bipedal ancestors of man only occurred for the first time 5 MYA. OH SHIT!!! Different Families!!! Source:
The Beginning of the Age of Mammals
Kenneth D. Rose Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University Press
pontecanis 8 months ago
Comment removed
pontecanis 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyww Poor idiot---same genes same designer. Illiteracy scientificus personified! See the video by DonExodus2:' Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument.' His explanation is very cogent.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis Ok, will take a look and see what it says.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@pontecanis His video was pretty hard to follow so I still don't quite understand why a common designer wouldn't give similar creatures similar DNA. The DNA might be able to be constructed to show common descent but I see this as an artificial view of reality, just like how I could create similar paintings without one being descended from another. You might be able to 'see' some kind of inheritance based on similarity but this would be a false view.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww
Why are you going about this ass-backwards?
Trying to make the facts fit your opinions isn't going to change science, nor is it going to change the facts...
odinata 8 months ago
@odinata I'm trying to learn.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww
That's all that science is--trying to learn and know about the world.
odinata 8 months ago
@5tonyww As a painter, you learn from each experience. Thus each painting in sequence reflects an increase in your skill level and confidence. They may be entirely different subjects, but each reflects that increase in a unique way, perhaps technique ,perhaps material choce, perhaps more involved perspective, etc. Thus each painting is actually related to your first, the common ancestor. Using creationism, all were painted simultaneously, and none reflects any improvement or difference.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis Hmm, I think I kind of see what you mean. I guess there's no real reason why an Elephant should have exactly the same genes as a Shrew or a Fish and from what you say it seems like there's quite a lot linking different creatures.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww this is the way I see it too. The speculations made based on findings in evolution, which I try very hard to understand, always seem to strive for any conclusions that may support common decent. But they never seems to admit the many other connotations that their findings may give rise to. Evolutionary scientists appear to be incapable of being self-critical - which in my opinion stifles the progress of scientific discovery.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@5tonyww The clincher is that similar animals have similar non-functioning DNA, including ERVs, that either weren't in by a designer, or were put in by a designer who purposefully tried to make his work look like evolution.
HConstantine 4 months ago
@5tonyww As species change over time, the divergence from the ancestor and from isolated sister populations that new genera, families, etc. develop. But you knew that. Why do you play at this stupid game?
HConstantine 4 months ago
@5tonyww
Just because you make an assertion that contradicts science doesn't mean that science is going to stop being true.
odinata 10 months ago
@odinata Science points to a creator God! How can you explain how the infinitely complex human body came about without resorting to an infinite God? The human body is just amazing, it's so detailed and complex that it had to be made by a Supreme God. It's just obvious!
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww
You seem to be able to assert that just fine.
You can't seem to replace the science in the real world with your opinions.
Fail.
odinata 8 months ago
@odinata I asked for evidence but all I got was name-calling by silly atheist evolutionists who don't have any,
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww
You didn't ask for anything--you made an assertion.
The facts don't bear your assertion out.
You fail.
Biology is the science that has evidence.
Your religion is made up of your emotions.
odinata 8 months ago
@odinata I asked for evidence that evolution produces a new Genus etc, but was told that it doesn't and that it only accounts for new Species. Big wow.
Evolutionary biology has scant evidence, as even Darwin himself admitted.
My personal relationship with the Creator is based on emotion and truth, like every relationship is.
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww
You base everything on your gut feelings, tony.
Facts have nothing to with it.
You can't wrap that pea brain of yours around facts.
odinata 8 months ago
@5tonyww ~What is obvious is that your need for biblical literality blinds you to any other conceptual framework. since you worship the bible, your idol, you are an idolator.
pontecanis 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis "since you worship the bible, your idol, you are an idolator."
I don't worship the Bible, I worship the creator God who inspired it. It contains a lot of truth and is a light to the world, unlike evolution which can't even explain where a Genus comes from. The Bible clearly tells us where they come from. Duh!
5tonyww 8 months ago
@5tonyww Kind is not a taxonomic term. It doesn't mean anything in relations to genus and species, so your statement is utterly meaningless.
HConstantine 4 months ago
@5tonyww Kind is not a taxonomic term. It doesn't mean anything in relations to genus and species, so your statement is utterly meaningless.
HConstantine 4 months ago
I don't have to show you a primitive cell, I can show you a modern one...the HIV cell. Only 3 strands of RNA, NO DNA, no organelles...oops!
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
HIV isn't a cell. It's a virus....oops.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
@circusOFprecision ~Oh brilliant...I hate to inform you, and the loathsome idiot Meyer, but a cell can indeed be a virus...furthermore amino acids do not separate to become life, they join to a lattice "backbone' to form RNA and DNA...talk about a moron...you and Tony are only here to spout religious dogma, not examine anything factual...neither one of you has a scintilla of understanding of even basic chemistry or the functioning of an anoxic atmosphere. Your comments are drivel.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
What are you on about? Take the genetic evidence, viruses are probably degraded cellular genomes. So what is your point? You want to say that a virus like HIV proves the validity of chemical evolution? Go right ahead, but you aren't saying anything serious, just stating your ill informed opinion.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
The statement "common substance means common source" is a moot idea when you consider the eqation E=MC2 - which means ALL things are of a common substance. So you could in principle turn anyhting (of equal mass and energy) into anything else if the right physical interactions occured.
frost122585 1 year ago
God is real. If you don't believe me ask Him. If you don't want to know Him you won't. If you seek to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. He,s not trying to send people to hell . He's done everything keep you out. The choice is yours. Ask Jesus to save you before it's to late!
string1248 1 year ago
@string1248 Hello, God, are you there? Still waiting.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Remember, the universe doesn't operate on your personal time scale. You are in tune with it, harmonizing with it for your survival. That being said, be careful what you wish for. Eye opening experiences can also be devastating to one's current situation.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision The universe operates on the Laws of Nature, just like you.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
So what? There is nothing enlightening about your statement other than the fact that you apparently have subconsciously deified the laws of nature.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I must be a God then. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
No, you aren't God in this situation. The laws of nature have become your God subconsciously. Kind of like Darwinism has become your religion subconsciously.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Darwinism went out of style years ago, it has nothing to do with evolution. And I don't have a religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Darwinism is a metaphysical presupposition that has everything to do with evolution, namely the idea that life and it's diversity arose from chance and necessity, and that matter is the fundamental starting point of nature. Has it been replaced with something else? But your position doesn't bother me, I respect it, so fair enough. And I acknowledge that you have no religion.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision ''that life and it's diversity arose from chance'' No, evolution is driven by natural selection. Mutations are chance. Mass extinctions are chance.
Darwinism was a strict following of Darwin, not too good since some of his ideas are 150 years out of date.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Actually, I said chance and necessity, which equals mutations and natural selection in the case of evolutionary theory, which originated from Darwinian philosophy. I'm two or three whole levels above you on this conversation, but your comments keep bringing me down to this lower common denominator. It seems you want to argue superficially...? Feel free, but I will keep pointing it out when you quote me out of context.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
His comments are designed to bring down the conversation. He will just keep saying things like "sorry evolution is a fact"- as i you are against any evolution of any kind. His goal is to win by making it appear to people who are not paying close attention that your view is an absurd one - one that you do not hold. That is called a star man and is one of the most simple and dumb fallacies you can put forth.
frost122585 1 year ago
@frost122585
Yeah, I know. Evolution (or at least his interpretation of it) is dogma that must never be challenged. The irony is overwhelming.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Actually I find that people like that are not so much in love with evolution as they are haters or bigots of religion and usually primarily Christianity. They know ID is not about disproving evolution- and they know ID is not about proving God- and they know ID is not a theory that is only supported by the Bible. But they just hate that ID supports the faiths of people who do believe. So they do straw men to try and attack ID and confuse the issue.
frost122585 1 year ago
@frost122585
You are probably right, it's more about anti-religious motivation. But it isn't our fault that everywhere we look we see signs of intelligence. It isn't our fault that natural explanations fail to account for this intelligence at the fundamental levels of life and physics. ID is not the same as the design argument, but everyone argues against it in that way. I have a feeling that this argument will slowly lose appeal as more and more people recognize it as a straw man.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Yes I think that the last 100 years or so of Darwinian indoctrination and all of the Darwinians it produced have been the major hurdle for ID. But now that they have thrown all their stones ID is having its time to counteract all those fallacies. People are now learning all the talking points and primary issues and there is a more balanced and fair environment emerging. But it is not fair yet as there is still a lot of freedom to be fought for so ID can be taught alongside DE.
frost122585 1 year ago
@frost122585 ID is religion and will never be taught in science class. 150 years of fact will never fall to some BS argument that has no evidence.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz on the other hand biological philosphical naturalism is also a religion and a world view.....not science .
The idea that everything we experience has been brought about by random chaotic processes is a world view.....hardly science. The simple observation that nature exhibits order and information in its essence is merely a scientific observation and is valid. Everything coming out of nothing is a weak proposal.
ageofgrace 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ageofgrace Biology is science. You have a world view because you are brainwashed by religion. Science does not use religions or gods.
No one says ''brought about by random chaotic processes''.
'' The simple observation that nature exhibits order'' proves that.
''Everything coming out of nothing'' is religion, ''Poof''' everything appears at once.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Evolution is science. Science doen't care about religions. What signs of intelligence?
'' ID is not the same as the design... '' Design is not the same as design???
gregrutz 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I never said evolution was wrong, at least the actual science of it. But there have been some tests that demonstrate the limits of natural selection. There have also been simulations that demonstrate the implausibility of chemical evolution. There is an information problem in biology, where did the information for the first genes come from? Chance and necessity? That's just hand waving. I'm just saying it seems more plausible that some sort of memory or intelligence was at play.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision ''sort of memory or intelligence was at play'' Fine, name some.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Think about the brain. We can look inside of it, but we don't see the subconscious mind (or our immediate awareness). All we see are correlations between mental activity and the brain in the physical stuff. Perhaps too, there is a "subconscious" aspect to the genetic expression system. For instance, we already know, at least tentatively, that embryos grow by following the pattern of a predetermined electromagnetic field.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision ''a predetermined electromagnetic field.'' Correct, a natural process. Objects fall in a gravity field. A natural process. Plants and animals evolve, a natural process. Get it now?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision These atheists are getting real desperate on here..pontctais..and greutz MORONS!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
They don't even listen to what you are saying because they can't win an actual scientific argument. These clowns need to read Signature of Controversy (and many other books) and get a life. But they won't, they are here only to preach their religion.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
@circusOFprecision Very true..tell these morons ..now there talking about viruses..viruses are not alive!!!!..they need a host to function!!..just like amino acids floating around in there imaginary primordial earth that was such a perfect place for life to emerge..LOL..amino acids somehow stayed in the right place and separated ..to assemble into life..LOL..what Morons!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@circusOFprecision Chance and necessity? I don't understand the nuclear reactions in the center of the Sun. It is complex. So I worship Ra the Sun God.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz is a complete moron ..how you been man.. RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If they really want t o simulate the correct experiment they need to conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids, they have ZERO testable repeatable observable for abiogenesis
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
Yeah, you just have to call it quits, or at least take a break at some point (which is what I did). Certain individuals don't want to actually tackle the real arguments and the real problems. They just operate on assumptions and close their minds off to the evidence that takes a fat dump on their assumptions. I read about chirality recently, the latest and greatest is a meteor that passes through a special magnetic anomaly near the sun blah blah, in other words they don't know.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Oh crap...you show up here with the same old bogus chirality nonsense? What a one-trick pony!! And we have circus of imprecision demonstrating his usual incapacity for understanding. And of course Meyer, the incompetents incompetent, the guy who 'forgot' that there are cells other than modern Eukariotes, such as prokariotes (that have no nucleus, thus negating Meyer altogether), or cells that have no DNA at all, and no irganelles or molecular machines....bloody amateur nite!!
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis There are many stages to abiogenesis..LOL..let me know when scientists get past stage 1
I like how atheist ignore the major problem of chirality!!!
ZERO building blocks were made..
Go brainwash and indoctrinate MORONS like you!!!!!
All science is proving is under the right conditions in controlled labs under the right temperatures, scientists can copy and borrow pre existing information..
You have a PhD in MORON!!!..not biochemistry...
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Oh dear...just last night on NOVA; Science Now, Jack Shostak was shown synthesizing amino acids...no copying information, no borrrowing anything--->from scratch!! Too bad, so sad...btw, chirality has been shown to be irrelevent Tony...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis LOL..synthesizing ..is coping information..under controlled laboratory conditions, temperatures ,templates .What atheist scientists are proving really hard is that it takes INTELLIGENCE..to copy life..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv ~I suggest you watch the program...it was made quite clear that this was NOT a case of using some pre-existing template...the fact that it is well known that there are 4 amino acids in RNA, and only 4 in DNA (ACGU and ACGT respectively) is hardly anything new, and is hardly a template...at one point, the interviewer actually asks Shostak what made life on Earth. His answer: "CHEMISTRY". And, he is entirely correct. No magical sky daddy required...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis These experiments are not geochemical relevant reactions..this would never happen on a primordial earth..it has NOTHING to do with origin of life research...these is scientists are copying bases and taking out what they want,..Chirality is still of Huge problem and everything is carefully protected ..You think these amino acids floating around in a test tube will assemble into life..LOL..what a joke
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yeah, damn those atheist scientists and their controlled experiments! We want to see uncontrolled experiments with just a totally random set of chemicals and conditions because everything is always random everywhere and temperatures NEVER HAPPEN.
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww Yes these experiments are controlled and very unrealistic on a primordial earth, also these chemicals and compounds are copied in the first place..and prepared before hand..and impurities are always removed..what these moron atheist scientists never realize ..is that it takes intelligence to COPY life!!..why do u have a name similar to mine?
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yeah, controlled experiments ARE NOT VALID SCIENCE, when will they learn? And they COPY the chemicals BEFORE they put them into the TEST TUBE. There wouldn't be a test tube in the primordial earth, all the hot lava would melt them anyway. Morons!!!
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww are u tryin to be funny or something?..oceans filled with amino acids would never self assemble into anything
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I know! All that salt would destroy any early life!!!
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww~~" All that salt would destroy any early life" : scientific reference please. Of course, you won't be able to provide any, as your hack-headed and incomprehensible misreading of chemistry is so out to lunch it is pathetic. Blithering minus-mind Meyer describes cellular development STARTING with modern Eukariotic cells. News for you, circusof imprecision, and doofus Meyer: prokariotes predate Eukariotes, and they have NO NUCLEUS...and yes, viruses ARE cells, as thimblebrain Meyer....
pontecanis 11 months ago
conveniently forgot, or more likely, never knew...if intelligent design creationism were true, ther e could be NO evolution of viruses...yet clearly they do evolve, as do bacteria, otherwise they could not develop resistance to or immunity from anibiotics and antivirals. Since ALL matter on Earth is either elements or compounds of elements(see Periodic Table), what the hell else is there to make life from? Some mystery substance yet undiscovered and undetectable? Not bloody likely...
pontecanis 11 months ago
All life comes from non-life, as there isn't anything else to make it from...in fact, non-life is necessary for life and without it, life would not exist. Religious dogma is not a substitute for information, it is merely an impediment to learning. Dump the dogma and get wise...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis Everyone knows that salt water (saline) is used in medicine because of its antibacterial properties. Sure, bacteria and viruses evolve but into what? Other viruses and bacteria, they never turn into any other kind of life and it's never been shown to happen anywhere. I know that life is made of elements but it takes life to arrange those elements, everyone knows that, it just can't happen by happenstance chance.
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww ~Who said it happened by chance? Maybe Kent Hovind...it wasn't a scientist...btw...Darwin called it "Origin of the Species", not Origin of the Genus...of course Genus change has been seen (Marine Iguana), but evolution does not refer specifically to a change of Genus, but to a change of species...all the viruses and bacrteria turning into other species of bacteria or viruses IS WHAT EVOLUTION IS, silly twit. You may wish to investigate the origin of Mitochondria in Eukariotic cells...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis So can you give me an example of a bacteria or virus evolving into something which isn't a bacteria or virus? What about the salt water issue too?
5tonyww 11 months ago
@5tonyww ~You need to pay better attention! Organisms seldom change Genus...it is quite rare in the short-term. Becoming different species, which is what evolution is about, is not uncommon at all...as an example, the frequent changes in influenza virus requiring annual flu shots...this is evolution at work. As for salt water, if an organism arises in salt water, it will be salt-water tolerant. There are extremophiles that live happily in the Dead Sea and in the salt marshes on its borders.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis You are one stupid stubborn dumb MORON!!!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@pontecanis
ok lets see your primitive cell without all these components..cells can live without DNA oligonucleotides, proteins,.molecular machines?.wow, you have? some imagination.I would love to see one.let me guess the conditions will never be right for one to form.....why cant science make a simple cell from scratch?,not by copying bases and using templates..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@circusOFprecision Darwinian philosophy?!? Evolution is a process. Natural selection is a process. Where does philosophy come into play?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Simply declaring yourself an atheist is an intentional act that many religious people deem extremely antagonistic. So when I read about gatherings of you atheists, it’s like reading about a hypothetical group that gets together to celebrate the fact that human beings have noses. Yay us!
Seigu007 1 year ago
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 The so-called "problem of evil" is not a problem once you've defined the good. If God is the only standard of good, then God is willing and able.
But you have to begin with God before getting into definitions of good and evil. As an atheist you have no moral standard to argue from, other than ones you must borrow from some form of theism. Doug Powell compares it to driving a stolen car.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I don't borrow morals from theism, especially Christianity. I wouldn't dare stone to death my children for disobedience. Bart Ehrmans book, "Gods Problem" is pretty good as far as theodicy goes. Michael Shermers, "The science of Good and Evil" , and Sam Harris', The Moral Landscape are interesting as far as morals go. Oh, I don't begin with god, you do. I just said how do you account for Gods existence and nature, since your argument is "logical absolutes" derive from god?
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 Then why is stoning children to death "bad?"
BTW, you are name-dropping authors as your own substitute argument. If you own the book, then you can reference it. If it was an inspirational read, then you can cite the argument right here.
Or, you're just being a pseudo intellectual poseur.
Paulomycin 1 year ago