Added: 4 years ago
From: Thunderf00t
Views: 312,846
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (3,680)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The only way I'd be amazed at the number of people who've asked you if you have a real phd was if the number was under a few hundred thousand.

  • Lol I don't know why but buzzers are one of the most ammusing things on the planet when it comes to pointing out bullshit.

  • Honestly I really don't understand anything that Thunderf00t is saying, but it's still so entertaining to just sit back and admire his intelligence and the proportions of his ownage of creationists.

  • Actually, messenger RNA is produced by unwinding and splitting a DNA string, producing a complementary strand(the messenger RNA), then recombining the DNA strand and sending the mRNA to tell your body to do stuff, such as make new proteins.

  • Comment removed

  • i thought u gonna talk about matrix and reality

  • I love these snippets from movies!

    Vogon poetry isn't half as bad as Kent Hovinds explanations.

  • it is not 23 in the genome but the karyotype. that is the main error i see

  • the error buzzer is what makes this one.

    and as an undergraduate about to get his ba in biology, i wanted to cry when hovind "explained" the genome.

  • What kinda argument is that? Let's talk about whether I have a PhD or not? Fuck that, show us your doctorate or GTFO

  • 'Dr Dino' or Kent Hovind, isn't stupid, he is just a brainwashed fundamentalist preacher. Its true that he doesn't understand science, but that's not because he cant, its because he doesn't want to, nor does he need to understand science in order to do his job. He is in fact very talented at his "job" as a public speaker and debater. If anything, he is more evil then stupid.

  • @FrozenPetrolPie But the way he expresses himself regarding basic human biology would lead one to believe he's a complete moron.

  • @Ebvardh Well, to you and me maybe. He sounds like a complete moron to anybody who understands what he is talking about.

    You have to remember that his audience know even less then he does about basic human biology. To them he sounds smart and Hovind knows it.

  • "it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution,-- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."L. Cohen ,mathematician, researcher, member of the New York Academy of Sciences , Archaeological Institute of America.

  • @jiminiflix ....derp.

  • @jiminiflix Well, that quote is partially makes sense. Let me explain how it works - science casts out unfit theories as soon as better fitting ones presented. No theory is ever considered to be perfect, and no such theory will probably ever exist. So yes, it's a duty of science to always look for a better fitting theory. But I don't know any theory that can replace the theory of evolution. And I assure you - as soon as such theory will be presented the old one will be dismissed.

  • @fe328 The only truth is God made all life and all creation. The evidence is this, no theory can explain order or design out of accidents and inconsistant mutational changes. Its logical, there is evidence everywhere of design by God, lets be honest about it and stop making up imaginary, unscientific rubbish to try and explain it.

  • @jiminiflix ... have you actually read any of the modern scientific theories? I find them quite beautiful in explaining natural order of things. And let's just get it clear - which god are you talking about?

  • @fe328 Jesus Christ.

  • @jiminiflix I have to say ... wasn't he only a prophet?

    I won't argue much - I just want to know one thing. Do you find the christian bible to be more accurate in describing the world around you then the modern science?

  • @fe328 Jesus Christ, a prophet? No! How is that possible if you read what He says? Jesus Christ was VERY clear regarding who He was and the authority he posessed. Jesus came to fullfill the prophets. Islam and Mormonism denote Jesus as a prophet so do the Jews. When Jesus was born his name was called “Immanuel” literally means: “God with us.” Matthew 1:23. Isaiah prophesied his birth (God incarnate as man)Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born.. Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  • @fe328 Matthew 14:32-33: “And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God."John 10:30-33: “‘I and the Father are one."John 8:58-59: "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’

    The Bible is not a science book yet it is scientifically accurate. I am not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. Remember in the time it was written it needed to communicate.

  • @jiminiflix what has been proved is that what stands in the bible are created to fit either modern society or the old legends. Its in no way scientifically accurate. "Jesus was born the 24 of december" that is impossible to what stands in the bible. Shepherds were never out at night with their sheep in the winter, they would die from the cold. The Flora described in the bible did not grow in the winter, only fitted to the pagan myth of Saturnalia. the chat wont let me continue -_-

  • @GloinBane It doesn't say that Jesus was born on the 24th of December. Christmas an Easter are based on old pagan dates. They have merged such as the easter "EGG" which has NOTHING to do with Christ crucified. I agree with you noone is clear on what the actual date is, but it's estimated aroud 4-8 BC

  • @jiminiflix The same way you can say that science doesn't really contradicts "Dracula" by Bram Stocker.

    So, what IS a bible than in your understanding? If it isn't scientific than on what do you base a theory of god as a creator? If it doesn't explain the nature of the world, where do take that idea?

  • @fe328 The Bible is decribed as a few different things. Apart from it being a record of what God has said and done for His people, its a warning for the future of sinners and hope for the believer. The Bible is describes a 'bread' for the soul, a two edged sword, as seed for sowing. In John 1 we read that "in the beginning was the Word..and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" It directly referring to Jesus Himself as the living WORD.When I read the Bible -I read Jesus' Word-it bread to me.

  • @fe328 Jesus said " Man shall not live on bread alone (normal bread) but on every Word of God" Mathew 4:4 The Bible says EVERY WORD PROVES TRUE. Thats a bold statement, so every word has to prove true. Its not a science book as I said, but the record of how all thins were made lines up with what we know today. God wants something from us- our trust. He wants us to trust His Word and obey it, to live by it. The Bible is clearly more than a Book - it 66 Books,45 authors over 1300 years ago.

  • @jiminiflix So...

    ..with a kill count of over 2 million people throughout the bible's "history", sending snakes to kill Israelite whiners for wandering in a desert for a while then asking god for food, and absolutely no qualms about slavery...

    ... how the fuck does such an overreacting deity think he's going to get -trust-?

  • @KajexFiredrake Thats scripture wrongly interpreted. God's heart has never been for his creation to be in slavery. Slavery was a consiquence of dissobedience so God allowed slavery on people. Its not His will for man to have slavery unless man chooses rebellion and dissobedience over Gods Will. Do you really think God is a good fairy who only blesses everyone?Man soon learned to profit from slavery remember. All sin is inacted from the heart of man but Gods truthes stand forever.

  • @jiminiflix You do realise how nonsensical and indoctrinated that sounds on paper right?

  • @jiminiflix

    So essentially, you're saying "god" endorses slavery as "punishment"- that's alongside god endorsing genocide and killing people with legitimate complaints as punishment. Oh, and raping women who belong to the enemies of god.

    So let's recap- he cleans his messes with genocide, allows his followers to rape and enslave the wives of their enemies, allows them to commit slavery on the unbelievers, and even outright lies to them.

    What the fuck are you on?

  • @KajexFiredrake No you way off. If you have read the Bible Jesus spoke about the sower and the seed. He's talking about His Word being sown in peoples heart. Some accept the word, but the pleasure of theis world come first, others are choked by distractions of the world, some recieve it and bear much fruit. In the old testament, od spoke clearly to His people, even by great signs did God PROVE His existance, but people worshipped idols and broke His Laws. God allowed them to choose as today.

  • @jiminiflix

    Now you're saying that an omnipotent god capable of not fucking up creation... fucked up creation- made it so that sometimes people check their e-mail and get the message, while others don't, when he could have made it easier by forcing everyone to recognize the message. And I suppose your explanation is "free will", even though that same god never appeared to every other culture who didn't know about him, to spread the word.

    So.... he's also incompetent?

  • @KajexFiredrake Slavery is a result of dissobedience of a nation. Today even if your free in your country, without Jesus you can be in spiritual slavery to evil. Addictions to alcohol, tobacco, drugs - these happen due to spiritual issues within a person and because their spirit is dead. They try to fill their heart with anthin that can numb the pain inside. Thats slavery. But Jesus came that we miht have life and to the full. God want to deal with the root issue which is sin.

  • @jiminiflix

    Oddly enough, the U.S., one of the most religious countries on the planet, has a hell of a crime rate. D'you know what religion countries with low crime rates have?

    They don't. Yeah, atheist nations are known to have exceptionally low crime rates. That's because they don't buy into the bullshit that the bible insists is true.

  • @KajexFiredrake Thats because there less justice in those countries. America is not a christian nation anyway. Theres lots of christians and false christians and religious nuts that sprinkle a little god in their vocabulary. Which god? THey don't know even what the Bible says, but foolishly follow words of men. Don't compare America to true followers of Christ. American leaders are humanist, athiests, pushing naturalism and been funding evolution in universities because they hate Jesus Christ.

  • @jiminiflix

    You're pretty retarded, but I -will- give you that you're excellent at setting a tone and bullshit argument that makes you and "true" christians victims.

  • @KajexFiredrake Ok, just a word of advice don't be a sheep and follow the crowd, use the brain God gave you.

  • @jiminiflix

    Not a problem.

    After all, the "Lord" is YOUR shepherd, sheep- not mine.

  • @KajexFiredrake Thats right and your following what exactly?

  • @jiminiflix Reason, logic, knowledge- approaching life and ideas with an open mind without letting it be enslaved.

    Why? Got a problem with it? Unfortunately, you know full well you can't call science a cult anymore than you can call evolution a religion. The rest of the world isn't as deluded as you are.

  • @KajexFiredrake Can you reason? Do you honestly have an open mind? Do you have all knowledge? Science is wonderful but science institutions can be like cults as evolution is their belief system. Got a problem with that?

    Show to me how you KNOW evolution is real. Please no copy and pasting from wikipedia. I've heard all the lines. Please include something you have observed of evolution today in the real world.

  • @jiminiflix

    Sure. I choose to bring up the E. coli long-term evolution experiment by Richard Lenski, which took over 20 years to do.

    But that's probably not going to be enough for you. See, your response is to invoke "god" as a source of knowledge- despite the fact that "god" hadn't provided you any means of scientific advancement through prayer. That you attempt to call science institutions "cults" is a completely illogical assessment, one that indicates desperation.

  • @KajexFiredrake I do that because they lie that evolution is nota belief based on faith. They admit the fossil record is not enough, there are no transitional fossils in existance and in summary "similarity " is found in the dna which in their mind proves we are the result of evolutionary changes from an ancient unfound ancestor. I attack the lies. Have you observed evolution in your lifetime?

  • @jiminiflix

    What lies are you even referring to?

    As far as observed speciation, there are hundreds of clear-cut examples. If you want to talk macro-evolution, once again, I direct you towards the E. coli long-term evolution experiment- a drastic change in an organism which took a little over 20 years.

    As far as transitional forms, you are woefully ignorant of what the term means. It might be helpful for you to bear in mind that all organisms are transitional forms.

  • @KajexFiredrake I KNOW there has been chanes in e-coli. Listen thats variation not evolution, is it stil e-coli? What do you believe e-coli will be in a million years, somethin like a frog? Its impossible, the information doesn't increase. Information doesn't come from nothing. You believe in a utopian world. If all life in your belief is a transitional form then believe it, just explain to me how such MASSIVE jumps happened. Explain why such supposed old fossils exist, unchanged to todays?

  • @jiminiflix

    You provided clear proof that you actually have no grasp on the theory of evolution, if you describe it as a matter of "MASSIVE jumps"- you've plugged your ears anytime anyone points out that evolution is gradual. The fact that you can't accept any change at all as a component of what evolution entails is pretty indicative that if you had a full week with a professor explaining each detail to you, you would STILL not grasp it.

  • @KajexFiredrake The fossil record is primarily a record of the destruction and death caused by the Genesis Flood.Extensive fossil graveyards and coal deposits are more consistent with a global catastrophe than with slow and steady processes over millions of years.The fossil record shows fully-formed organisms appearing suddenly and disappearing—just what we would expect if life were created and then later judged by the Flood.

  • @jiminiflix

    ...

    Are you fucking retarded?

  • @KajexFiredrake No I don't think so. I don't think you understand how serious I am. The fossil record is not evidence for your evolution anyway but if it were you have no explanation for fossils anyhow other than a catastrophic flood. Sedementary layers all over the earth don't form over millions of years. Granite contains palanium halos that can only form in less than 3 minutes. Mass planations all over the earth, mass erosion of canyons and mountains. Transposition of marine life like whales.

  • @jiminiflix

    Nope.

    Not even.

    You are a motherfucking retard.

  • @KajexFiredrake Ditto!!! Why do these fucking retards comment on science, they're already predisposed to god did it any way. It's very clear that Kleenex got the best of him!

  • @gateman42

    If I had to elaborate on the -Polonium- Haloes (not palanium, as jiminiflix believes), it didn't even have clear-cut evidence to it's name before being debunked so thoroughly.

  • @KajexFiredrake Ok thanks for correcting my spelling. I am not very good at spelling or using google. I ask you please to show me the evidence that disproves polonium haloes in granite.

  • @jiminiflix

    Kinda difficult to do because the polonium halo bit (conjured by Robert Gentry, who is a -physicist-, not a geologist) actually never submitted any good evidence as proof in the first place. Example- some of the samples he labeled as "granite" were not granite at all, and he only labeled rocks as "primordial" if it -looked- like granite and came from the pre-cambrian era.

  • @KajexFiredrake Your like 14 aren't you.

  • @jiminiflix

    27, actually. Got there a week ago. Why, is age such an issue now?

    Oh wait- you're a creationist, so of course it's an issue.

  • @jiminiflix Wow, that's got to be the worst spit in the face of REAL science and facts I've ever seen. Thanks, liar, you opened my eyes to how low people go to support their ideas.

  • @TheOkami1113 If I am liar, show me what I lied about.

  • @jiminiflix (Sigh..the burden...) You know you're using the most advanced piece of human communication we have, right? All you have to do is type "fossil record" into a search engine, and the FIRST thing you'll see is "Fossil" by Wiki. It's incredible how creationist dishonestly pretend as though nothing exists outside their own intelligence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed fossils & methodological accounts linking to the study of paleontology--a facet of evolution.

  • @TheOkami1113 "It's incredible how creationist dishonestly pretend as though nothing exists outside their own intelligence"

    We are silly and you are smart. (sigh..the unfairness). I'm sorry you'r upset :-(

    Poor diddims. Lets remember many of the greatest minds of science believe(d) that God exists. I think someone needs to spank your little toosh toosh.

  • @jiminiflix Of course. But I wonder if their belief in God is the very medium they used to provide us with things that actually..you know..exist--let alone are physically useless. I apologize for wasting your time: I should have realized you didn't want to be informed or correct in the first place. Especially with a bogus, sophomoric joke like "fossil are because of a flood sent by a angry god".

  • @TheOkami1113 "Gods judgement", get it right.  You don't have to apologize. Evolution is a new idea remember, you haven't had time to rehearse the lines right.

  • @jiminiflix

    It would be "God's" judgement- it's possessive, not plural. Hell, you can't expect to be taken seriously if you submit a grammatically incorrect term as a means of correcting someone else.

    Religion, on the other hand, is an old idea- and yet it still hasn't provided answers, nor advanced humanity in any technological sense. It's the same old story, again and again- and you still cling to it against the alternative that you feel threatens it (when it doesn't).

  • @KajexFiredrake Atleast in your oppinion we have progressed from the slime pit.Thats a fun story.

  • @KajexFiredrake He's not here to refine any arguments. Even if we all read verbatim from a long list of secular, pre-written replies to any argument a creationist would have, and vice-versa, we'd still find him not having changed his mind. It's really pathetic how people think it's okay to be punished/disapproved for being skeptical of their own religion. So they HAVE to defend creationism, or their faith goes down, too. It's a vicious cycle.

  • @TheOkami1113 Listen to me, if anything I could be skeptical about is the false science of evolution. I have no doubts, NONE regarding where we all came from and who is responsible for it. I am not skeptical of my faith in Christ and His Word. I defend it because I want others to know God is real, His Word is dependable and evolution's a tool the devil uses to confuse and decieve even very intelligent people. It doesn't decieve the galactically stupid. There are smart blind people you know.

  • @jiminiflix

    "Listen to me"

    Give us reason why anything you say is credible. Your counter-argument revolves around the assertion that evolution is "a tool the devil uses", then saying that it confuses smart people, but "it doesn't deceive the galactically stupid".

    That does not make any sense whatsoever.

  • @KajexFiredrake The galactically stupid just believes it because men in white coats say so. The intelligent et so taken up by the terms and the scientific jargon that they believe the theory without fully knowing all the science and the lack of it. Those that are objective and demand evidence and question the theory I believe are more grounded. Even if one doesn't believe in God, evolution should be questioned very strongly and doubted before one put their faith in the "evidence".

  • @jiminiflix

    "Even if one doesn't believe in God, evolution should be questioned very strongly and doubted before one put their faith in the "evidence"."

    I agree completely. What you seem to not understand is that the evidence very strongly suggests that evolution is the best explanation. Any claim that wild, unverified speculation is the mark of a "more grounded" person is one who isn't looking for actual evidence as much as excuses- someone like you.

  • @KajexFiredrake No my faith is not grounded on ignorance, my faith is based on evidence of what I see and what I do not see. I cannot see God, but I know Him and see His creation.

  • @jiminiflix

    Don't misunderstand- the "wild speculation" has nothing to do with god, but the baseless "evidence" that has been disproven many times over that creationists continue to use.

  • @KajexFiredrake I have heard that there is so much evidence from you. As we are on the subject of mutations, lets stay on the subject as it is critical for evolution to be at all possible.

  • @jiminiflix

    On another note- how you feel and what you see and "know" (if anything) are not objective. Insist on objectivity, on all means, but you damn well better adhere to it.

  • @KajexFiredrake If evolution is the best explanation is for you because as you profess, you don't know God and you refuse to accept the mere possibility that life is a result of a loving God.

  • @jiminiflix I thought this was about science and providing actual proof, not relying on -your- personal feelings and experiences. Pretty selfish, really- all about how -you- feel.

  • @jiminiflix You also can´t deny the fact that the more educated you are the less likely you favor creationism and the more likely you favor evolution. Its just the other way around, the creationists are the ones that simply believe what they have been told, those that question both theories fair and square will with a chance of over 99.9& favor evolution, period !!! You are free to believe, but don´t you dare to claim that would be based on evidence, thats a lie, period !!!

  • @TheOkami1113 If you believe in evolution, you believe a giraffes neck grew over millions of years because of food deprivation, having to reach higher and higher for leaves. Tell me the truth, how can you believe that? I was thinkin about this issue the other day and it made me wonder. If it had run out of water it would have died out before it starved to death, did the giraffe have to reach up to get water? Giraffes eat grass as well you know - so come on, thats not science.

  • @jiminiflix

    wow is that your debate on God vs evolution a giraffes neck?

    Theres lots of debate why a giraffes neck is so tall, some say its sexual selection?

    who knows?

    but to say God created the Giraffe with not a single shred of evidence is BS

  • @it is not possible for evolutionists to make up a plausible scenario for the origination of either the giraffe's long neck or its complicated blood pressure regulating system that generates extremely high pressure to pump the blood up to the 20-foot high brain and then quickly reduces the pressure to prevent brain damage when the animal bends down to take a drink. After a century museums cannot display a single intermediate form that would connect the giraffe with any other creature

  • @jiminiflix

    So are you seriously saying God created the Giraffe?

    Scientists don't have all the answers, but they keep searching

  • @jiminiflix After a century museums cannot display a single intermediate form that would connect the giraffe with any other creature

    That is a lie, but even if it where true, so what ? Fossilization is a rare process, that needs very special conditions. So for many species we will never find fossils. But we dont have to prove the evolution of every single species to prove evolution. >We only have to prove that it is a general principle, the way nature does things. I mean do --->

  • @jiminiflix you think we would have to prove gravity for every star seperatly ? Of course not, and here you can see how stupid that is, its just as stupid for evolution.

    Now back to the giraffe, OF COURSE evolution can explain the features of the giraffe, its design that has a problem here. From an evolutionary standpoint the giraffe makes perfect sense, but the "design" is awful, every first year engineering student could do a better job of it !!!

  • @MrRichardQED Its funny how you mock the design of the neck of the giraffe, yet you believe it evolved. Evolution does a pretty bad job hey. Get real,you cannot explain how life came to be in the very first cell. A cell in itself is far mare complex than anything man has made, yet "poof" it appears in the correct chemical make up ofcourse (disproven by science). Without God Richard, you're not even alive.

  • @jiminiflix Its funny how you mock the design of the neck of the giraffe, yet you believe it evolved.

    Only to someone who doesnt really understand how evolution works. Evolution has to work with whats there, and can only gradually change it.Its not able to create a few new vertebrates in such a short time.A designer has no such restrictions,he can do whatever the fuck he wants, and THATS why this makes no sense from a design standpoint, but much sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

  • @MrRichardQED When a full-grown giraffe lowers its neck to drink and then raises it upright, its head changes level by 19 ft.—from 7 ft. below its heart to 12 ft. above it. Some amazing hydraulics is obviously called for to keep the blood flowing properly at all times.

  • @MrRichardQED Having a megajointed neck would require greater energy use and greater muscle mass to be supported causing the giraffe's centre of gravity to shift ahead of the front legs when the head is extended straight forward, causing the hind legs to come off the ground - assuming the front legs were strong enough. Seven neck bones is excellent design. 

  • @MrRichardQED "Only to someone who doesnt really understand how evolution works."

    How do you know anything about me? My comments may not be what you like to hear but you never have any evidence to disprove them. I don't think your understanding of evolution goes further than books you have read and other men you have believed, yet you may have totally overlooked the elephant in the room, the fact that everything on earth is evidence of creation and design including your brain.

  • @jiminiflix

    If god exists why are there children dying of cancer?

  • @jiminiflix My comments may not be what you like to hear but you never have any evidence to disprove them

    Your comments about what evolution are not what evolution, says, so i can say, and prove, you do not really know/understand what evolution actually says, whether you like that or not.. There is no evidence for design, I know your petty excuse for a real argument, every single creation article i have ever read was laughable and showed no scientific insight whatsoever

  • @jiminiflix Its really tiresome, to explain you even such simple arguments twice, because you are not even getting the very basics of this subject correct. How are you supposed to judge evolution correctly, if you don´t even know that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life started in the first place ?

    btw no abiogenesis hypothesis i know claims that life started with a complex life like you find it today, you moron, so so much for that straw man !

  • @jiminiflix it appears in the correct chemical make up ofcourse (disproven by science)

    Could you at least not lie to get your point across ? Lying in a science discussion is simply childish and shows you do not understand the subject and lack any real argument. So either come up with a truthful argument, or admit you are too stupid to do that, and not educated enough on the subject at hand !

    and again, i am discussing the theory of evolution here, not abiogenesis, BBT etc.

  • @MrRichardQED If man cannot duplicate the conception of life with chemicals as the theory believes and teaches then don't say evolution is a fact. If its not able to prove how the first cellular lifeforms came into being then stop with the lies yourself. I atleast I admit creationism is a faith because I wasn't there at the beginning. The evidence for your belief is much the same. Noone can understand for sure how first life started by evolution.(at best is a concept).

  • @jiminiflix

    Why the hell are you back here? I thought you made your final post.

    Also, the origin of life (abiogenesis) has nothing to do with the progression of life (evolution). We went over this before- do you need me to tell you again why you're a moron?

  • @KajexFiredrake WT? err its you. ;-P

  • @jiminiflix

    A-bio-fucking-genesis is not evolution.

  • @narutofan9999 Then what is it?

  • @jiminiflix

    Are you shitting me?

    "Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth has arisen." - wikipedia

    You think THAT's evolution? Seriously? You don't even take the time to use google for 5 minutes before asking a question?

  • @narutofan9999 Its a mindless miracle meeting another mindless miracle, is that what you are saying?

  • @jiminiflix

    It's a mindless miracle just as much as a rock falling down after throwing it is. There is no way the stupid rock could know in which direction to fall, or get it right by random chance every single time right? So there must be an Intelligent Faller, that pulls objects that refuse to stay on the ground down, it's so obvious you moronic gravitationalists!

  • @narutofan9999 Lol you have no idea. Why don't you do that next time you want to build a house?

  • @jiminiflix

    Wow, I've told you twice already, and you're still going out of your way to prove you're a fucking retard.

  • @KajexFiredrake Do you know any other grade 5 words other than "retard"?. 

  • @jiminiflix

    Beyond abiogenesis (a concept you seem to have trouble understanding), evolution (yet another concept you can't grasp), and various other terminology, the answer is it really doesn't matter, if the word is being used to accurately describe you.

    As a counter-question, do you have any convincing arguments this time around, you fucking retard?

  • @jiminiflix

    Once again, you have proven to us that you know next to nothing about evolution. You fail to understand the idea that genetic mutation, which is responsible for different physical characteristics, provide a means by which animals are better suit to their environment. They didn't just grow their necks because they were hungry- natural selection ensured that those that evolved such a characteristic were better able to survive.

    Seriously- you're not cut out to continue.

  • Comment removed

  • @jiminiflix I don't think you know anything about what you're arguing against. Mutations ARE a change in DNA--duh! In fact, the only thing you seem to be doing is claiming the DISTINCT FACTS to NOT be what they are! Go on, tell me something like "evolution does not account for every mutation observed by animals", so I can laugh at you. Everything you're telling me does NOT happen is actually the reason why it does happen! Ridiculous!

  • @TheOkami1113 Let me tell you this: mutations never, ever produce brand-new information and only operate on the information that’s there. That’s what the students at schools and colleges aren’t told and don’t understand. For Darwinian evolution, you need brand-new information that never previously existed, which is what you never see.

  • @jiminiflix

    Incorrect. The Lenski experiment cleanly shatters that ridiculous notion with only 20 years of work, and many generations of E.coli, evolving into a strain that subsists on citric acid. Mutated information -is- new information, and new information is passed along when it is favorable to the conditions of natural selection. Mutation is not always negative.

  • @KajexFiredrake “Adaptive evolution.” is not evolution but rather adaptation. Evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems.

  • @KajexFiredrake While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

  • @jiminiflix

    Incorrect. Bacteria evolving in a way as to adapt to adverse conditions is a HUGE gain in a setting where those conditions are prevalent. Again, you're missing the point.

  • @KajexFiredrake Lenski discovered generation 31500 of E.coli could utilize citrate (cit+) which E.coli usually cannot do , previous studies found wild-type E. coli can when oxygen levels are low.

  • @KajexFiredrake Lenski states “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low".

  • @KajexFiredrake how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems

  • @jiminiflix

    Now you're making an argument from incredulity- the idea that it's hard to believe it could ever happen.

    Oh... but wait, it -did- happen. Logical fallacy shattered.

  • @KajexFiredrake Can you explain to me the mathematical chances of 3 beneficial mutations in a row? For your hands to evolve over millions of years, how many mutation would be required? Do you know?

  • @jiminiflix

    What would be the relevance? Life would exist and evolve in some form or another. The chances are irrelevant because you're challenging them after the fact.

  • @KajexFiredrake "Life would exist and evolve in some form or another" what does that mean? When you woke up this morning you had a plan in your mind for the days events. Did you get anywhere in your life without a plan? Life does not exist without a purposeful and planned structure. Structure is everywhere, order and design and evidence of intelligent complexity that doesn't "evolve in some form or another".

  • @jiminiflix

    Let's use this analogy.

    You are suspended 300 feet in the air with a ping-pong ball in your left hand. Below you, covering 1000 square feet, are shot glasses in perfect rows.

  • @jiminiflix You drop the ball, not predicting which shot glass it's going to fall into. Each shot glass represents a potential form that the life form, represented by the ball, might take.

  • The chances of it falling into a specific shot glass is irrelevant- it'll land in a shot glass. The chances of life taking on one specific form is irrelevant- it'll take at least one form.

  • Oddly enough, your analogy is senseless because plans don't always go "according to plan". Hell, some people just wing it, sometimes it takes them pretty far. Occam's Razor and all.

  • @KajexFiredrake Though Ockham's razor is not a irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result,in my mind it doesn't benefit the complex natural impossibility of evolution.

  • @jiminiflix

    Of course it doesn't, in -your- mind. For one, you regard evolution as a natural "impossibility" in spite of the evidence which proves otherwise, but more than that, you're not looking for a complex answer, either- you're falling back on your stance of "god did it".

  • @jiminiflix

    And in either case, I invoked Occam's Razor in response to an analogy that -you- made, due to the fact that it was obviously flawed.

  • @jiminiflix Structure is everywhere, order and design and evidence of intelligent complexity

    That is a lie, there is no evidence of design ! On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence against design ! Just look at the giraffe and the mouse, both have the same amount of vertebrates of the neck. Nobody, who has any idea of engineering or design would do that, its utterly retarded. The giraffe has all kinds of problems because of that. It proves common origin, and debunks design !

  • Comment removed

  • @MrRichardQED I can prove there fore that apple and PC computers evolved - yep, I can tell because they both have hinges.

  • @jiminiflix The math doesn't matter because we might have easily evolved with tentacles instead of hands, yet we didn't- the chances were the same for both among other variations.

  • @KajexFiredrake Mathematics is in everything God created. He made everything more complex the smaller it is. Nano technology understands this. "the chances were the same for both among other variations." what a weird comment. Do you actually compare a tentacle to a human hand, I've heard it all!!

  • @jiminiflix

    Ironically, one of the best known examples of "God" ignoring math was when he had Jesus take 5 (or 7) loaves and 2 (or 7) fish, and fed 4,000+ people.

  • @KajexFiredrake No that was a miracle as Jesus also raised the dead, healed the sick. Jesus who is God HImself lived as a man, was hated by the world, was crucified for our sins, was buried and on the third HE rose again as He said He would. I admit its totally impossible (with our undestanding) but God is not of our understanding, His ways are not our ways. He made us and all creation for His good pleasure.

  • @jiminiflix I bring this up because if it's so essential to insist that God is in the math, you may as well have the balls to admit that (approximately) half the time it's magic.

  • @KajexFiredrake Yes , I believe God created the earth. I believe everything was made in 6 days (absurd!) and I believe God made all life to procreate after its own kind as we see. He started it and it runs and keeps running. God does miracles. I admit I stand on faith. I also stand on the evidence that proves the Bible is credable and that He made all things. I debate this issue with athiests and (evolutionists)because I believe the "science" is wrong and that evolution is equally faith based.

  • @jiminiflix

    Also, as a last note, to calculate those odds, you'd need to know the other potential beneficial mutations AND non-beneficial mutations, which you've not listed.

  • @KajexFiredrake You're the evolutionist, you note them. You believe we evolved, but I don't think you know how its *really* possible. You actually cannot comprehend the mathematical impossibilities regarding evolution so you just blindly believe the entire premise and you're talkin about a completely natural process. I couldn't believe in evolution even if I was an athiest. Logic doesn't line up with evolutionary teachings in my oppinion.

  • @jiminiflix Wow. You destroyed your argument. Twice. Your used an argument from both incredulity and improbability, then you used the words "In my opinion".

    Ready to give up?

  • @KajexFiredrake I'm sorry to say "The Origin of Species" was also the opinion of a man. Whats your opinion on that?

  • @jiminiflix My opinion on that is that it's a very good thing that the "opinion" (which we actually call a hypothesis) was backed up with plenty of scientific evidence.

  • @KajexFiredrake Evidence of variation, natural selecton, mutations yes but not evolution. The evidence doesn't support the 'molecules to man' belief. Populations on earth don't support it, the fossil record doesn't suport it, dna doesn't prove it. Theres a lot of great knowledge learned about reproduction and mutational problems in generations, but no solid evidence proves evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for our existance.

  • @jiminiflix You're either trying to argue abiogenesis (nothing to do with evolution), or (once again) you're willfully ignoring all the evidence that has been provided.

    Give it up.

  • Comment removed

  • @jiminiflix

    Anything else? I was expecting more.

  • @KajexFiredrake [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:15–16).

    This is my last post here. Good luck.

  • @jiminiflix

    And nothing of value was lost. Good riddance.

  • @jiminiflix You're very correct about mutation not getting "new information". In fact, that first sentence is relatively true. Mutations are movements of genetic sequencing. But, of course, I was taught that as a freshman in high school in honors biology class (I received B average). "They're not telling us" that? You know, you can just look things up yourself, right? In fact, if you think you have some sort of radical idea, put it on paper and send it. You should be famous.

  • @jiminiflix Um, yes, it is. Giraffes, like all life-forms, have to abide by this little rule called "survival-of-the-fittest". As you know, giraffes have long necks to eat the leaves of trees. The trees, in blind response, must become taller and taller--leaves are their organs--so they don't die, themselves. Taller trees, taller necks. What's so incredible about that? In fact, the way you described it seemed pretty simple. Or do you not read you're own arguments?

  • Comment removed