@coasterfiend05 Like the mutation only found in those of European descent that once enabled them to survive the plague and is now responsible for a superior resistance and in some cases near immunity to HIV? The mutation found in many people of African descent that protected them from malaria? Like the mutation found in a single Italian family that renders them practically immune to "bad" cholesterol? You mean like das Uberbaby who may hold the secret to curing muscular dystrophy?
If chimps mutated 8.75 mill times then why are there still chimps here? an if they are our relitives then we should be able to breed with them right? lol lions and tigers can breed. so why cant humans and chimps? cuz we arnt related!
@coasterfiend05 We are related, but not that closely related that we could breed...and when lions and tigers breed they are unable to have offspring that would be able to reproduce.
And when you say: "If chimps mutated 8.75 mill times then why are there still chimps here?" Thats like saying that if america was colonized by england why are there still english people?
You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning evolution
Why can't we let the scientists do science, the literature scholars do literature, the mathematicians do math etc and then the teachers act as a bridge between the experts and students.
Can you see an astrophysicist having a formal public debate with an anthropologist on why his theory on social structure among chimpanzees is flawed? Of course not. But apparently creationists are experts in every field and tell the scientists why they're wrong cause it's not easily comprehended.
Awesome, a perfect example would however be that you look yourself in your mirror and see little to no change every day from when you were a baby, yet you still change...
And evolution isnt primarily about mutations, its about difference in the family so to speak.
Lets say u get 4 children, one of them have a little more hair and all of a sudden the climate changes rapidly to be more cold, then itll be more likely that the hairy survives, reproduces and after millions of years becomes a mammuth
I dont debate with Creationists anymore,i keep mentioning books,by Harris,Dawkins,Hitchens,Dennet..Keep spreading the word Athesism and Science Rock.!!
There are multiple methods of figuring out the mutation rate in a species, I wonder if they agree with each other because if they don't then evolution is screwed.
I don't think creationists have a hard time at all understanding this concept. More likely they automatically shut their brains off when dealing with information threatening their unprovable and lack of evidence beliefs.
In nearly all of his examples of how a small change can turn into a big change, there was a limit.
Sound eventually stops, people eventually stop and take a rest, Niagara Falls will stop when they get to the ocean if not sooner and the continents will probably stop when they bump into each other.
Just the same, the genome can only change so much before it cannot change any more.
The falls will stop/cease when water/earth going through it is cut off.
People walking eventually stop when the processes causing the person to walk cease (they rest, they get hit by a car)..
The earth's plates will eventually stop and harden in place after the core of the earth cools.
Yes, there is a stopping point, but that is due to the absence of force needed to continue the process. You stated a limit, but not what force would stop.
@thull65 Are you kidding me? The limit is not the same for everything. I suppose the force that would stop it is when so much information has been lost that they just die. No evolutionist has ever given me an example of a mutation that added information and was beneficial to the animal. On the other hand, we have observed many many mutations that lose information or harm the animal.
"the force that would stop it is when so much information has been lost that they just die." + "we have observed many many mutations that lose information"
We also know the average number of mutations per generation of thousands of species. So under your reasoning things like certain bacteria that have life cycles measured in hours, should easily show signs they are becoming functionally impaired and closer to self-extinction by their rapid mutations they constantly suffer
Since it is bacteria, you could bring up horizontal gene transfer as a way to keep the population fit over time. However, many studies have been done that have isolated populations, so the only change in information that could happen this way had to happen between cousin cells. I think the E.Coli long-term study(~20 years) is over 50,000 generations already. To put that in context, it would be equivalent to a millions years for humans with a generation gap of 20 years
@thull65 In a way, natural selection plays into that. Many mutations have been observed that kill a creature or majorly impair it in some way. When this happens, they usually die one way or another. Odds are that most of the population will not have this life threatening mutation .Also, many variations don't effect a creatures ability to survive (in their specific life) like a change in eye color or something. So a lot of the thousands of mutations don't do much as far as this topic goes.
@QuelDroma366 And from where do you take this information about genome possessing a limit as to how much change it can undergo. By comparing genetic mutation to sound particles or continents colliding?
@QuelDroma366 Can you redirect me to a source that supports what you are saying? If it turns out to be true I would definitely have to re-evaluate my position on the topic, but I find that a limit to genetic mutations seems illogical.
What a joke. Is the theme "extrapolation is always valid"? He gave it away when he said "for a constant process." His problem: No evidence the processes are constant over the entire time period in question.
Creationists agree w/ speciation thru natural selection when it is confined to the observed (peppered moth) or when extrapolation is slight & cause/effect is clear (Darwin's finch beaks). MASSIVE EXTRAPOLATION into the distant unobserved past - a postulated original single cell - is doubted.
@357MagnumBob So only if you can observe it in the short term is it valid? That makes no sense. By those definitions any time something takes longer then a human lifetime to observe directly then it can no longer be considered observable? What about the fossil record? Why would evolution simply stop if the environmental pressure is still present? That's like saying you can walk to the end of the drive way, not around the continent. Do the laws of nature just stop working after a while?
@357MagnumBob No evidence that these processes are constant? What, do you think that they act differently when you don't see them? There is every evidence in the world that these things we observe and have evidence for, are constant processes. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
Also, as we have evidence of all of this, especially evolution, and we are using real data points, there is no extrapolation involved.
@357MagnumBob Indeed, the theory of the single cell is still doubted, as opposed to evolution through natural selection which is scientific fact. Nevertheless, it's by far the most plausible explanation we have as to the origin of life on earth.
LOLOLOL Sure thing! What a sorry existence to live your Godless world man. Have at your need to prove you have no one to answer to and that you can do whatever you want with no consequences. Let me know when you start growing wings or is the next evolution scales or maybe a tail, na I like the wing thing better! You keep us all posted!
@HvensFury. Show me some selective pressure that would require humans to either grow wings or die-out, and then yeah, those would be the two options. Also I never claimed to be a nihilist, just an atheist. I most certainly believe I have people to answer to, myself and everyone else I effect. The consequences I see are here in the real world, denying people equal rights truly effects their life. Doing so because you believe bigotry to be spiritually required yields no good.
@HvensFury survey says...I answer to myself, and have to live with my own consequences. That is a far bigger responsibility than handing it all over to 'god'.
Evolution needs a long period of time , much longer than 14billion yrs -thats were it falls down , it would never have the time to accomplish what it thinks it has.
"Evolution needs a long period of time , much longer than 14billion yrs " And you know this how? Because an AiG article told you so? What' is your source?
Information's only as good as it's source and I would be checking my sources if I were you.
It's no suprise that your faith in the sources of information you use is closely tied to your faith in some god(s). If you didn't need faith to believe in god(s), you wouldn't be able to believe 'facts' that are false. Faith kills thought.
@TheVictorie239. The Earth, where 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Where only a quarter of the surface is even remotely habitable to us. With another enormous chunk of that being covered in desert, both arid and arctic, and inhospitable. Your concept of fine-tuning leaves much to be desired.
2. The world most certainly isn't fine tuned for life. A vast majority of it is completely inhospitable and when you expand the fine tuning idea to the rest of the universe, the portion of the universe that we can survive in is infinitely small compared to the portion that would kill us in seconds.
It is arrogant and ignorant to think the universe was created for us.
The 'a' prefix means 'without'. An 'anti' prefix means 'against'. There's lots of difference between the two.
So when someone says that I'm against their god, they're confusing the two prefixes, because I simply don't believe any god(s) exist.
Everyone is an 'aflying-pigist', in that they don't believe flying pigs exist. No one is an 'antiflying-pigist' because it's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist.
When religion eventually fades away, everyone wil be an atheist.
"but is it apt to say all anti-theists are atheists? " I'd say yes. It would be hard to be against all religions yet believe in what they are based on (unless you think all gods are evil, and reject worshiping them.) I agree with the rest.
All religious people are atheists and anti-theists towards all other religions. I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm fairly anti-theist too- I don't like thinking that people don't know and/or care to accept reality and replace it with faith.
What is it with Americans saying things like "1000 milliseconds" and "0.01 kilometers."? The WHOLE POINT of having different based 10 prefixes is so that you can use the most appropriate one. 0.01 kilometers is 10 meters. 1000 milliseconds is 1 second. I've even heard some Americans who seem to think that a kilometer is a basic metric unit...a university professor, for one .
The whole point of metric is that it's dead simple...a little child can understand it. So what do Americans fuck it up?
If I say "in 5 milliseconds, X happens," but want to say that in one second, Y happens, it would make sense to say that Y happens in 1000 milliseconds. It's the context.
Hey Creationists, where's your peer reviewed scientific studies that show Evidence for creation.. oh wait there is none because your all fucking morons!
God created everything, including science, and your stupid so called PEER REVIEWD garbage. Oh you bet God created stupidity too, only people like you that blaspheme him end up diseased buy it!!
You can take you SCIENTEFIC PEER papers and wipe your corn hole with em, and then stuff your pie hole with PEER POOP PAPERS Infidel!!
I think you've proven my point about creationists being fucking morons quite nicely. Thanks for supporting Atheism by showing people how ignorant, belligerent and down right stupid you are.
I've done nothing what so ever to support atheism, Ive only made it and you look even stupider. If your comment is true you would have revealed the explanation as to how I supported atheism, but.. you didn't. Terrible try you atheist Clown. Bwuuaaahahaha!!!
you support Atheism by leading as an example of a crazed, moronic, trolling christian. If you seriously believe in the magic man in the sky has a plan for us crap, and hold that conviction so strongly that you troll on pro-atheism videos not to mention misspelling the word scientific, then yes, you are a belligerent moron..
So you're saying atheists are crazed, moronic, trolling, Christians...Whaauuhh?? That doesn't support it. These videos show up on my "recommended for you" videos on YouTube, I watch them so I know that side of the story too, not to mention they are directed at Christians and creationists. I'm not scared to watch em, cause I know they're going to be full of it!! You need to look up the definition of belligerent and get someone to explain to you what it means, and where did I misspell scientific?
And how bout you and kind try to keep you insecurity a secret buy not pointing out grammatical errors, using fowl language, and intellectual insults and such. What is pro atheism? Are there professional atheist out there?
Your response is weak and hollow just the way you and all your atheist buddies are, you have absoulutly nothing on me and cannot refute me in any way!! All you do is dig up your meaningless statements and mindless comments from the previous comments in an attempt to make me out to be the inferior one!! Do you really think a FUCKING RETARD is capable of all this? You, are the one that sounds retarded!! Try again Blasphemer...Bwuuaahahahaaaa!!!!
You can't refute circular reasoning and/or utter ignorance (you choose the definition of 'ignorance'- they both suit you), so don't brag that no one can refute what you're parroting.
Only another ignoramus using circular logic could knock you from your baseless pedestal, and that would likely be by convincing you of the 'truth' of something even more ridiculous.
"Do you really think a FUCKING RETARD is capable of all this?" Since you're the proof, I guess the answer is obviously "yes".
When did god create science? I must of miss that part of science cause last time I checked there was no evidence of him in science. So god created stupidity in his image too? That might explain all the screw ups in his "designs".
Got to love how creationist hate peer review just because they can't understand it. Have you ever tried to read a peer reviewed paper? Some of them are really good and they've actually advanced scociety
The examples at the beginning of the first video are irrelevant, so I am not bothering with them. The author of this video states (3:17) that 75 mutations OCCUR per haploid generations, and changes this word to ACCRUE at 3:30 into the video. Not all mutations that occur, accrue however. Based on the number of mutations that occur, the author basically states that between the chimp and the human populations, 8.75 mutations will accrue per year.
His statement is that in 1 million years a total of 8.75 million mutations will build up between our species, as if there is some reason to think that every mutation that occurs will accrue and be forever a part of the genome. He then states that his numbers do not take selective pressures into considerations as if this helps the creationist cause. Selective pressures DECREASE the number of mutations that will accrue however.
Using the numbers from the first video, if there are an average of 8.75 mutations that occur per year, if the Human and Chimp lines split 8 mil years ago, about 70 mil total mutations would have occurred. The author states that there are about 40 mil mutations required to develop the two lines. Most mutations are harmful, which from what I understand means that most will be bred out of the population over time. Other mutations are useful, but the group that carried the mutation was wiped out
(Other hominid species or a group of humans/chimps that was wiped out in a disaster).
If most mutations are harmful, and a large number of beneficial mutations do not carry on due to other reasons (extinction, volcanoes taking out a group...), it seems highly unlikely that such a split between chimps and humans would be likely in 8,000,000 years.
Another number from the video... Our species took different paths 5-6 million years ago (3:59), further reducing time available.
Except that most mutations arent harmful. Most mutations have very little or no effect on our survival as an animal.
Do you think the first person to have blue eyes was at a disadvantage to the others who have brown eyes. And thats a very big mutation (probably lots of small ones) but the point is, it didnt make any difference.
Raptor, here are some quotes from the scientist quoted at 3:17. Blank spaces are periods.
bio indiana edu / facultyresearch / faculty / Lynch html
These results, along with our theoretical work on network evolution, challenge the popular idea that modularity arises as a direct consequence of selection for morphological complexity, and by extension raise questions about the common assumption that natural selection was responsible for the emergence of multicellularity.
Our work on intron evolution is focused on the hypothesis that newly arisen introns are typically mildly deleterious
Although mutations provide the ultimate material upon which natural selection depends, most mutations are deleterious, and in certain population settings, can lead to a substantial fitness load.
Wrong. Most mutations are strictly neutral. Even rather big ones like colour changes are not always harmful. Hence why we have a huge variety of dogs.
In fact, most mutations, even those perceived as harmful in hind sight are not actually dangerous to the animal that "evolved" it.
Take for example mammoths evolved long hair. When this happened, it was an advantage because the climate was a lot colder. Now they are extinct because they could not survive the rapid temperature increase.
But you couldnt say at the time that the mutation to give the ancient elephants longer hair was a bad thing. Only time tells whether a neutral mutation turns into a harmful one or not. Strictly advantageous ones are spread quickly, whilst strictly harmful mutations kill the animal quickly, stopping it from reproducing thus removing the harmful mutation from the gene pool.
Google "are most mutations harmful" to get a proper answer.
Raptor, the website I provided is for a scientist that CDK quotes at 3:17 to make his point. The quotes all come from that site. Google the name of the article at 3:12 and read the last 2 paragraphs. This article also states that most mutations are harmful. These are not my sources, they are CDK's.
I read it, and from what I could tell, as it was just a short paragraph where the rest was just agreeing with evolution, it was either talking about mutations in animals after they were born. Then mutations are harmful, but you dont evolve once you are born. It was that or speaking about asexual reproduction.
Raptor, I am not claiming that CDKs references disagree with evolution, I am saying that using the sources given in this video, you can tear the video to shreds. Here is one quote from the article that is used at 3:12; each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
At the beginning of the same paragraph the authors state, "The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction." The only answer they seem to come up with is that maybe a number of harmful mutations can work together to become beneficial, which is not a reasonable idea given that random mutation does not choose for characteristics.
Just because all the mutations aren't kept around, do to selective pressures, doesn't stop the fact that the mutations till occur at that rate stated. If I buy a candy bar everyday for a year and end up throwing 100 of them away, doesn't mean I didn't buy 365 candy bars.
So, some humans walk zero meters per second and some walk two meters per second right? When did Niagara falls start moving backwards cdk007? You may be ok at making stupid videos, but whats in them is comical, ridiculously inaccurate, and your math is terrible!! Where are these 40 million mutations separating these species? Man, I think you a probably the worst evilutionist on youtube!!
ironman197268, what you have just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading these comments is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
May God have mercy on my soul. Just for a comment I made on youtube. You're reading these comments, are you saying that you're even dumber now? I was going to say that you're stupid but you pretty much sad it for me!! And I'm not trying to earn points, and God does not need to have any mercy on my soul.
Well, let's see here. In your first comment, you reveal you don't understand basic math (averages) or basic science (erosion), so when you try and refute advanced science (mutations) you obviously can't do anything but look idiotic. And in your reply, you reveal you don't understand basic popular culture (the entire post was cribbed from Billy Madison). And you're obviously not interested in learning about any of it. Yeah, I would say your idiocy is rubbing off on me and everyone around here.
Obvious retard? That would mean you would have had to have met me and confirmed that I am retarded. However, that is a typical thing for an evolutionist to say considering all the other assumptions you make. You evoheads sure do stand up to your reputation. And, what is it with evolutionists obsession with retards? Is it what you fall back on because of your overwhelming abundance of insecurity you have about your evilution delusion?
What a stupid video still. Just a bunch of cheesy illustrations on time and distance gaps that have nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous OLD Earth theory.
"Just a bunch of cheesy illustrations on time and distance gaps that have nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous OLD Earth theory. " Yeah, if only people would count up 'begat's in the Babble!
The examples are there to try and make people like you understand. It has been scientifically proven that our planet is older than what the bible says.
I'm very well aware of what this ridiculous video is trying to say. I also know exactly how big of a difference there is between 6000 years and 4,600,000,000 years. For someone to say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old is ludacris, and scientifically proven is even worse!! Nothing about the Earth being that old is scientifically proven whether you like it or not. The story has changed before and it will change again, and again. The Bible has always been the same story, and always will be.
"The Bible has always been the same story, and always will be"
and this is why I wouldn't trust the bible because doesn't matter how many times it's proven wrong it still maintains the same lies. Science changes as we learn more and therefore self corrects. I'll be trusting the science since it has actually given us technology and modern medicine.
Sorry but your ignorance of the evidence does not make it go away it just demonstrates you do not comprehend science.
Ya man. There are old cities (megalithic) on the ocean floors of Japan, India etc. Science, religion (genius)logic in general cannot explain that away. because everyone is being kept in the dark from reality. and there is no monetary profit in the reality.
You don't have to be religious to understand abstract concepts such as Good, Evil, Love. I think the point has been made by many good atheists that it is our humanity (big brains) that allows us to make sense of the world. There are more definitions of good and evil than "good is what pleases God", such as "good is avoiding harm (pain and suffering)", or "good is what benefits the community as a whole", etc etc..
That depends: subjective from the point of view of the universe, or the planet. Or of any "innate" meaning. But the "absolute" meanings given to these words when adding a God don't really change the fact that for humans they ARE subjective (subject to the time, the place, the person - murder vs execution vs. self-defence). But personally I think there is an "objective" or ideal dimension underlying all abstract terms - take truth for instance - (absolute) mathematical truth does exist.
sorry i got cut off.why is there no archeological evididence to support these claims? A measily old hundred thousands years of evolving must have left some kinda evidence(that ould cover their scientific asses).
...did cdk say the chimp-human divide took a hundred thousand years?
...on the other hand, if you're talking about speciation of the genus that we're in, we have plenty of that in the archaeological record. There are homonoid fossils that are not Homo sapiens, but were buried with fashioned tools (Neanderthals, Homo habilis, etc.) If you're looking for 100,000 year-old cities, though, you're going to be looking a long time.
And I love the way it's actually possible to have a discussion with valid points .. under "evolutionist" videos. I tried debating the points made in Stevebee's videos (really stupid anti-evolution anti-dawkins vids) and was bombarded with insults and ridicule by the author and creationist commentators. They just didn't want to discuss.
In search for truth EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY, Both INVALID AND VALID hypothesis, because how one can tell it is the TRUTH/FACT, when it is not tested.
Another point id like to bring up is WHY the annunaki wanted to genetically engineer us.. Well the answer is quite simple... GOLD.
The annunaki needed a Heat-Shield, and GOLD was there heat shield, i aint to allien scientist, dont ask me why they wanted gold, but thats what they needed.
The annunaki needed a slave that could Mine on earth, They simply couldnt stand our enviroment, they needed an intelligent slave, that could live on earths enviroment.
also... If you want to accept the theory of BIG BANG which is currently accepted by the scientific community then the genesis makes no sense, since in the genesis earth was created before stars.. and that's not true... Big bang theory does not state that earth is the oldest planet in our universe.. Listen, you guys just cant accept that the whole bible is wrong and try to twist and turn the text around to make it fit with current scientific understanding. sorry to tell you, but it's not working.
is it not possible to live a life free of sin without ever knowing about god? is it so mistaken to think that maybe the whole 'respect your elders' thing had started before there ever was a god to start it? is it also wrong to believe that the simple notion of 'i don't liek to be hit, maybe he won't liek being hit either, we shouldn't hit each other' was around before god or jessus ever showed up to the party that is humanity?
also, if im not mistaken, humans existed before GOD and JESUS did, so why did god wait to reveal his existence to us? and why did he allow us to believe in other 'lesser' gods before he? wouldn't he have intentionally damned those humans to hell? (since if you don't believe in god and jessus you will automatically burn in hell), seems really weird that the all loving and omnipotent god would deliberatly damn his children to hell when he could've just told them that he exists.
Actually what I am doing is revealing HIM. Now that you know/see Im preaching you are not anymore innocent to HIM. The only fault way back before was your forefathers deny to believe His existence just like ancient people did, or egyptians for example. It was evident that GOD diliberately shown His power to them but look, have they change their belief? I think not. So the unbelief of GOD was not His doing. ITs a fault of our forefathers.
why would i believe in your god and not any other god? y not mohommad or thor or zeus or the giant juju?
if you want to reveal him, then take a video camera and record him waving his magic wand and making something actually happen. and tell"him" to get to work and stop letting innocent children starve and suffer. your god is an idiot if he's real. Which he's not.
If you think your life on Earth is important, you might think it that way.
Living in this world is like " Now, im here, then i dont".
Its just like a day.
Suffering and calamities are the ways to be purified and reflect that, Life was not that good enough. Calamity excuses no one, either you are poor or you are rich.
Life in this world is vanity, and what GOD emphasize are the afterlife.
So I should believe in your god because your god will burn me forever if I don't.
I take that as a reason not to believe in your god since your god sounds like a sociopath.
A belief based solely on fear, rather than evidence is not worth having. It is a sign of a paranoid psychotic state, such as being afraid of a mutant monkey in your closet when there is no evidence such a monkey exists.
lol noudge: if you want to reveal something, than prove that it exists. Telling someone that something exists that can't be proven or observed is pointless. I could tell you that chocolate Unicorns exist, but would i really be "revealing" anything?
If god exists then why doesn't he show his face? You know, come down from heaven and tell people: "i'm real"
If Jesus appeared before hundreds of ppl, then it clearly has no effect on free will.
Pls, try to see my channel, my video Logical proof of GOD.
How can you see GOD when GOd exist more than the speed of light. Translating your physical form into light, you will surely die. No man has ever seen the face of GOD.
Please see my video. GOD is logical, if you just know the theory of relativity.
IF there be GOD he surely be defined in logical means and by science and mathematics He should confirm to it. GOD is truth and therefore, it will show an evidence on its logical existence.
MATTER, ENERGY & RELATIVITY THEORY suffice
the proof of his existence.
Are those theories not yet proven and not evidence for you to ignore. Relativity predicted the existence of blackholes, if you mind.
That's right. compare me to a four year old and tell me that I know nothing of physics or math.
Even four year olds hearing about god, and jesus will ask the question:
"Who's god's mom?"
It is a deceptively simple question.
Even a four year old knows that people come from people. Children come from their parents. And they are asking "Well this big man in the sky should also have a mommy right?"
In other words, even children recognize the question of:
And I do appreciate the logical implications and predictions.
Computers, Medical Science, Vaccines, the work done for the cures for things like cancer and aids. Along with the study of life and were it came from. The Predictive power that the Theory of Evolution has has been demonstrated. We have gone back to the rocks that should hold the right fossils that are the right age and predict what the animals of that period should look like.
Lastly. Lovely circle logic. You draw your sources from the bible (and I won't point out how flawed that is.) a book that claims to be right because it was written by god, and it was written by god therefor it is right.
I don't buy into that bunk.
That's a logical fallacy that doesn't prove anything outside itself.
The bible is man written, but with the thought and wisdom of GOD.
Well, it prove to have relevance/consistent with science theory, relativity, the shape/form of the earth, and the creation of matter(defined existence) is true.
"god said he wrote a book and this is the book because it says that god wrote it."
Circular reasoning doesn't work. It's just like If I were to say
"I'm smarter than you, therefor I am right, and I am right, therefor I am smarter than you."
It doesn't work.
I don't see anywhere in the bible were it talks about the curvature of space time or where jesus said unto them "Verily I say to you Let Energy be matter multiplied by the speed of light squared."
I am not your friend. I don't like having idiots for friends.
As far as your last statement goes. Learn English. Learn Grammar. It is easier to argue with people if you can speak their language.
However, I will tell you why Science has nothing to say about your god.
Science is a means of Naturally understanding the universe around us. Naturally. That means it doesn't draw on a supernatural explanation. And your god? That's a supernatural explanation. Also. Atheism means I reject all gods.
That's right avoid all questions being asked by attacking my character instead of thinking about the theory at hand.
That's like if we were walking down the edge of a wide river and we needed to get across. No bridge in sight, and the river is descptivily deep in some parts.
You come up with an idea, and then present it to me.
To which I reply "That will never work because you're a christian."
See, I am attacking you and not even thinking about your idea. I am not weighing the merits and flaws.
It say in form of a summary. Because if it will be in detailed, its mere bias to those who have less intellectual talents. The people who cant read and write. More. if its written in details, that will be as big book as the library or earth or the universe, to condense all knowledge, what then be the purpose when all is revealed?
Would it please the one that made it? Man is a free luncher then.
It's sad that this video is actually necessary in 2012, nicely put together though, great examples.
Rdburnzy 4 days ago
You correct spelling errors in a poem.
verwoestijning 5 months ago
oh yea and any mutations we get now arnt benificial to us. they are harmful not helpful, palsy,downsyndrom ect.
coasterfiend05 6 months ago
@coasterfiend05 Like the mutation only found in those of European descent that once enabled them to survive the plague and is now responsible for a superior resistance and in some cases near immunity to HIV? The mutation found in many people of African descent that protected them from malaria? Like the mutation found in a single Italian family that renders them practically immune to "bad" cholesterol? You mean like das Uberbaby who may hold the secret to curing muscular dystrophy?
eyholmess 6 months ago
If chimps mutated 8.75 mill times then why are there still chimps here? an if they are our relitives then we should be able to breed with them right? lol lions and tigers can breed. so why cant humans and chimps? cuz we arnt related!
coasterfiend05 6 months ago
@coasterfiend05 We are related, but not that closely related that we could breed...and when lions and tigers breed they are unable to have offspring that would be able to reproduce.
And when you say: "If chimps mutated 8.75 mill times then why are there still chimps here?" Thats like saying that if america was colonized by england why are there still english people?
You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning evolution
MikaelDryden 5 months ago
@coasterfiend05 "If chimps mutated 8.75 mill times then why are there still chimps here?"
....
What do you mean still? Chimps are recent.
9hello123 4 months ago
it is still based on assumptions.
gacktxrawr 7 months ago
@gacktxrawr so is god :|
xeadm 7 months ago
@xeadm absolutely.
gacktxrawr 7 months ago
1,324 people use science and logic. one person doesn't and it drove him to using a votebot
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
CANON
IndianSpore 9 months ago
386 people don't like George Bush to be compared to "dem dam apes".
ShinigamiSirius 11 months ago
@ShinigamiSirius George Bush was an IDiot and an ape.
gregrutz 11 months ago
Why can't we let the scientists do science, the literature scholars do literature, the mathematicians do math etc and then the teachers act as a bridge between the experts and students.
Can you see an astrophysicist having a formal public debate with an anthropologist on why his theory on social structure among chimpanzees is flawed? Of course not. But apparently creationists are experts in every field and tell the scientists why they're wrong cause it's not easily comprehended.
SakaNaomi 1 year ago
3:39 :D
bijoukaiba 1 year ago
What a beautiful and clear video.
I seriously doubt that anyone is stupid enough to put any dislikes onto this one unless they truly are moronically thick!
Oh? 386 dislikes?
My mistake... It seems that these idiots still walk among us!
FatRakoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people actually think the earth is 6000 years old? xD
ZukoFireBook 1 year ago
The bit on mutations was beatuiful
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
Awesome, a perfect example would however be that you look yourself in your mirror and see little to no change every day from when you were a baby, yet you still change...
And evolution isnt primarily about mutations, its about difference in the family so to speak.
Lets say u get 4 children, one of them have a little more hair and all of a sudden the climate changes rapidly to be more cold, then itll be more likely that the hairy survives, reproduces and after millions of years becomes a mammuth
JollSSteR 1 year ago
Sad you have to spell it out like this but it seems the only way the creationists will get it. Well done...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
I dont debate with Creationists anymore,i keep mentioning books,by Harris,Dawkins,Hitchens,Dennet..Keep spreading the word Athesism and Science Rock.!!
ScienceRks 1 year ago
Typo at 0:54
sound travels at 331 meters a second
0.311 meters a millisecond
YesIamJames 1 year ago
@YesIamJames There is no typo.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 331/1000 = 0.331 not 0.311
YesIamJames 1 year ago
There are multiple methods of figuring out the mutation rate in a species, I wonder if they agree with each other because if they don't then evolution is screwed.
Houshalter 1 year ago
I don't think creationists have a hard time at all understanding this concept. More likely they automatically shut their brains off when dealing with information threatening their unprovable and lack of evidence beliefs.
supersmash43 1 year ago
In nearly all of his examples of how a small change can turn into a big change, there was a limit.
Sound eventually stops, people eventually stop and take a rest, Niagara Falls will stop when they get to the ocean if not sooner and the continents will probably stop when they bump into each other.
Just the same, the genome can only change so much before it cannot change any more.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366
Please share what that limit is.
The falls will stop/cease when water/earth going through it is cut off.
People walking eventually stop when the processes causing the person to walk cease (they rest, they get hit by a car)..
The earth's plates will eventually stop and harden in place after the core of the earth cools.
Yes, there is a stopping point, but that is due to the absence of force needed to continue the process. You stated a limit, but not what force would stop.
thull65 1 year ago
@thull65 Are you kidding me? The limit is not the same for everything. I suppose the force that would stop it is when so much information has been lost that they just die. No evolutionist has ever given me an example of a mutation that added information and was beneficial to the animal. On the other hand, we have observed many many mutations that lose information or harm the animal.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366
"the force that would stop it is when so much information has been lost that they just die." + "we have observed many many mutations that lose information"
We also know the average number of mutations per generation of thousands of species. So under your reasoning things like certain bacteria that have life cycles measured in hours, should easily show signs they are becoming functionally impaired and closer to self-extinction by their rapid mutations they constantly suffer
thull65 1 year ago
@thull65 Part (2of2)
Since it is bacteria, you could bring up horizontal gene transfer as a way to keep the population fit over time. However, many studies have been done that have isolated populations, so the only change in information that could happen this way had to happen between cousin cells. I think the E.Coli long-term study(~20 years) is over 50,000 generations already. To put that in context, it would be equivalent to a millions years for humans with a generation gap of 20 years
thull65 1 year ago
@thull65 In a way, natural selection plays into that. Many mutations have been observed that kill a creature or majorly impair it in some way. When this happens, they usually die one way or another. Odds are that most of the population will not have this life threatening mutation .Also, many variations don't effect a creatures ability to survive (in their specific life) like a change in eye color or something. So a lot of the thousands of mutations don't do much as far as this topic goes.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 And from where do you take this information about genome possessing a limit as to how much change it can undergo. By comparing genetic mutation to sound particles or continents colliding?
Sadiquit0 1 year ago
@Sadiquit0 Actually, I was just running off of the analogies he gave. I'm taking the idea from actual science.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Can you redirect me to a source that supports what you are saying? If it turns out to be true I would definitely have to re-evaluate my position on the topic, but I find that a limit to genetic mutations seems illogical.
Sadiquit0 1 year ago
The 'limit' you're talking about is just an arbitrary distinction from when something transforms/changes.
aaaaaFuck 1 year ago
Very well put.
Coquipirate 1 year ago
Nice
Oddessuss 1 year ago
Brilliant video, thanks for spending the time to make it
Okhaj 1 year ago
What a joke. Is the theme "extrapolation is always valid"? He gave it away when he said "for a constant process." His problem: No evidence the processes are constant over the entire time period in question.
Creationists agree w/ speciation thru natural selection when it is confined to the observed (peppered moth) or when extrapolation is slight & cause/effect is clear (Darwin's finch beaks). MASSIVE EXTRAPOLATION into the distant unobserved past - a postulated original single cell - is doubted.
357MagnumBob 1 year ago
@357MagnumBob So only if you can observe it in the short term is it valid? That makes no sense. By those definitions any time something takes longer then a human lifetime to observe directly then it can no longer be considered observable? What about the fossil record? Why would evolution simply stop if the environmental pressure is still present? That's like saying you can walk to the end of the drive way, not around the continent. Do the laws of nature just stop working after a while?
esplin227 1 year ago
@357MagnumBob No evidence that these processes are constant? What, do you think that they act differently when you don't see them? There is every evidence in the world that these things we observe and have evidence for, are constant processes. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
Also, as we have evidence of all of this, especially evolution, and we are using real data points, there is no extrapolation involved.
Cayvmann 1 year ago
@357MagnumBob Indeed, the theory of the single cell is still doubted, as opposed to evolution through natural selection which is scientific fact. Nevertheless, it's by far the most plausible explanation we have as to the origin of life on earth.
Sadiquit0 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Wintblash 1 year ago
LOLOLOL Sure thing! What a sorry existence to live your Godless world man. Have at your need to prove you have no one to answer to and that you can do whatever you want with no consequences. Let me know when you start growing wings or is the next evolution scales or maybe a tail, na I like the wing thing better! You keep us all posted!
HvensFury 1 year ago
@HvensFury. Show me some selective pressure that would require humans to either grow wings or die-out, and then yeah, those would be the two options. Also I never claimed to be a nihilist, just an atheist. I most certainly believe I have people to answer to, myself and everyone else I effect. The consequences I see are here in the real world, denying people equal rights truly effects their life. Doing so because you believe bigotry to be spiritually required yields no good.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@HvensFury survey says...I answer to myself, and have to live with my own consequences. That is a far bigger responsibility than handing it all over to 'god'.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@HvensFury
No consequences? no one to answer to?
We have to answer to ourselves and to our community. the consequences of our actions take place in the real world.
We're good people because we realize that people have to live in this world and we're not complete immoral pricks.
As for you. Why be good when god will forgive you? Why keep the world a good place when it's just a place to wipe your feet before heaven?
It's kind of sad that you need a promise of reward to be moral. just selfish
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus Very nicely put
McAnkkuli 1 year ago
Evolution needs a long period of time , much longer than 14billion yrs -thats were it falls down , it would never have the time to accomplish what it thinks it has.
The earth is fine tuned , its perfect for life.
Don't say it is just so.
TheVictoria239 1 year ago
"Evolution needs a long period of time , much longer than 14billion yrs " And you know this how? Because an AiG article told you so? What' is your source?
Information's only as good as it's source and I would be checking my sources if I were you.
It's no suprise that your faith in the sources of information you use is closely tied to your faith in some god(s). If you didn't need faith to believe in god(s), you wouldn't be able to believe 'facts' that are false. Faith kills thought.
3point14rat 1 year ago
@TheVictorie239. The Earth, where 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Where only a quarter of the surface is even remotely habitable to us. With another enormous chunk of that being covered in desert, both arid and arctic, and inhospitable. Your concept of fine-tuning leaves much to be desired.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@TheVictoria239
1. I would like to see you're source.
2. The world most certainly isn't fine tuned for life. A vast majority of it is completely inhospitable and when you expand the fine tuning idea to the rest of the universe, the portion of the universe that we can survive in is infinitely small compared to the portion that would kill us in seconds.
It is arrogant and ignorant to think the universe was created for us.
MelowMurder 1 year ago
good stuff cdk007 once again thanks for your dedication
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
To ironman197268 , PRO - ATHEISM means IN FAVOR of atheism. It does not imply professional atheism. Are you some kind of a retard or what?
SteveCTZ 1 year ago
@SteveCTZ
is what you call professional atheism akin to anti-theism?
types10000 1 year ago
What are u on about?
SteveCTZ 1 year ago
@SteveCTZ
Well atheism is basically anything that precludes belief in theism hence the 'a' prefix. this includes new born babies, buddhists .etc
an anti-theist is someone who actively disbelieves in theism. it's an affirmative claim.
for instance a person may be an atheist but not an anti-theist but every anti-theist has to be an atheist.
types10000 1 year ago
Sure..I have no problem with your explanation.
But I didn´t call anything PROFESSIONAL ATHEISM. I was just responding to a post by ironman197268
SteveCTZ 1 year ago
I'd have thought pro-atheism is a form of atheism that has lost its amateur status. But thanks for correcting me!
;)
eshnajizzle 1 year ago
Atheism means without theism as denoted by the 'a' prefix. it refers to any position that precludes theism which is defined as belief in a God.
Anti-theism is effectively 'disbelief'.
atheism can apply to new born babies, buddhists .etc .etc as they do not hold a belief in a God.
types10000 1 year ago
The 'a' prefix means 'without'. An 'anti' prefix means 'against'. There's lots of difference between the two.
So when someone says that I'm against their god, they're confusing the two prefixes, because I simply don't believe any god(s) exist.
Everyone is an 'aflying-pigist', in that they don't believe flying pigs exist. No one is an 'antiflying-pigist' because it's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist.
When religion eventually fades away, everyone wil be an atheist.
3point14rat 1 year ago
@3point14rat
Anti-Theists:
Dawkins, Hitchens .etc .etc
Atheists:
Buddhists, new born babies .etc .etc
but is it apt to say all anti-theists are atheists?
types10000 1 year ago
"but is it apt to say all anti-theists are atheists? " I'd say yes. It would be hard to be against all religions yet believe in what they are based on (unless you think all gods are evil, and reject worshiping them.) I agree with the rest.
All religious people are atheists and anti-theists towards all other religions. I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm fairly anti-theist too- I don't like thinking that people don't know and/or care to accept reality and replace it with faith.
3point14rat 1 year ago
What is it with Americans saying things like "1000 milliseconds" and "0.01 kilometers."? The WHOLE POINT of having different based 10 prefixes is so that you can use the most appropriate one. 0.01 kilometers is 10 meters. 1000 milliseconds is 1 second. I've even heard some Americans who seem to think that a kilometer is a basic metric unit...a university professor, for one .
The whole point of metric is that it's dead simple...a little child can understand it. So what do Americans fuck it up?
andy16666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andy16666
"So what do Americans fuck it up? " -
they work with the imperial system still...i think it has something to do with penis measurement and feelings of inadequacy...i'll keep you posted.
types10000 1 year ago
If I say "in 5 milliseconds, X happens," but want to say that in one second, Y happens, it would make sense to say that Y happens in 1000 milliseconds. It's the context.
Jeez, prejudice much?
chadachada123 1 year ago
Hey Creationists, where's your peer reviewed scientific studies that show Evidence for creation.. oh wait there is none because your all fucking morons!
markDMH1 1 year ago
God created everything, including science, and your stupid so called PEER REVIEWD garbage. Oh you bet God created stupidity too, only people like you that blaspheme him end up diseased buy it!!
You can take you SCIENTEFIC PEER papers and wipe your corn hole with em, and then stuff your pie hole with PEER POOP PAPERS Infidel!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268
I think you've proven my point about creationists being fucking morons quite nicely. Thanks for supporting Atheism by showing people how ignorant, belligerent and down right stupid you are.
markDMH1 1 year ago
I've done nothing what so ever to support atheism, Ive only made it and you look even stupider. If your comment is true you would have revealed the explanation as to how I supported atheism, but.. you didn't. Terrible try you atheist Clown. Bwuuaaahahaha!!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
And you thinking I'm being belligerent and stupid is just your stupid opinion.
ironman197268 1 year ago
you support Atheism by leading as an example of a crazed, moronic, trolling christian. If you seriously believe in the magic man in the sky has a plan for us crap, and hold that conviction so strongly that you troll on pro-atheism videos not to mention misspelling the word scientific, then yes, you are a belligerent moron..
markDMH1 1 year ago
So you're saying atheists are crazed, moronic, trolling, Christians...Whaauuhh?? That doesn't support it. These videos show up on my "recommended for you" videos on YouTube, I watch them so I know that side of the story too, not to mention they are directed at Christians and creationists. I'm not scared to watch em, cause I know they're going to be full of it!! You need to look up the definition of belligerent and get someone to explain to you what it means, and where did I misspell scientific?
ironman197268 1 year ago
And how bout you and kind try to keep you insecurity a secret buy not pointing out grammatical errors, using fowl language, and intellectual insults and such. What is pro atheism? Are there professional atheist out there?
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman
haha your just hilarious.. I think to go on debating you in the finer points of the English language would be a moot point due to your IQ
Also maybe it is you who needs to re-look up the definition of belligerent, ie. hostile. In a previous comment you stated:
"You can take you SCIENTEFIC PEER papers and wipe your corn hole with em" (coincidently this is where you misspelled scientific)
you see to me that comes off as belligerence, not to mention idiotic, moronic and FUCKING RETARDED!
markDMH1 1 year ago
Your response is weak and hollow just the way you and all your atheist buddies are, you have absoulutly nothing on me and cannot refute me in any way!! All you do is dig up your meaningless statements and mindless comments from the previous comments in an attempt to make me out to be the inferior one!! Do you really think a FUCKING RETARD is capable of all this? You, are the one that sounds retarded!! Try again Blasphemer...Bwuuaahahahaaaa!!!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
You can't refute circular reasoning and/or utter ignorance (you choose the definition of 'ignorance'- they both suit you), so don't brag that no one can refute what you're parroting.
Only another ignoramus using circular logic could knock you from your baseless pedestal, and that would likely be by convincing you of the 'truth' of something even more ridiculous.
"Do you really think a FUCKING RETARD is capable of all this?" Since you're the proof, I guess the answer is obviously "yes".
3point14rat 1 year ago
lalalalaaaa...LOL
SteveCTZ 1 year ago
"Since you're the proof, I guess the answer is obviously "yes". " - i dont care what side of the debate your on +1
types10000 1 year ago
@ironman197268
When did god create science? I must of miss that part of science cause last time I checked there was no evidence of him in science. So god created stupidity in his image too? That might explain all the screw ups in his "designs".
Got to love how creationist hate peer review just because they can't understand it. Have you ever tried to read a peer reviewed paper? Some of them are really good and they've actually advanced scociety
vnorthru 1 year ago
The examples at the beginning of the first video are irrelevant, so I am not bothering with them. The author of this video states (3:17) that 75 mutations OCCUR per haploid generations, and changes this word to ACCRUE at 3:30 into the video. Not all mutations that occur, accrue however. Based on the number of mutations that occur, the author basically states that between the chimp and the human populations, 8.75 mutations will accrue per year.
robertvroom 2 years ago
His statement is that in 1 million years a total of 8.75 million mutations will build up between our species, as if there is some reason to think that every mutation that occurs will accrue and be forever a part of the genome. He then states that his numbers do not take selective pressures into considerations as if this helps the creationist cause. Selective pressures DECREASE the number of mutations that will accrue however.
robertvroom 2 years ago
This is true up to and including completely wiping out certain lines that would contain a large number of these mutations.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Using the numbers from the first video, if there are an average of 8.75 mutations that occur per year, if the Human and Chimp lines split 8 mil years ago, about 70 mil total mutations would have occurred. The author states that there are about 40 mil mutations required to develop the two lines. Most mutations are harmful, which from what I understand means that most will be bred out of the population over time. Other mutations are useful, but the group that carried the mutation was wiped out
robertvroom 2 years ago
(Other hominid species or a group of humans/chimps that was wiped out in a disaster).
If most mutations are harmful, and a large number of beneficial mutations do not carry on due to other reasons (extinction, volcanoes taking out a group...), it seems highly unlikely that such a split between chimps and humans would be likely in 8,000,000 years.
Another number from the video... Our species took different paths 5-6 million years ago (3:59), further reducing time available.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Except that most mutations arent harmful. Most mutations have very little or no effect on our survival as an animal.
Do you think the first person to have blue eyes was at a disadvantage to the others who have brown eyes. And thats a very big mutation (probably lots of small ones) but the point is, it didnt make any difference.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
Comment removed
robertvroom 2 years ago
Raptor, here are some quotes from the scientist quoted at 3:17. Blank spaces are periods.
bio indiana edu / facultyresearch / faculty / Lynch html
These results, along with our theoretical work on network evolution, challenge the popular idea that modularity arises as a direct consequence of selection for morphological complexity, and by extension raise questions about the common assumption that natural selection was responsible for the emergence of multicellularity.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Our work on intron evolution is focused on the hypothesis that newly arisen introns are typically mildly deleterious
Although mutations provide the ultimate material upon which natural selection depends, most mutations are deleterious, and in certain population settings, can lead to a substantial fitness load.
Most mutations do damage the organism.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Wrong. Most mutations are strictly neutral. Even rather big ones like colour changes are not always harmful. Hence why we have a huge variety of dogs.
In fact, most mutations, even those perceived as harmful in hind sight are not actually dangerous to the animal that "evolved" it.
Take for example mammoths evolved long hair. When this happened, it was an advantage because the climate was a lot colder. Now they are extinct because they could not survive the rapid temperature increase.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
But you couldnt say at the time that the mutation to give the ancient elephants longer hair was a bad thing. Only time tells whether a neutral mutation turns into a harmful one or not. Strictly advantageous ones are spread quickly, whilst strictly harmful mutations kill the animal quickly, stopping it from reproducing thus removing the harmful mutation from the gene pool.
Google "are most mutations harmful" to get a proper answer.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
Raptor, the website I provided is for a scientist that CDK quotes at 3:17 to make his point. The quotes all come from that site. Google the name of the article at 3:12 and read the last 2 paragraphs. This article also states that most mutations are harmful. These are not my sources, they are CDK's.
robertvroom 2 years ago
I read it, and from what I could tell, as it was just a short paragraph where the rest was just agreeing with evolution, it was either talking about mutations in animals after they were born. Then mutations are harmful, but you dont evolve once you are born. It was that or speaking about asexual reproduction.
Go and find more sources.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
Raptor, I am not claiming that CDKs references disagree with evolution, I am saying that using the sources given in this video, you can tear the video to shreds. Here is one quote from the article that is used at 3:12; each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
robertvroom 2 years ago
At the beginning of the same paragraph the authors state, "The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction." The only answer they seem to come up with is that maybe a number of harmful mutations can work together to become beneficial, which is not a reasonable idea given that random mutation does not choose for characteristics.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Why is it unreasonable to say all mortality is due to natural selection? If not all, then probably the vast majority of death is due to poor genes.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
What does that have to do with the subject?
robertvroom 2 years ago
Just because all the mutations aren't kept around, do to selective pressures, doesn't stop the fact that the mutations till occur at that rate stated. If I buy a candy bar everyday for a year and end up throwing 100 of them away, doesn't mean I didn't buy 365 candy bars.
MegaVolcano 2 years ago
Volcano, according to the video, over 50% of the mutations would need to survive the 5-6 million year period. This is not even remotely probable.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Volcano, for CDKs numbers to be correct, well over 50% of all mutations would need to survive for 5-6 million years. This is not realistic.
robertvroom 2 years ago
Of course it's realistic. Some of the mutations would further mutate through time, but the result of the original mutations would still persist.
MegaVolcano 2 years ago
So, some humans walk zero meters per second and some walk two meters per second right? When did Niagara falls start moving backwards cdk007? You may be ok at making stupid videos, but whats in them is comical, ridiculously inaccurate, and your math is terrible!! Where are these 40 million mutations separating these species? Man, I think you a probably the worst evilutionist on youtube!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
ironman197268, what you have just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading these comments is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
IlGreven 2 years ago
May God have mercy on my soul. Just for a comment I made on youtube. You're reading these comments, are you saying that you're even dumber now? I was going to say that you're stupid but you pretty much sad it for me!! And I'm not trying to earn points, and God does not need to have any mercy on my soul.
ironman197268 2 years ago
Well, let's see here. In your first comment, you reveal you don't understand basic math (averages) or basic science (erosion), so when you try and refute advanced science (mutations) you obviously can't do anything but look idiotic. And in your reply, you reveal you don't understand basic popular culture (the entire post was cribbed from Billy Madison). And you're obviously not interested in learning about any of it. Yeah, I would say your idiocy is rubbing off on me and everyone around here.
IlGreven 2 years ago
@ironman197268 what the fuck is wrong with the world?
fairyheli2 2 years ago
Says an obvious retard.
I would stick to picking your nose and drooling it suits you far better.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Obvious retard? That would mean you would have had to have met me and confirmed that I am retarded. However, that is a typical thing for an evolutionist to say considering all the other assumptions you make. You evoheads sure do stand up to your reputation. And, what is it with evolutionists obsession with retards? Is it what you fall back on because of your overwhelming abundance of insecurity you have about your evilution delusion?
ironman197268 2 years ago
Try getting an education before you criticise evolution.
But youre not going to get any facts are you, that would burst your bubble wouldnt it.
People like you use your ignorance like a shield to hide your silly beliefs from the glaring light of reality.
I take back the retard and replace it with willingly ignorant and uneducated.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
An education isn't needed to criticise something so stupid!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
@ironman197268
What the fuck?
l3u11e7pr00f 1 year ago
What a stupid video still. Just a bunch of cheesy illustrations on time and distance gaps that have nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous OLD Earth theory.
ironman197268 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Just a bunch of cheesy illustrations on time and distance gaps that have nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous OLD Earth theory. " Yeah, if only people would count up 'begat's in the Babble!
MsCoralline 1 year ago
For a contant process:
Small change over a short period of time
leads to
Large change over a long period of time
The examples are there to try and make people like you understand. It has been scientifically proven that our planet is older than what the bible says.
l3u11e7pr00f 1 year ago
I'm very well aware of what this ridiculous video is trying to say. I also know exactly how big of a difference there is between 6000 years and 4,600,000,000 years. For someone to say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old is ludacris, and scientifically proven is even worse!! Nothing about the Earth being that old is scientifically proven whether you like it or not. The story has changed before and it will change again, and again. The Bible has always been the same story, and always will be.
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268
"The Bible has always been the same story, and always will be"
and this is why I wouldn't trust the bible because doesn't matter how many times it's proven wrong it still maintains the same lies. Science changes as we learn more and therefore self corrects. I'll be trusting the science since it has actually given us technology and modern medicine.
Sorry but your ignorance of the evidence does not make it go away it just demonstrates you do not comprehend science.
vnorthru 1 year ago
Ya man. There are old cities (megalithic) on the ocean floors of Japan, India etc. Science, religion (genius)logic in general cannot explain that away. because everyone is being kept in the dark from reality. and there is no monetary profit in the reality.
oldhank2003 2 years ago
yes great vid fuck religion
patrickledford420 2 years ago
Had to stop the film at 3:40 I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Oh no! My "faith" in science is shattered. There is no way that monkeys could have evolved from GW Bush in such a short period of time. :-D
Dnetgear 2 years ago
You don't have to be religious to understand abstract concepts such as Good, Evil, Love. I think the point has been made by many good atheists that it is our humanity (big brains) that allows us to make sense of the world. There are more definitions of good and evil than "good is what pleases God", such as "good is avoiding harm (pain and suffering)", or "good is what benefits the community as a whole", etc etc..
8DX 2 years ago
Good, evil and Love are all subjective things by nature then.
DSowns1111 2 years ago
That depends: subjective from the point of view of the universe, or the planet. Or of any "innate" meaning. But the "absolute" meanings given to these words when adding a God don't really change the fact that for humans they ARE subjective (subject to the time, the place, the person - murder vs execution vs. self-defence). But personally I think there is an "objective" or ideal dimension underlying all abstract terms - take truth for instance - (absolute) mathematical truth does exist.
8DX 2 years ago
sorry i got cut off.why is there no archeological evididence to support these claims? A measily old hundred thousands years of evolving must have left some kinda evidence(that ould cover their scientific asses).
oldhank2003 2 years ago
...did cdk say the chimp-human divide took a hundred thousand years?
...on the other hand, if you're talking about speciation of the genus that we're in, we have plenty of that in the archaeological record. There are homonoid fossils that are not Homo sapiens, but were buried with fashioned tools (Neanderthals, Homo habilis, etc.) If you're looking for 100,000 year-old cities, though, you're going to be looking a long time.
IlGreven 2 years ago
Sounds like it could b possible. If you others facts are not considered, su
oldhank2003 2 years ago
I love the music you put in your videos. Classical music FTW!
Omnywrench 2 years ago
Great video! Your point is one that has needed to be made...
Watch out though, creationists use linear progressions to extrapolate a shrinking sun etc etc..
Keep up the good work, 5 stars!
8DX 2 years ago
I love the shrinking sun argument, because it absolutely reveals the YEC's lack of understanding of large numbers.
freakyphysicsguy 2 years ago
And I love the way it's actually possible to have a discussion with valid points .. under "evolutionist" videos. I tried debating the points made in Stevebee's videos (really stupid anti-evolution anti-dawkins vids) and was bombarded with insults and ridicule by the author and creationist commentators. They just didn't want to discuss.
8DX 2 years ago
BUT THEY HAD A DEADLINE!!!!!!!!!
As they rushed to genetically engineer a slave in their image, they made many mistakes along the way
We have almost 4000 genetic deformitys, the average amount one person has is about 150.
Thecrayzmapler 2 years ago
In search for truth EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY, Both INVALID AND VALID hypothesis, because how one can tell it is the TRUTH/FACT, when it is not tested.
noudge 2 years ago
Another point id like to bring up is WHY the annunaki wanted to genetically engineer us.. Well the answer is quite simple... GOLD.
The annunaki needed a Heat-Shield, and GOLD was there heat shield, i aint to allien scientist, dont ask me why they wanted gold, but thats what they needed.
The annunaki needed a slave that could Mine on earth, They simply couldnt stand our enviroment, they needed an intelligent slave, that could live on earths enviroment.
Thecrayzmapler 2 years ago
What are you saying? Are you crazy?
noudge 2 years ago
Tiamat was almost 2/3 Bigger than earth is. And almost 80% water. therefore a WATER GIANT.
Nibiru itself didnt crash into tiamat, but one of its moons.
Many think Nibiru has an eliptical orbit around a neighboring solar system, and ours... It is a 3600 year orbit.
Many believe 2012 is when Nibiru will orbit near earth..... If this IS true, trust me.. it aint gonna be no sunday picnic.
Thecrayzmapler 2 years ago
But what crashed into tiamat??
Many belive "Planet X" Did, They also call that planet "Nibiru" And the Species that live on Nibiru are called the Annunaki.
The annunaki Genetically engineered us, the same way we genetically engineer the fruits and vegetables we eat today.
The annunaki, or 'GOD'
'God wanted to create us in HIS IMAGE' And so they did. They also wanted to incorporate Species of earth into this creation.
Thecrayzmapler 2 years ago
It's true that earth is a billion or so years old... but what they dont want you to know is.... earth wasnt around a billion years ago.
Before earth it was Tiamat, 'The Water Giant'
Supposdly, a planet's moon crashed into "Tiamat" causing tiamat to explode. Any life on Tiamat would have died...
1/2 of tiamat created the Astroid Belt
the other half created the Earth & The moon.
This crash occured 6000 YEARS AGO!!!
Therefore.... Evolution couldnt have occured.
Thecrayzmapler 2 years ago
also... If you want to accept the theory of BIG BANG which is currently accepted by the scientific community then the genesis makes no sense, since in the genesis earth was created before stars.. and that's not true... Big bang theory does not state that earth is the oldest planet in our universe.. Listen, you guys just cant accept that the whole bible is wrong and try to twist and turn the text around to make it fit with current scientific understanding. sorry to tell you, but it's not working.
gskowal 2 years ago
Was it wrong to repect your parents, to love others as you love yourself? And you will say the bible is totally wrong?
be careful to give a generalization kid, its not scientifically straight forward conclusion.
I better be investigating, than turning valuable oppurtuniy and just sit and sin and burn in Hell.
noudge 2 years ago
is it not possible to live a life free of sin without ever knowing about god? is it so mistaken to think that maybe the whole 'respect your elders' thing had started before there ever was a god to start it? is it also wrong to believe that the simple notion of 'i don't liek to be hit, maybe he won't liek being hit either, we shouldn't hit each other' was around before god or jessus ever showed up to the party that is humanity?
tzeentch5 2 years ago
also, if im not mistaken, humans existed before GOD and JESUS did, so why did god wait to reveal his existence to us? and why did he allow us to believe in other 'lesser' gods before he? wouldn't he have intentionally damned those humans to hell? (since if you don't believe in god and jessus you will automatically burn in hell), seems really weird that the all loving and omnipotent god would deliberatly damn his children to hell when he could've just told them that he exists.
tzeentch5 2 years ago
Actually what I am doing is revealing HIM. Now that you know/see Im preaching you are not anymore innocent to HIM. The only fault way back before was your forefathers deny to believe His existence just like ancient people did, or egyptians for example. It was evident that GOD diliberately shown His power to them but look, have they change their belief? I think not. So the unbelief of GOD was not His doing. ITs a fault of our forefathers.
noudge 2 years ago
why would i believe in your god and not any other god? y not mohommad or thor or zeus or the giant juju?
if you want to reveal him, then take a video camera and record him waving his magic wand and making something actually happen. and tell"him" to get to work and stop letting innocent children starve and suffer. your god is an idiot if he's real. Which he's not.
blacksabbathgnr098 2 years ago
If you think your life on Earth is important, you might think it that way.
Living in this world is like " Now, im here, then i dont".
Its just like a day.
Suffering and calamities are the ways to be purified and reflect that, Life was not that good enough. Calamity excuses no one, either you are poor or you are rich.
Life in this world is vanity, and what GOD emphasize are the afterlife.
noudge 2 years ago
So I should believe in your god because your god will burn me forever if I don't.
I take that as a reason not to believe in your god since your god sounds like a sociopath.
A belief based solely on fear, rather than evidence is not worth having. It is a sign of a paranoid psychotic state, such as being afraid of a mutant monkey in your closet when there is no evidence such a monkey exists.
cdk007 2 years ago
well there is no "afterlife" so basically you're just saying that life is vanity. Whose the pessimist now?
blacksabbathgnr098 2 years ago
lol noudge: if you want to reveal something, than prove that it exists. Telling someone that something exists that can't be proven or observed is pointless. I could tell you that chocolate Unicorns exist, but would i really be "revealing" anything?
If god exists then why doesn't he show his face? You know, come down from heaven and tell people: "i'm real"
If Jesus appeared before hundreds of ppl, then it clearly has no effect on free will.
blacksabbathgnr098 2 years ago
Pls, try to see my channel, my video Logical proof of GOD.
How can you see GOD when GOd exist more than the speed of light. Translating your physical form into light, you will surely die. No man has ever seen the face of GOD.
Please see my video. GOD is logical, if you just know the theory of relativity.
noudge 2 years ago
Video watched. No. No it doesn't You can't use science to prove the existence of your god. Because Science is based on Evidence.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
IF there be GOD he surely be defined in logical means and by science and mathematics He should confirm to it. GOD is truth and therefore, it will show an evidence on its logical existence.
MATTER, ENERGY & RELATIVITY THEORY suffice
the proof of his existence.
Are those theories not yet proven and not evidence for you to ignore. Relativity predicted the existence of blackholes, if you mind.
noudge 2 years ago
No. And you are making a claim for this beings existence. Present your evidence.
Other wise you sound like you are spouting random garble.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Sound like im into into debating a 4 year old child without any idea..
I SUGGEST,
Learn Physics and Mathematics, for that you will learn to appreciate its LOGICAL implications and predictions.
noudge 2 years ago
That's right. compare me to a four year old and tell me that I know nothing of physics or math.
Even four year olds hearing about god, and jesus will ask the question:
"Who's god's mom?"
It is a deceptively simple question.
Even a four year old knows that people come from people. Children come from their parents. And they are asking "Well this big man in the sky should also have a mommy right?"
In other words, even children recognize the question of:
"Ok You yutz. Were did god come from?"
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
And I do appreciate the logical implications and predictions.
Computers, Medical Science, Vaccines, the work done for the cures for things like cancer and aids. Along with the study of life and were it came from. The Predictive power that the Theory of Evolution has has been demonstrated. We have gone back to the rocks that should hold the right fossils that are the right age and predict what the animals of that period should look like.
And and you know what? We have and we found them.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
So you use the THEORY of relativity to prove that evolution is false and "just a theory"?
Kille24sthlm 2 years ago
Dont say that, i never said so..
Evoluition is a part of the making and factual in the aspect of genetics
However this is the uncleared questions for evolution
1)development of sexual organs from asexual to sexual organism
2)diversity of classes of specie
Given if we all came from the same specie of microbes( for 1 & 2)
3)there is no laboratory evidence that one specie of bacteria evolve to different classes of bacteria and form a more complex one.
noudge 2 years ago
.... That hurts my brain. Kille... make the stupid stop...
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Lastly. Lovely circle logic. You draw your sources from the bible (and I won't point out how flawed that is.) a book that claims to be right because it was written by god, and it was written by god therefor it is right.
I don't buy into that bunk.
That's a logical fallacy that doesn't prove anything outside itself.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
The bible is man written, but with the thought and wisdom of GOD.
Well, it prove to have relevance/consistent with science theory, relativity, the shape/form of the earth, and the creation of matter(defined existence) is true.
noudge 2 years ago
AH, Now we get to the circular reasoning.
"god said he wrote a book and this is the book because it says that god wrote it."
Circular reasoning doesn't work. It's just like If I were to say
"I'm smarter than you, therefor I am right, and I am right, therefor I am smarter than you."
It doesn't work.
I don't see anywhere in the bible were it talks about the curvature of space time or where jesus said unto them "Verily I say to you Let Energy be matter multiplied by the speed of light squared."
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Well, i suggest you go see my post in my channel the logical existence of GOD, to see my logical point
noudge 2 years ago
Why can't you explain it here? After all, it isn't like *takes a deep breath to shout this into your ear so you GET It*
"HAVEN'T HEARD IT BEFORE!"
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Yep, because you keep on arguing, like your circulars or whatever. And haven't consulted science bout your claims.
theist that can not prove there s no God in a scientific way is lame, dull, wanna be smart & think its cool. Are you lame my friend?
But how you deal with factual arguments suggest, you are one stupid brat, a shame to atheism.
Do you think Atheism or Christianism is cool, so either of the two is cool, you are gonna be there.
For Atheist sake, get a factual reason for your belief.
noudge 2 years ago
I am not your friend. I don't like having idiots for friends.
As far as your last statement goes. Learn English. Learn Grammar. It is easier to argue with people if you can speak their language.
However, I will tell you why Science has nothing to say about your god.
Science is a means of Naturally understanding the universe around us. Naturally. That means it doesn't draw on a supernatural explanation. And your god? That's a supernatural explanation. Also. Atheism means I reject all gods.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Oh sorry, its not a friend, i was wrong, perhaps a rat on a cage, on its rage.
Well, simply God is supernatural because there'll no known theory of man that can measure Him, thats my say.
But, what I was amazed, what he says in his words were traceable in science,consistently that is.
Sorry, I dismay you, friend. Even though you have a cat head as big as the big bang, HAUGHTY...tsk..tsk.. so PROUD yet not worhty.
noudge 2 years ago
That's right avoid all questions being asked by attacking my character instead of thinking about the theory at hand.
That's like if we were walking down the edge of a wide river and we needed to get across. No bridge in sight, and the river is descptivily deep in some parts.
You come up with an idea, and then present it to me.
To which I reply "That will never work because you're a christian."
See, I am attacking you and not even thinking about your idea. I am not weighing the merits and flaws.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Of that idea. I am attacking You as a person instead.
See how that doesn't work?
This is what you are doing to me right now.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Next, the reason that in Science "God did it" isn't an acceptable explanation is because you aren't really answering the question.
You are describing an entity doing something, but not were this entity came from or HOW they are doing it.
And the HOW is more important than the WHO doing it.
Let's say for example You tell us that there are some villagers who have found a way of making rocket fuel from coconuts.
I ask How they did it.
You say"Made it out of coconuts"
That's great, how'd they do it?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Dude, what the hell did you just say? English. Do you speak it motherfucker?
I don't care if you're Atheist or not, I can't support what you have to say when it's that unintelligible.
snoman99991 2 years ago
It say in form of a summary. Because if it will be in detailed, its mere bias to those who have less intellectual talents. The people who cant read and write. More. if its written in details, that will be as big book as the library or earth or the universe, to condense all knowledge, what then be the purpose when all is revealed?
Would it please the one that made it? Man is a free luncher then.