what a deceptive drawing. A pakicetus is a land mammal. A Rodhocetus is a land mammal and those artist rendering of webbed feet are complete fabrication. A durodon is a sea creature about 5 meters long. There is absolutely no connection between them. Dont believe me? look them up
The intermediates that were predicted to NOT exist now but now do, thx to Satan who's preventing us from believing the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing bronze-age primitives.
We have not only nostril-placements and auditory structures of the fossils, but Satan also implanted pseudogenes for olfactory perception, despite their being incapable of detecting scent! And the vestigial limbs INSIDE their bodies-
I'll be gullible and believe in the only explanation that makes sense, Common Ancestry.
Are the pictures of intermediates reconstructed from a few bones according to Evolutionary theory, or were the fossils well-preserved so their entire bodies were found?
@musikali1 Its a giant plot constructed by evil scientists who are NOT in the pursuit and exchange of knowledge, but rather in pursuit to keep us from believing in the talking snake, and that god created all the animals at the same time. Evolution is only a theory backed by mountains of stupid evil scientists literature (satan speak), and its much easier to believe adam came from dirt, and eve from his dirty rib. Fast foward: Satan took the removed the rabbit fossils from the jurrasic layers.
Are you a moron? You didn't address the question. Could you please give me a link to a photograph of the fossils Richard is talking about (NOT a drawing!). if not then STFU! Are scientists too poor to buy a camera?
@musikali1 Are you lazy? Do research on your own before asking questions. The focal point is the blow hole. The video shows the transitional fossils accounting for the upward migration of the blow hole
Would you know what you're looking at even if you did see the actual fossils? Do you know whale anatomy? Because I've also heard the opposite complaint that the fossils don't make sense to the untrained eye, so they want illustrations. Scientists just can't win with the public.
I wouldn't know anything about these bones and what they mean. It might even look like a stone and not a fossil (to me). What I'm saying is that in order to be convinced (or not) on your own that the evidence is strong - you need to study for years, and check whether everything is based on firm evidence. It's not so simple, and the interpretation of fossils might be based on conjectures.
The great thing about science is that scientists are all methodological bastards. They question each other's work, often with glee. Fossils aren't rushed to display. Many sit on shelves in dusty backrooms for years before they're cleaned, analyzed and analyzed again and again, and finally written up in obscure journals. Conjecture doesn't cut it. And when there is doubt, the words MAYBE or PERHAPS are emphasized, not omitted.
So you think that Scientists are evil..ha ha ha ha I have to laugh, you are joking of course !
You see with out Scientists you would be dead by now. Medical science has come a long way since Christ's time....Oh and do you really believe in Satan. Please could you prove it by showing a photo of him !
Whereas,now imagine a being,(I'll use the image of a man),holding this universe in his hands,WE as something finate,move along with this beings existance or 'growing up'making it possible for a finate universe
If the theory of a random chance were optional these two atoms would have collided at both the beginning and end of infinity,making our universe INFINATE,not having time,nor beginning.
God Bless+I would like toapologise for the people who mock and laugh over you with ignorance andarrogance
Infinity has no beginning, nor end, and therefore, no time (Otherwise it would not be infinate in nature, having itself, a starting point), EVERY outcome of tehse two atoms is found at any, and every point of infinity. For example, along a time line is a child growing up, but imagine that in infinity, a child is born, at that very exact moment it is fully grown. There are no truly random forces nor outcomes in infinity. Final part continued>
Every finate thing 1# obviously has to have time and 2# has to have a beginning. So if this chain of finate universes was infinate, this is a contradiction to fact. All things, either directly or indirectly stem from an infinate source.
After this is the theory of 'random chance'. Imagine a box (the box representing infinity) with two atoms, never losing energy travelling around a box. As soon as they collide, that is when the universe is made. Continued>
In my short life, I've seen a lot go under the name of God that I don't believe would not come from a loving and holy God.
I've heard several theories as to how the universe was created, e.g. point of singularity, M theory, etc. Every one of them uses the same concept for time. All universes begun, but it was an infinate chain of these universes beginning. Continued>
The Associated Press reports that paleontologists have found "the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered," which is about 49 million years old. Whale evolution has faced problems because of time allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. Evolution=fail
@philackey It doesn't negate evolution, it only means the original timeline believed for whales could be incorrect if the evidence pans out. This is exactly what science is all about, making observations, creating a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis (many times),and if the results prove the same confirming the hypothesis then you have the ground laid for scientific theory. With this new finding scientist can take it and reassess originally held concepts. Something religious dogma fails to do.
I speak of the evolution of genes needed to direct morphological development, control gene expression and its sequence. Back in the old days, the genes necessary to control/regulate gene expression and growth characteristics had yet to evolve into its modern day machinery.... wild things were much more possible! Morality is an entirely different beast. "Higher Intelligence" is the "natural" order of genetic adaptation. Wisdom is an ingredient of the evolutionary soup.
again another brilliant example which should help those who struggle to see facts! I think its so funny when people say show me the intermediate fossils their is plenty, in some respect every fossil is an intermediate form. in relation to the comments about war and religion its kind of a nonsensical question. whether religion causes wars or people, religion was made by man!! there's your answer
@saintoccasionally its not humanly possible to prove evolution neither creation. when we see the positive affect of christianity on todays world....i guest atheist can not but wonder. how can a group or believers in fairy tales work such wonders? because the best element in any given society are the religious element. u dont see people fleeing the church to seek refuge from drugs, prostitution moral decay etc those who are trouble flee toward the church.
@Helge129 no argument look around u. "christianity, & only "christianity is the ultimate foundation for democracy, liberty, conscience", and i would add human dignity..."which is the benchmark of western civilization "
there is, was & will be no other option.".we continue to nourish ourselves from these sources"..everything else is BS. part quote from a leading atheist. in other words he is saying christianity is right but he doesnt have the gust to accept it.
@Helge129 atheist have the lowest crime rate i dont know which countries have the most atheist...people flee worldly corruption to the church for inner peace etc not the other way around.. those who join churches confesses they decided to leave life on the street of drugs, pros, and misery.. gansters shun church, cuz they find no comfort there. doz of criminals turn themselves in thru a church in Chester PA the other day .
the church turn them in. there is a reason they chose the church.
@Helge129 christians have put together a system that works & works well so much so that no system measures up.. the source from which i get motivation to continue my christian walk must be a true source
the bible must be true it is evidence of circumstance. but atheism just floating in the wind. christians take on the weak social reject & tell them there is a better way. atheism teaches there is nothing wrong with u keep on living. ( A FORMER RICHARD DAWKINS ATHEIST DISAGREES) google it.
@Helge129 becuz atheism teaches nothing, "evidence of my illiteracy." what does that have to do with me? u need a counter case that atheism indeed put a system better than christianity. u can not cuz there is none. atheism do not dwell in details.. while their opponents are discussing the unique functions of the atoms, the arrangement of the universe, chris, dawkins etc make blanket statements: "belief in flying monsters, and giants in the sky" to the cheers of the audience.
@TheToosy congratulations on fitting the maximum possib le amount of bullshit and retarded nonsense per line into the space allowed for a youtube response
@WombatusMaximus thanks for reading my passages..someone made the observation that people use the internet to hurl insults & hurtful things at others as a form of therapy. I think u are familiar with this guy. he was a close confidant of the famous biologist from oxford until he became wiser. google him, and read his piece.
@Helge129 leading atheists believed atheism teaches nothing & have changed, likewise christians believed christianity is not true & switched to atheism. u present a stronger argument, as i mentioned it is not humanly possible to prove creation or god, but we are not living on who presents the best argument. all yor arguments amount to less than a hill of bean. people are hurting, they need healing & hope.only in the west u spend large sums of money to watch 2 folks debating back & forth.
@TheToosy So says the bible!!!!.....Slavery is condoned in the bible, where to buy them, how much to pay, how to beat them to death without being guilty of murder and how to will them to your children. The bible says so. The bible is just filth cherry picked to suit the beliefs of the day. The sooner it is ignored the better the world will be. Not one single passage in the gospels praises intelligence. Religion can't cope with intelligence.
@NotEnoughLions i wonder why todays christians dont condone slavery..have u thought about that? "the sooner it is ignored..." of the portion of society that has ignored the bible (the public school system in the united states & other countries) life has been really better..yea give me a break!..with 8,000 violent crimes for the school yr 2010 -2011 in philadelphia. if intelligence is about aborting a million babies....etc then its better for me to remain in the dark.
@Helge129 u often argue that christianity is mind control.. we humans need to be controlled we are not smart enough to maintain a balance society on our own.. in the US. alone how many police are on the streets even more that any 3rd world country i have lived in. & U.S has one of the highest literacy level. u need religion to speak to the heart of humans deterring them from crimes before it spills into the streets. w/o religion police will not be enough for the mayhem that will ensue
@TheToosy Australia has an atheist prime minister and their crime rate is less than the US. Same as Sweden and other godless European countries. Atheists have a lower divorce rate than the religious and commit less crimes than the religous. Check US prison statistics.
@NotEnoughLions amazing becuz of the prime minister belief system crime rate is down. there must be a reason why people forget the world & cling to christianity for refuge. no convert to christianity cafesses that he came to partake in the crime spree..that occur in christianity.. it is always their confession, ' they came in to flee from the wave of hatred, greed, emptiness, loneliness & all other mental anguish.
@Helge129 religion is not the cause of war, people are the cause of war. the KKK use the constitution to perpetuate racism its not the constitution fault. if all was peaceful thru out history up to now w/o religion than u sound to reason, but it is not so. its the "heart of man is desperately wicked" so says the bible. Humans are prone to do evil & if it is not curtailed it will explode and continue w?o end. just like the laws of inertia. CASE CLOSE think about all what i have said.
@TheToosy ''christians take on the weak social reject & tell them there is a better way. '' you also do that to gay people? And you lose Modern morality has NOTHING to do with your religion!
@MrThaPatrick u are right christians do take on the weak, but not to scorn or treat them as social rejects. to uplift their spirit & give hope. even tough some christians do, but the hallmark of christianity is not to bully the sinners which we all are.interestingly those who become christians want to assume a new culture. A culture that stands for something & values live. but we in the west have no culture, we value nothing but money & what it buys. anything goes here. & u know that.contd.
@MrThaPatrick admitting no culture is like drinking poison .if i want a sex change i'll get it.if i'll approve beast love, ill do it etc..the situation is of such that one of the fastest growing shows on TV in the U.S. is crime fighter or investigation Discovery. 'wife slowly poisons husbands for insurance & goes goes about daily routine as if she just spill milk on the floor. the list goes on..& there are intelligent talking heads on radio & TV willing to defend these acts to great lengths.
@MrThaPatrick what is modern morality? by the way this corrupt secular culture?no culture cover spheers
of our societies, church members, mosque goers& what have u. i see where yor intransigence comes from. A LACK OF CULTURE. u are blood boiling mad when christians witness. but silent when we make war on others who have done nothing to us.hold vigils when the state executes & say nothing about the murder that occur everyday. abortionists u pat on the back & disdain christians who condemn sin.
@TheToosy ''what is modern morality?'' we don't stone people to death/we do not kill our women because they were not a virgin/we don't kill women because we think there witches You want me to go on?
@TheSjaan105 u did not mention modern morality but i respond anyway.. i dont condone stoning people to death. christians forgives. i am a christian..u lump christians & muslim together. muslims stone people to death..as a matter of fact a lady was stone to death in somalia some years back. westeners are afraid to confront islam, cuz u know what the consequence will be. they hunt u down & fire bomb yor house or dormitory. if u guys were in saudi Arabia u shut yor mouth if u want to live.
Are you really that dull witted? "The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." Are you really going to be an advocate for people to follow you into destruction? Is that really what you want to be known for? "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" I am sincerely sorry for you that you choose to be blind & miss the love of God.
It doesn't help your position at all to cut & paste from my statements. It's impossible to make adequate defenses 500 letters at a time on YouTube. If, without any effort, I can find a list of 700 scientists, from all scientific disciplines, who regard Darwinism as scientifically insufficient then how many are there out there? But that's what evolutionists do. They fail over & over again to defend their position and then attack useless side issues.
@Helge129 having 1 million scientist wouldnt sway either side. all the scientists have not produced 1 ounce of evidence because there is none.. no creature have been observed changing....except in the womb from a fetus to a human or animal. on the flip side its not humanly possible to proof creation. the only proof we have is we are here, & must have derived from somewhere.
@TheToosy Seeing one creature directly change into another would be strong evidence against evolution - evolution doesn't do that. Evolution is simply the change of allele frequency over generations.
"& must have derived from somewhere." Apes. As a matter of fact, we ARE still Great Apes.
@Helge129 think about this: archeologists discovers writing in a cave or pottery etc..which dates to a certain period... then digs up remains of people they believed live within that same time of the cave..they then link that population to the pottery or drawing...how do they know to link them..isnt that a leap of faith?
when christains use this same faith u say they are nuts. on that note why dont we start from today & trace our way back & see whether all make sense.
@Helge129 all institutions from which christians have been kicked out are doing worse then when christian were a part of. google public school violence in my city Baltimore & tell the result...google christian school violence in baltimore & tell us the result.. say what u may christians have put together a system that works & works well compared to any other system. im from a diplomat family, refugee all put together: spent most of my child & part adult living in various countries..c
@Helge129 all over the world u find christian school performing better. teachers are less paid & less qualified public schools: more money, more qualified teachers-under performing. only religion adequately addresses the problem plaguing humanity the problem facing humanity is not economic..its spiritual..if it were economic america would be no. 1 place to live in terms of quality of life. the crime alone i cant mention u want quality of life live in the 3rd world..there i grew up.
I have in my files a list of over 700 scientists calling for the re-evaluation of Darwinian evolution. The fanatsy just doesn't stand up any more. Technology has increased to the point that the falacies upon which evolution are built are now apparent to all. The only one's who still hold to evolution are those who need a pseudo-scientific justification for an immoral lifestyle. Evolution has been the justification of every evil from Naziism to communism to much worse. Darwin was a racist.
@Hagion7206 700 scientists? Is that all?? There are millions of trained scientists world-wide. Depending on how you define "scientist", a low figure I've found is 5.8 million. Why should we put the opinions of a puny 700 over the remaining 5,799,300? Furthermore, how many of your "scientists" are biologists? Also, scientific theories are constantly being reevaluated. That's how science works. Whether Darwin was racist or not is irrelevant to the validity of the theory.
Perhaps you would care to explain in what way you think that the lifestyle of Prof. Kenneth Miller (of Brown University) is immoral and how he uses his belief in evolution as a pseudo-scientific justification for that lifestyle.
And whist your about it, maybe you could explain how Ted Haggard for example uses the amazingly scientific theories of creationism to justify his exemplary moral lifestyle?
It would be a good place to mention that all science began with bible believing Christians who had a personal relationship with the God who created everything based upon laws. These scientists knew that much benefit could be obtained by investigating, discovering, quantifying and using these laws. Do even a cursory Web search on scientific discoveries by Christians it might help you to see the propaganda garbage your writting here as if it were truth.
@Hagion7206 Science began with "bible believing Christians" because to profess otherwise would get you a one way ticket to the stake, to be burned for heresy. Even after the burning stopped, other sanctions, such as social ostracization, continue to this day. It's safer now however, than it's ever been before, to be open about one's atheism, although there are still significant risks. There's a far higher proportion of scientists who are atheist than in the general population.
Equalandfree- You're lying & you know that you're lying. Creationists do scientific research all the time. If you're going to even try to be honest watch "No Intelligence Allowed." I doubt that you will watch it objectively...but it might get through to you. The evolutionists hold the doors to tenure and so they use that power to punish, castigate and humilate any scientist who stands opposed to the current fantasy of evolution...and you know it.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
There is not enough time or matter in the universe to provide opportunity for even one protien to form under the "rules" of evolutionary dogma let alone complex cells and don't even try to get to complex biological systems like fully functional animals. Life is not matter + energy. Life is matter + energy + information. That information is provided by an outside transcendent and intelligent source...God. Matter + energy = MORON. The bible provides for all of it. Evolution provides nothing!
@Hagion7206 If your theory is that evolution is impossible then just find ONE modern whale skeleton from 50 million years ago. If evolution doesn't happen then a whale fossil from 50 million years ago should be the same as one from today. Creationists NEVER do scientific research or publish scientific research papers. The problem is that Creationists NEVER seek factual evidence for their own theory - they simply stand on the sidelines and try to rubbish the best evidence-based explanation.
Who in their right mind would be convinced that a cow-like land animal evolved into a whale based on the fossil record? The amount of gradual changes needed would be phenominal if Darwinianian theory were correct and there just isn't the evidence. I see 3 propsed intermediates in Dawkin's land to see evolution. I'm afraid it just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).
@MrMalcie Whales and hippos probably diverged about 55 million years ago according to mitochondrial DNA evidence among other things. To put that in perspective, your index fingernails together could grow to a combined length of about 3900 km in that time (at ~35mm per year). That is the distance from New York to Los Angeles. You're underestimating how long 55 million years is.
If you actually want real evidence of whale evolution just wikipedia it and read all of the studies they cite.
@vicksoma Without the fossil evidence the length of time is irrelevant. Darwiniam evolution requires gradual changes to have taken place over a long period of time and so the theory demands evidence. The evidence for whale evolution via neo-Darwiniam mechanisms is not there. A major problem with neo-Darwiniam evolution is that it requires there to be no limitation to mutation and natural selection, whereas it has not be demonstrated to be limitless. It is speculation and extrapolation.
@MrMalcie I am amazed you managed to get something wrong in each and every sentence you typed. If you want evidence, it takes 10 seconds to google whale evolution and read some studies about it and find out how scientists know how it happened. Or you could get some whales and hippos and do your own study.
By the way you spelled "Darwinian" wrong 3 times, and there's no such thing as "neo-darwinian" evolution.
@vicksoma I can't believe you have not heard of Neo-Darwinism; Richard Dawkins would be most upset. Pointing out incorrect spellings due to a slip of the hand is petty and is probably your way of avoiding addressing the problems I raised. Where is the convincing fossil evidence for whale evolution which is what this video is about?
@UndeadAppleTree It's straightforward really. Darwinian evolution requires lots of small changes to have occurred gradually over millions of years. With such massive physiological changes that would be needed to turn a cow-like land animal into a whale you must expect to find a lot of transitional fossils to demonstrate this actually happened but we do not have them. What other scientific theory would be get away with such a lack of evidence?
@MrMalcie fossils are not easy to come by. Biologists are forced to figure everything out with what they have and figure out what's between the gaps. It's because of this that we never find the one fossil that shows the exact moment one species turns into another. You could think of it like getting a picture of you at age 5 and age 15; we don't have the "transitional pictures" between 5 and 15 but we know they're the same person and what might have occured in between.
@MrMalcie "Neo-darwinism" is different from "neo-darwinian evolution".
You ask where the convincing fossil evidence is and yet you admit this video is about that? Look at the fossils in the video, that's the fossil evidence for whale evolution.
But knowledge of evolution isn't based on finding fossils, it's based on genetic and protein analysis as well as comparative anatomy and many many other things. Fossils are just a bonus, and that's what this video is showing because it's simple to show.
@Haigon7206: Actually, it's interesting you should talk about sickle cell anemia as an example of how mutation is always bad. Sickle cell anemia CAN be advantageous under certain circumstances - it confers resistance to malaria. Cystic fibrosis confers resistance to cholera. Tay Sachs Disease confers resistance to tuberculosis. All emerged at points where these diseases were likely to kill a person a lot quicker than minor (most common) forms of these mutations.
It is NOT a misperception. There is NO example of a mutation ever increasing the amount of information in any genome. The very thought of it violates the entorpy law of thermodynamics...always has - always will. Everything tends toward decay, nothing tends toward increase. There is NO example of observed evolution anywhere in the fossil record, in nature or in the laboratory. ALL mutations result in information loss. That's why evolution is a philosophy, a bad one, not a science.
@Hagion7206 Actually, the second law of thermodynamics only applies in a CLOSED system; Earth is not a closed system because it recieves energy from the sun. The evidence for evolution was shown in the video with the nostrils of the skulls going higher up towards the head- yes, that is an example of fossil evidence and evolution has been witnessed in nature(ex. geckos) and in labs (bacteria) quite a few times already. do some research.
what does evolution have to do with god again? Oh, yes, you all believe things came about by magic and this threatens your belief system and therefore you reject it, because that's the fundamental tenet of religious faith and especially christian apologetics. Dismiss anything that contradicts scripture. What dishonesty. If you just used your brain you would realize evolution and god are compatible. Sadly, that's not the god of the abrahamic faiths. Did I say sadly? I meant fuck yes.
What I like the most about evolutionists is how they always hide their proof where no one (except them) can see it such as the intermediate species existing billions and billions of years ago. Because as everyone knows ALL mutations result in a LOSS of information not a beneficial gain (syckle cell enemea, MRSA)...except billions of years ago of course.
@Hagion7206 Mutations don't lead to a loss in information. That's a misconception. New information is regularly generated. Examples of entirely new traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment.
When I was a boy doctors used to routinely remove "vestigial" organs from small children...tonsils and appendix most notably. Amazing how the mortality rate of children decreased when objective "scientists" started leaving those vestigial organs alone. "Thinking themselves wise they became fools." Sort of like Dr. Spock appologizing for "ruining a generation of children". Well now I just think the world of Dr. Spock because he's sorry that he left God and objective morality out of his program.
You know what I'm really excited about? Apparently there's a new "missing link". EVERY missing link of the past has been shown to be a fabrication on the part of the "objective", no agenda "scientist." Give me a break. Evolution is a pathetic opiate for the conscience of people committed to living a life thumbing their nose at God. It's really very sad.
The first thing I learned in Economics is also the first thing that I learned about evolutionists...people lie. There are NO vestigial leg bones in whales. What are called vestigial leg bones are the basic skeletal structures needed for sexual reproduction. "Figures never lie but liars often figure" or for the evolutionist, the fossil record completely disproves evolution so evolutionists wrongly, and stupidly, reinterpret the fossil record. This man is a first rate idiot!
@Hagion7206 Uhm, I noticed your comment and I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you legitimately just don't know much about evolution and the fossil record, but "evolutionists" don't just lie to sound right or to make it seem like they understand. The only point of science IS TO understand. Also, even if the bones are used NOW for aid in sexual reproduction, their origins are likely the pelvis of their ancestors. Also, whales are just 1 example of vestigial limbs. Look at dolphins, snakes...
@Hagion7206 dogs, humans, apes, chickens, etc. The list is enormous. Also, vestigial organs, although convincing, are no where near the meat of the convincing evidence for evolution. That lies in genetics and the link in DNA between all organisms, genes, ring species, the rapid evolution of bacteria, and the testability of evolution. It's not some arbitrary little tale someone cooked up one afternoon. It's got more evidence than most theories out there. Btw Richard Dawkins is a pretty smart guy.
those arent fossils thats a picture you start off with calling it fossils. then you go on to partial skulls of who knows what species saying they are whales i feel like i watched a show about santa claus and the easter bunny. come on, Jesus is the way.this world was created like the Bible says.
Is Richard Dawkins deliberately trying to deceive us? Those ''vestigal'' bones buried in the whales body have been showed to be used in reproduction. Typical evolutionary nonsense retarding science. '"We don't know what it does so it must be a remnant from its evolutionary past'". Just because you can line up a few fossils that show the imaginary sequence from land mammal to sea going mammal doesn't mean the're intermediates.
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr "Okay... I saw in a comment you wrote how you rejected radiometric dating, which means rejecting scientific evidence for the age of both the layers and the fossils."
Why haven't you rejected it as well?
It doesn't work!
It's been proven!
How can we radiometric date newly made volcanic rock to millions of years?
Why do you have any faith in what radiometric dating says?
Are you that blind?
I know your not stupid, so what is the problem here?
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
@flyingscience2 ... point to an earth which is roughly 4.6 billion years old? Science is not a cluster of incoherent theories, science is a unit (which does not include pseudosciences like "flood geology" or "creation science"). If evolution was wrong, for example why do plate tectonics PROVE an old earth? The entire DNA PROVES evolution by clearly demonstrating a common descent. Inform yourself about the chromosome nr. 2 and tell me what you think about it.
@flyingscience2 ... point to an earth which is roughly 4.6 billion years old? Science is not a cluster of incoherent theories, science is a unit (which does not include pseudosciences like "flood geology" or "creation science"). If evolution was wrong, for example why do plate tectonics PROVE an old earth? The entire DNA PROVES evolution by clearly demonstrating a common descent. Inform yourself about the chromosome nr. 2 and tell me what you think about it.
@flyingscience2 Radiometric dating, get into it. How about genomic evidence? Vestigial organs? Comparative anatomy? Comparative physiology? Geographical distribution? Observational evidence? You do understand, of course, that the fossil record is the weakest evidence for evolution. You do also realize, of course, that all of the evidence for evolution points in the same direction, right?
@authorless You brought up Radiometric dating, genomic evidence, Vestigial organs, Comparative anatomy, Comparative physiology, Geographical distribution, Observational evidence and said absolutely nothing about any of the things you brought up LOL.
@flyingscience2 The point is really quite simple, and even you can understand it: Your attack is on the fossil record, which is but one of the domains of knowledge that verifies evolution. I needn't say anything about them other than what they are, you are a big boy, you can do a web search. I know there are some big words in there, li'l slugger, but you can get through it. Now, as your superior in every way, I am allowing you to have the last word, enjoy.
No new species. No known mechanism of evolution No fossil evidence No order in the fossils No evidence that evolution is possible No evidence from similarities No vestigial organs No recapitulation Yes assertions Yes fraud Yes wishful Thinking Yes misunderstandings But no evidence. Darwin saw no fossil evidence and even said if none were found and if the mecanism of evolution cannot be found, then he was wrong. For 150 years we have been looking for clear evidence and we have none.
@flyingscience2 Looks like I'm much younger than you but still know more about discussing. What I said about the fossils WAS a proof of evolution, you jackass. It is simply not possible that someting like this has happened by sheer accident. You are not bringing arguments, you are simply saying that evolution is unfalsifiable, and I have already refuted that. What do you think about the rock layers and the fossils? This is evidence for evolution. Dont' you want to talk about it?
Your so religious that it doesn't even occur to you that you are.
Your mega religious.
You believe a theory with zero evidence.
As a matter of fact you believe in a theory with evidence against it yet you still hold on to your belief.
I on the other hand can look at thousands of years of prophecy (delivered), the creation (obviously delivered), and the prophecy about mockers -you-(delivered).
@flyingscience2 Calling yourself better educated on the subject than me and asking for evidence? Fine. Lets get started: Since the beginning of modern archeology, scientists have found millions of fossils all around the globe. By analysing the exact rock layer, you can relate them to other fossils in different rock layers. If one fossil was found in the wrong rock layer(for example a modern rabbit in a rock layer with dinosaurs), the entire evolution theory would break.
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr You mean sedimentary layer, not rock layer, right? Just checking genius. Stop trying to upstage me. You are too uneducated on the subject. I'm trying to educate you but you have to help me a little. If you fight me it's a waste of time. Lets start with the layers of fossils. Did you know we know the age of the strata by the fossils in them? Did you also know we know the age of the fossils by the strata they are in? Have fun dissecting that. They are fooling you.
@flyingscience2 "They believe because they must believe." did you ever hear an evolutionist or an atheist say believe the theory evolutionist or suffer in the lake of fire? No, that's the religionus people
@flyingscience2 You don't get it, do you? EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. Just like every person is in a transitional stage between fetus and adult. What you seem to be looking for is a bearded baby - which is not something the theory of aging would predict.
Vestigial or remnant bones...what! That old fairy tale is still around? Ha it has sense been proven that those are NOT vestigial bones but are used to anchor the muscles of the whale genitalia. Without these vital bones whales could not reproduce. It really is funny how so called 'scientist' with fill in the gaps with nonsense to fit their theory when something is just unknown at the time. The facts should support your theory not fairy tale junk science....LOL
I wouldn't try to reason with an atheist. They will push whatever non-scientific mumbo jumbo they can just to cover up the existence of God. They are unable to utilize their critical thinking skills after being brainwashed with junk science in the public school system. Once they stop following the "religion" of evolution, only then will you be able to reason with them.
@flyingscience2 delete your account and start a new one. If you think you know biology, you don't, and are a willing charlatan. Paleontologists know how animals walked or swam based on bone structure, bone thickness, bone density, air density, etc. They don't just "imagine" dinosaur bones how T rex's walked, dipshit. Nor do they "imagine" the back legs. How does Dawkins explain the snout that moved upwards throughout these intermediate species? Here I'll help you, Mr.. Science
@flyingscience2 "how bitter, angry and profane you are" Because I am sick and tired of people poisoning good sound science in favor of faith based bullcrap. I can give you dozens of scientific biology groups and paleontology societies that all say evolution is true. I don't know what else you want. the fossils are there, genetics confirms it. I will give you a site for example just because I have them at my disposal. ornl. gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml there
@flyingscience2 No, I am sorry, but there is no faith involved in demonstrable evidence. I am in college studying biology and I can, with my own hands, do work with DNA. I am sorry that you base your life on faith and not demonstrable reality. And this is why faiths do not agree with one another.
Something tells me you have seen the evidence and probably are a conspiracy theorist... I invite you right now, to come to Maryland, US. At the university of maryland, baltimore county, to be demonstrated bacterial evolution. We KNOW the mechanisms of DNA, and people study it for a living... Are you kidding me telling me that science is faith? How the fuck are you using a computer right now?
@flyingscience2 "No new genetic information is needed to do this.
We have documented new proteins coming into existence, do you know what transcription and translation is? It means amino acids can form randomly into new sequences, there are so many things we've discovered about DNA and RNA, and mutation.. So much information out there. The facts are humans and other animals evolve in the same way that bacteria do. It works per generation, small changes and variation and natural selection of them
@flyingscience2 Your bacteria will never "Evolve" into a new life form nor will a dog change into a different kind of animal.
Genetic diversity automatically means they have the potential to have varied offspring. Proteins and RNA and structural components of organisms can lead to what we would call a new species, meaning they cannot breeed anymore.. it is due to variation. Look up polyploid new species, we have documented many species that can make new species in ONE generation, EVOLUTION
Ahahahaha!!! Sooo BS!!!
bp50blu 14 hours ago
Take THAT atheists! wait...
pyrea17 6 days ago
Those bones weren't legs, whales actually use those to reproduce. They are still attached to their muscles.
eetjaarem 2 weeks ago
Creationism is bullshat.. fuck you relgious bastards!!.. Fuck your bronze age uneducated prophets.
rp007007007 3 weeks ago
@rp007007007
you on the other hand come across much more intelligent.....
eetjaarem 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hahahaha....oh crime & punishment! i betcha that Dawkins could make a chart that says Mongols & Hells Angels don't shoot each other in the streets.
THIS is a LOAD of BULL****
anyway
CHERISH is the new love
FlyingAxblade 3 weeks ago
@FlyingAxblade Go suck JC's cock
rp007007007 3 weeks ago
what a deceptive drawing. A pakicetus is a land mammal. A Rodhocetus is a land mammal and those artist rendering of webbed feet are complete fabrication. A durodon is a sea creature about 5 meters long. There is absolutely no connection between them. Dont believe me? look them up
rn502pd 3 weeks ago
@rn502pd god is a bastard too
rp007007007 3 weeks ago
All fossiles are intermediate fossils
Paumonsu 4 weeks ago
The intermediates that were predicted to NOT exist now but now do, thx to Satan who's preventing us from believing the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing bronze-age primitives.
We have not only nostril-placements and auditory structures of the fossils, but Satan also implanted pseudogenes for olfactory perception, despite their being incapable of detecting scent! And the vestigial limbs INSIDE their bodies-
I'll be gullible and believe in the only explanation that makes sense, Common Ancestry.
727Phoenix 4 weeks ago
creationist : "But now there are more intermediate gaps !!!"
LOL ;)
test123ok 1 month ago
Did he just say "paki foetus" lol
CokeSupply 1 month ago
Are the pictures of intermediates reconstructed from a few bones according to Evolutionary theory, or were the fossils well-preserved so their entire bodies were found?
musikali1 1 month ago
@musikali1 Its a giant plot constructed by evil scientists who are NOT in the pursuit and exchange of knowledge, but rather in pursuit to keep us from believing in the talking snake, and that god created all the animals at the same time. Evolution is only a theory backed by mountains of stupid evil scientists literature (satan speak), and its much easier to believe adam came from dirt, and eve from his dirty rib. Fast foward: Satan took the removed the rabbit fossils from the jurrasic layers.
Johnf85 1 month ago
@Johnf85
Are you a moron? You didn't address the question. Could you please give me a link to a photograph of the fossils Richard is talking about (NOT a drawing!). if not then STFU! Are scientists too poor to buy a camera?
musikali1 1 month ago
@musikali1 Are you lazy? Do research on your own before asking questions. The focal point is the blow hole. The video shows the transitional fossils accounting for the upward migration of the blow hole
Johnf85 1 month ago
@musikali1
Would you know what you're looking at even if you did see the actual fossils? Do you know whale anatomy? Because I've also heard the opposite complaint that the fossils don't make sense to the untrained eye, so they want illustrations. Scientists just can't win with the public.
dudev 4 weeks ago
@dudev
I wouldn't know anything about these bones and what they mean. It might even look like a stone and not a fossil (to me). What I'm saying is that in order to be convinced (or not) on your own that the evidence is strong - you need to study for years, and check whether everything is based on firm evidence. It's not so simple, and the interpretation of fossils might be based on conjectures.
musikali1 4 weeks ago
@musikali1
The great thing about science is that scientists are all methodological bastards. They question each other's work, often with glee. Fossils aren't rushed to display. Many sit on shelves in dusty backrooms for years before they're cleaned, analyzed and analyzed again and again, and finally written up in obscure journals. Conjecture doesn't cut it. And when there is doubt, the words MAYBE or PERHAPS are emphasized, not omitted.
dudev 4 weeks ago
@musikali1 He gives the names. Google it.
IoEstasCedonta 3 weeks ago
@Johnf85
So you think that Scientists are evil..ha ha ha ha I have to laugh, you are joking of course !
You see with out Scientists you would be dead by now. Medical science has come a long way since Christ's time....Oh and do you really believe in Satan. Please could you prove it by showing a photo of him !
ikinmoore 4 weeks ago
Whereas,now imagine a being,(I'll use the image of a man),holding this universe in his hands,WE as something finate,move along with this beings existance or 'growing up'making it possible for a finate universe
If the theory of a random chance were optional these two atoms would have collided at both the beginning and end of infinity,making our universe INFINATE,not having time,nor beginning.
God Bless+I would like toapologise for the people who mock and laugh over you with ignorance andarrogance
joshual95 1 month ago
Infinity has no beginning, nor end, and therefore, no time (Otherwise it would not be infinate in nature, having itself, a starting point), EVERY outcome of tehse two atoms is found at any, and every point of infinity. For example, along a time line is a child growing up, but imagine that in infinity, a child is born, at that very exact moment it is fully grown. There are no truly random forces nor outcomes in infinity. Final part continued>
joshual95 1 month ago
Every finate thing 1# obviously has to have time and 2# has to have a beginning. So if this chain of finate universes was infinate, this is a contradiction to fact. All things, either directly or indirectly stem from an infinate source.
After this is the theory of 'random chance'. Imagine a box (the box representing infinity) with two atoms, never losing energy travelling around a box. As soon as they collide, that is when the universe is made. Continued>
joshual95 1 month ago
I am a thiest.
In my short life, I've seen a lot go under the name of God that I don't believe would not come from a loving and holy God.
I've heard several theories as to how the universe was created, e.g. point of singularity, M theory, etc. Every one of them uses the same concept for time. All universes begun, but it was an infinate chain of these universes beginning. Continued>
joshual95 1 month ago
The Associated Press reports that paleontologists have found "the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered," which is about 49 million years old. Whale evolution has faced problems because of time allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. Evolution=fail
philackey 1 month ago
@philackey It doesn't negate evolution, it only means the original timeline believed for whales could be incorrect if the evidence pans out. This is exactly what science is all about, making observations, creating a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis (many times),and if the results prove the same confirming the hypothesis then you have the ground laid for scientific theory. With this new finding scientist can take it and reassess originally held concepts. Something religious dogma fails to do.
SecularConservative1 1 month ago
I speak of the evolution of genes needed to direct morphological development, control gene expression and its sequence. Back in the old days, the genes necessary to control/regulate gene expression and growth characteristics had yet to evolve into its modern day machinery.... wild things were much more possible! Morality is an entirely different beast. "Higher Intelligence" is the "natural" order of genetic adaptation. Wisdom is an ingredient of the evolutionary soup.
ohwhererehwho 2 months ago
xEgoTviSCMQ
worldfossilsociety 2 months ago
BS
mmnasir1000 2 months ago
Nothing is true
Entropy56 2 months ago
again another brilliant example which should help those who struggle to see facts! I think its so funny when people say show me the intermediate fossils their is plenty, in some respect every fossil is an intermediate form. in relation to the comments about war and religion its kind of a nonsensical question. whether religion causes wars or people, religion was made by man!! there's your answer
scottishguy100 2 months ago
I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.
saintoccasionally 2 months ago
@saintoccasionally its not humanly possible to prove evolution neither creation. when we see the positive affect of christianity on todays world....i guest atheist can not but wonder. how can a group or believers in fairy tales work such wonders? because the best element in any given society are the religious element. u dont see people fleeing the church to seek refuge from drugs, prostitution moral decay etc those who are trouble flee toward the church.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy I...Damn. No comment. You bring up the same, over and over debunked arguments as any other creationist.
If you took the time to check, you'd see that the countries with the most atheists happen to be the ones with lowest crime-rate.
Helge129 2 months ago
@Helge129 no argument look around u. "christianity, & only "christianity is the ultimate foundation for democracy, liberty, conscience", and i would add human dignity..."which is the benchmark of western civilization "
there is, was & will be no other option.".we continue to nourish ourselves from these sources"..everything else is BS. part quote from a leading atheist. in other words he is saying christianity is right but he doesnt have the gust to accept it.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 atheist have the lowest crime rate i dont know which countries have the most atheist...people flee worldly corruption to the church for inner peace etc not the other way around.. those who join churches confesses they decided to leave life on the street of drugs, pros, and misery.. gansters shun church, cuz they find no comfort there. doz of criminals turn themselves in thru a church in Chester PA the other day .
the church turn them in. there is a reason they chose the church.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 christians have put together a system that works & works well so much so that no system measures up.. the source from which i get motivation to continue my christian walk must be a true source
the bible must be true it is evidence of circumstance. but atheism just floating in the wind. christians take on the weak social reject & tell them there is a better way. atheism teaches there is nothing wrong with u keep on living. ( A FORMER RICHARD DAWKINS ATHEIST DISAGREES) google it.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy Atheism teaches nothing, evidence of your illiteracy. It's simply the notion that no god exists. And that's all there is to it.
I stand to my opinion that religion causes more harm than it does good, as shown by history.
Helge129 2 months ago
@Helge129 becuz atheism teaches nothing, "evidence of my illiteracy." what does that have to do with me? u need a counter case that atheism indeed put a system better than christianity. u can not cuz there is none. atheism do not dwell in details.. while their opponents are discussing the unique functions of the atoms, the arrangement of the universe, chris, dawkins etc make blanket statements: "belief in flying monsters, and giants in the sky" to the cheers of the audience.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy and the fact that you don't know what it has to do with you further proves your illiteracy.
Helge129 2 months ago
@TheToosy congratulations on fitting the maximum possib le amount of bullshit and retarded nonsense per line into the space allowed for a youtube response
WombatusMaximus 2 months ago
@WombatusMaximus thanks for reading my passages..someone made the observation that people use the internet to hurl insults & hurtful things at others as a form of therapy. I think u are familiar with this guy. he was a close confidant of the famous biologist from oxford until he became wiser. google him, and read his piece.
write back after u' have read whats hes about.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 leading atheists believed atheism teaches nothing & have changed, likewise christians believed christianity is not true & switched to atheism. u present a stronger argument, as i mentioned it is not humanly possible to prove creation or god, but we are not living on who presents the best argument. all yor arguments amount to less than a hill of bean. people are hurting, they need healing & hope.only in the west u spend large sums of money to watch 2 folks debating back & forth.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy So says the bible!!!!.....Slavery is condoned in the bible, where to buy them, how much to pay, how to beat them to death without being guilty of murder and how to will them to your children. The bible says so. The bible is just filth cherry picked to suit the beliefs of the day. The sooner it is ignored the better the world will be. Not one single passage in the gospels praises intelligence. Religion can't cope with intelligence.
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@NotEnoughLions i wonder why todays christians dont condone slavery..have u thought about that? "the sooner it is ignored..." of the portion of society that has ignored the bible (the public school system in the united states & other countries) life has been really better..yea give me a break!..with 8,000 violent crimes for the school yr 2010 -2011 in philadelphia. if intelligence is about aborting a million babies....etc then its better for me to remain in the dark.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 u often argue that christianity is mind control.. we humans need to be controlled we are not smart enough to maintain a balance society on our own.. in the US. alone how many police are on the streets even more that any 3rd world country i have lived in. & U.S has one of the highest literacy level. u need religion to speak to the heart of humans deterring them from crimes before it spills into the streets. w/o religion police will not be enough for the mayhem that will ensue
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy Australia has an atheist prime minister and their crime rate is less than the US. Same as Sweden and other godless European countries. Atheists have a lower divorce rate than the religious and commit less crimes than the religous. Check US prison statistics.
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@NotEnoughLions amazing becuz of the prime minister belief system crime rate is down. there must be a reason why people forget the world & cling to christianity for refuge. no convert to christianity cafesses that he came to partake in the crime spree..that occur in christianity.. it is always their confession, ' they came in to flee from the wave of hatred, greed, emptiness, loneliness & all other mental anguish.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 religion is not the cause of war, people are the cause of war. the KKK use the constitution to perpetuate racism its not the constitution fault. if all was peaceful thru out history up to now w/o religion than u sound to reason, but it is not so. its the "heart of man is desperately wicked" so says the bible. Humans are prone to do evil & if it is not curtailed it will explode and continue w?o end. just like the laws of inertia. CASE CLOSE think about all what i have said.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy ''christians take on the weak social reject & tell them there is a better way. '' you also do that to gay people? And you lose Modern morality has NOTHING to do with your religion!
MrThaPatrick 2 months ago
@MrThaPatrick u are right christians do take on the weak, but not to scorn or treat them as social rejects. to uplift their spirit & give hope. even tough some christians do, but the hallmark of christianity is not to bully the sinners which we all are.interestingly those who become christians want to assume a new culture. A culture that stands for something & values live. but we in the west have no culture, we value nothing but money & what it buys. anything goes here. & u know that.contd.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@MrThaPatrick admitting no culture is like drinking poison .if i want a sex change i'll get it.if i'll approve beast love, ill do it etc..the situation is of such that one of the fastest growing shows on TV in the U.S. is crime fighter or investigation Discovery. 'wife slowly poisons husbands for insurance & goes goes about daily routine as if she just spill milk on the floor. the list goes on..& there are intelligent talking heads on radio & TV willing to defend these acts to great lengths.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@MrThaPatrick what is modern morality? by the way this corrupt secular culture?no culture cover spheers
of our societies, church members, mosque goers& what have u. i see where yor intransigence comes from. A LACK OF CULTURE. u are blood boiling mad when christians witness. but silent when we make war on others who have done nothing to us.hold vigils when the state executes & say nothing about the murder that occur everyday. abortionists u pat on the back & disdain christians who condemn sin.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy ''what is modern morality?'' we don't stone people to death/we do not kill our women because they were not a virgin/we don't kill women because we think there witches You want me to go on?
TheSjaan105 2 months ago
@TheSjaan105 u did not mention modern morality but i respond anyway.. i dont condone stoning people to death. christians forgives. i am a christian..u lump christians & muslim together. muslims stone people to death..as a matter of fact a lady was stone to death in somalia some years back. westeners are afraid to confront islam, cuz u know what the consequence will be. they hunt u down & fire bomb yor house or dormitory. if u guys were in saudi Arabia u shut yor mouth if u want to live.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy If we STILL listen to your god we would still do all those things!
TheSjaan105 2 months ago
Are you really that dull witted? "The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." Are you really going to be an advocate for people to follow you into destruction? Is that really what you want to be known for? "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" I am sincerely sorry for you that you choose to be blind & miss the love of God.
Hagion7206 2 months ago
It doesn't help your position at all to cut & paste from my statements. It's impossible to make adequate defenses 500 letters at a time on YouTube. If, without any effort, I can find a list of 700 scientists, from all scientific disciplines, who regard Darwinism as scientifically insufficient then how many are there out there? But that's what evolutionists do. They fail over & over again to defend their position and then attack useless side issues.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 There are I think 100000 scientists who go by the name Steve alone who accept Evolution. Your point is essentially null.
Helge129 2 months ago
@Helge129 having 1 million scientist wouldnt sway either side. all the scientists have not produced 1 ounce of evidence because there is none.. no creature have been observed changing....except in the womb from a fetus to a human or animal. on the flip side its not humanly possible to proof creation. the only proof we have is we are here, & must have derived from somewhere.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy Seeing one creature directly change into another would be strong evidence against evolution - evolution doesn't do that. Evolution is simply the change of allele frequency over generations.
"& must have derived from somewhere." Apes. As a matter of fact, we ARE still Great Apes.
Helge129 2 months ago
@Helge129 think about this: archeologists discovers writing in a cave or pottery etc..which dates to a certain period... then digs up remains of people they believed live within that same time of the cave..they then link that population to the pottery or drawing...how do they know to link them..isnt that a leap of faith?
when christains use this same faith u say they are nuts. on that note why dont we start from today & trace our way back & see whether all make sense.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@TheToosy They date the remains too...
Helge129 2 months ago
@Helge129 all institutions from which christians have been kicked out are doing worse then when christian were a part of. google public school violence in my city Baltimore & tell the result...google christian school violence in baltimore & tell us the result.. say what u may christians have put together a system that works & works well compared to any other system. im from a diplomat family, refugee all put together: spent most of my child & part adult living in various countries..c
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Helge129 all over the world u find christian school performing better. teachers are less paid & less qualified public schools: more money, more qualified teachers-under performing. only religion adequately addresses the problem plaguing humanity the problem facing humanity is not economic..its spiritual..if it were economic america would be no. 1 place to live in terms of quality of life. the crime alone i cant mention u want quality of life live in the 3rd world..there i grew up.
TheToosy 2 months ago
@Hagion7206
And I can find a petition with hundreds of MD's and Ph.D's saying they do not believe AIDS is caused by HIV, what is your point?
(Look up "virusmyth group" on Google, and it's the second one)
What is your point?
KPhysicsGeek 2 months ago
I have in my files a list of over 700 scientists calling for the re-evaluation of Darwinian evolution. The fanatsy just doesn't stand up any more. Technology has increased to the point that the falacies upon which evolution are built are now apparent to all. The only one's who still hold to evolution are those who need a pseudo-scientific justification for an immoral lifestyle. Evolution has been the justification of every evil from Naziism to communism to much worse. Darwin was a racist.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 700 scientists? Is that all?? There are millions of trained scientists world-wide. Depending on how you define "scientist", a low figure I've found is 5.8 million. Why should we put the opinions of a puny 700 over the remaining 5,799,300? Furthermore, how many of your "scientists" are biologists? Also, scientific theories are constantly being reevaluated. That's how science works. Whether Darwin was racist or not is irrelevant to the validity of the theory.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hagion7206
Perhaps you would care to explain in what way you think that the lifestyle of Prof. Kenneth Miller (of Brown University) is immoral and how he uses his belief in evolution as a pseudo-scientific justification for that lifestyle.
kandtell 3 months ago
cont...
And whist your about it, maybe you could explain how Ted Haggard for example uses the amazingly scientific theories of creationism to justify his exemplary moral lifestyle?
kandtell 3 months ago
It would be a good place to mention that all science began with bible believing Christians who had a personal relationship with the God who created everything based upon laws. These scientists knew that much benefit could be obtained by investigating, discovering, quantifying and using these laws. Do even a cursory Web search on scientific discoveries by Christians it might help you to see the propaganda garbage your writting here as if it were truth.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 Science began with "bible believing Christians" because to profess otherwise would get you a one way ticket to the stake, to be burned for heresy. Even after the burning stopped, other sanctions, such as social ostracization, continue to this day. It's safer now however, than it's ever been before, to be open about one's atheism, although there are still significant risks. There's a far higher proportion of scientists who are atheist than in the general population.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
Equalandfree- You're lying & you know that you're lying. Creationists do scientific research all the time. If you're going to even try to be honest watch "No Intelligence Allowed." I doubt that you will watch it objectively...but it might get through to you. The evolutionists hold the doors to tenure and so they use that power to punish, castigate and humilate any scientist who stands opposed to the current fantasy of evolution...and you know it.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Dawkins should not have made this video...
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56
why not ?
does it contain factual errors (if that's the case i'm very interested)
or is it to inconvenient for evolution denial (who cares about religious feelings)
unamaxify 3 months ago
@unamaxify Richard Sternberg
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56
Evolution has one scientific gap, namely the beginning of life.
Richard Sternberg speculates Intelligent Design could fill that gap.
The problem is Sternberg is just replacing one gap with another, because we know nothing
about that designer, or how he/she/it did it.
It introduces another problem : how did the designer came to be alive, was the designer designed by a greater designer-> Infinite regression.
ID answers nothing, it makes it just needlessly convoluted.
Sternberg=fool
unamaxify 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unamaxify Richard Sternberg does not endorse ID.
Entropy56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
No no now wait, what about the intermediates between those fossils? now you have created three gaps when first you had one! A-ha-ha.
xd3monchildx 3 months ago
There is not enough time or matter in the universe to provide opportunity for even one protien to form under the "rules" of evolutionary dogma let alone complex cells and don't even try to get to complex biological systems like fully functional animals. Life is not matter + energy. Life is matter + energy + information. That information is provided by an outside transcendent and intelligent source...God. Matter + energy = MORON. The bible provides for all of it. Evolution provides nothing!
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 you are a moron
boecxyec 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 If your theory is that evolution is impossible then just find ONE modern whale skeleton from 50 million years ago. If evolution doesn't happen then a whale fossil from 50 million years ago should be the same as one from today. Creationists NEVER do scientific research or publish scientific research papers. The problem is that Creationists NEVER seek factual evidence for their own theory - they simply stand on the sidelines and try to rubbish the best evidence-based explanation.
EqualAndFree 3 months ago
the hippopotamus?.. you lost me..
SurvivalGrounds 3 months ago
Who in their right mind would be convinced that a cow-like land animal evolved into a whale based on the fossil record? The amount of gradual changes needed would be phenominal if Darwinianian theory were correct and there just isn't the evidence. I see 3 propsed intermediates in Dawkin's land to see evolution. I'm afraid it just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).
MrMalcie 3 months ago
@MrMalcie Whales and hippos probably diverged about 55 million years ago according to mitochondrial DNA evidence among other things. To put that in perspective, your index fingernails together could grow to a combined length of about 3900 km in that time (at ~35mm per year). That is the distance from New York to Los Angeles. You're underestimating how long 55 million years is.
If you actually want real evidence of whale evolution just wikipedia it and read all of the studies they cite.
vicksoma 3 months ago
@vicksoma Without the fossil evidence the length of time is irrelevant. Darwiniam evolution requires gradual changes to have taken place over a long period of time and so the theory demands evidence. The evidence for whale evolution via neo-Darwiniam mechanisms is not there. A major problem with neo-Darwiniam evolution is that it requires there to be no limitation to mutation and natural selection, whereas it has not be demonstrated to be limitless. It is speculation and extrapolation.
MrMalcie 3 months ago
@MrMalcie I am amazed you managed to get something wrong in each and every sentence you typed. If you want evidence, it takes 10 seconds to google whale evolution and read some studies about it and find out how scientists know how it happened. Or you could get some whales and hippos and do your own study.
By the way you spelled "Darwinian" wrong 3 times, and there's no such thing as "neo-darwinian" evolution.
vicksoma 3 months ago
@vicksoma I can't believe you have not heard of Neo-Darwinism; Richard Dawkins would be most upset. Pointing out incorrect spellings due to a slip of the hand is petty and is probably your way of avoiding addressing the problems I raised. Where is the convincing fossil evidence for whale evolution which is what this video is about?
MrMalcie 3 months ago
@MrMalcie what do you expect the evidence to look like any way? it doesnt help when you think all the evidence is'nt.
UndeadAppleTree 3 months ago
@UndeadAppleTree It's straightforward really. Darwinian evolution requires lots of small changes to have occurred gradually over millions of years. With such massive physiological changes that would be needed to turn a cow-like land animal into a whale you must expect to find a lot of transitional fossils to demonstrate this actually happened but we do not have them. What other scientific theory would be get away with such a lack of evidence?
MrMalcie 3 months ago
@MrMalcie fossils are not easy to come by. Biologists are forced to figure everything out with what they have and figure out what's between the gaps. It's because of this that we never find the one fossil that shows the exact moment one species turns into another. You could think of it like getting a picture of you at age 5 and age 15; we don't have the "transitional pictures" between 5 and 15 but we know they're the same person and what might have occured in between.
UndeadAppleTree 3 months ago
@MrMalcie "Neo-darwinism" is different from "neo-darwinian evolution".
You ask where the convincing fossil evidence is and yet you admit this video is about that? Look at the fossils in the video, that's the fossil evidence for whale evolution.
But knowledge of evolution isn't based on finding fossils, it's based on genetic and protein analysis as well as comparative anatomy and many many other things. Fossils are just a bonus, and that's what this video is showing because it's simple to show.
vicksoma 3 months ago
@Haigon7206: Actually, it's interesting you should talk about sickle cell anemia as an example of how mutation is always bad. Sickle cell anemia CAN be advantageous under certain circumstances - it confers resistance to malaria. Cystic fibrosis confers resistance to cholera. Tay Sachs Disease confers resistance to tuberculosis. All emerged at points where these diseases were likely to kill a person a lot quicker than minor (most common) forms of these mutations.
spartancanuck 3 months ago
It is NOT a misperception. There is NO example of a mutation ever increasing the amount of information in any genome. The very thought of it violates the entorpy law of thermodynamics...always has - always will. Everything tends toward decay, nothing tends toward increase. There is NO example of observed evolution anywhere in the fossil record, in nature or in the laboratory. ALL mutations result in information loss. That's why evolution is a philosophy, a bad one, not a science.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 Actually, the second law of thermodynamics only applies in a CLOSED system; Earth is not a closed system because it recieves energy from the sun. The evidence for evolution was shown in the video with the nostrils of the skulls going higher up towards the head- yes, that is an example of fossil evidence and evolution has been witnessed in nature(ex. geckos) and in labs (bacteria) quite a few times already. do some research.
UndeadAppleTree 3 months ago
This one is too short, I feel. I could have stood a lot more details.
zacthebold 3 months ago
what does evolution have to do with god again? Oh, yes, you all believe things came about by magic and this threatens your belief system and therefore you reject it, because that's the fundamental tenet of religious faith and especially christian apologetics. Dismiss anything that contradicts scripture. What dishonesty. If you just used your brain you would realize evolution and god are compatible. Sadly, that's not the god of the abrahamic faiths. Did I say sadly? I meant fuck yes.
viridismonasteriense 3 months ago
Lol largest amount of troll comments in my life on youtube or am i looking at morons in action :P
kenji214245 3 months ago
These evolutionist think everybody are stupid enough to swallow their stupidities.
matatanXtreme 3 months ago
What I like the most about evolutionists is how they always hide their proof where no one (except them) can see it such as the intermediate species existing billions and billions of years ago. Because as everyone knows ALL mutations result in a LOSS of information not a beneficial gain (syckle cell enemea, MRSA)...except billions of years ago of course.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 Mutations don't lead to a loss in information. That's a misconception. New information is regularly generated. Examples of entirely new traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment.
adi87tya 3 months ago
Comment removed
adi87tya 3 months ago
When I was a boy doctors used to routinely remove "vestigial" organs from small children...tonsils and appendix most notably. Amazing how the mortality rate of children decreased when objective "scientists" started leaving those vestigial organs alone. "Thinking themselves wise they became fools." Sort of like Dr. Spock appologizing for "ruining a generation of children". Well now I just think the world of Dr. Spock because he's sorry that he left God and objective morality out of his program.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 Except, your "objective morality" looks an awful lot like the subjective morality of a certain ancient near-eastern culture. :/
spartancanuck 3 months ago
You know what I'm really excited about? Apparently there's a new "missing link". EVERY missing link of the past has been shown to be a fabrication on the part of the "objective", no agenda "scientist." Give me a break. Evolution is a pathetic opiate for the conscience of people committed to living a life thumbing their nose at God. It's really very sad.
Hagion7206 3 months ago
The first thing I learned in Economics is also the first thing that I learned about evolutionists...people lie. There are NO vestigial leg bones in whales. What are called vestigial leg bones are the basic skeletal structures needed for sexual reproduction. "Figures never lie but liars often figure" or for the evolutionist, the fossil record completely disproves evolution so evolutionists wrongly, and stupidly, reinterpret the fossil record. This man is a first rate idiot!
Hagion7206 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 Uhm, I noticed your comment and I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you legitimately just don't know much about evolution and the fossil record, but "evolutionists" don't just lie to sound right or to make it seem like they understand. The only point of science IS TO understand. Also, even if the bones are used NOW for aid in sexual reproduction, their origins are likely the pelvis of their ancestors. Also, whales are just 1 example of vestigial limbs. Look at dolphins, snakes...
ItsEasyIfYouThink 3 months ago
@Hagion7206 dogs, humans, apes, chickens, etc. The list is enormous. Also, vestigial organs, although convincing, are no where near the meat of the convincing evidence for evolution. That lies in genetics and the link in DNA between all organisms, genes, ring species, the rapid evolution of bacteria, and the testability of evolution. It's not some arbitrary little tale someone cooked up one afternoon. It's got more evidence than most theories out there. Btw Richard Dawkins is a pretty smart guy.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 3 months ago
those arent fossils thats a picture you start off with calling it fossils. then you go on to partial skulls of who knows what species saying they are whales i feel like i watched a show about santa claus and the easter bunny. come on, Jesus is the way.this world was created like the Bible says.
talons2112 3 months ago
Is Richard Dawkins deliberately trying to deceive us? Those ''vestigal'' bones buried in the whales body have been showed to be used in reproduction. Typical evolutionary nonsense retarding science. '"We don't know what it does so it must be a remnant from its evolutionary past'". Just because you can line up a few fossils that show the imaginary sequence from land mammal to sea going mammal doesn't mean the're intermediates.
Gommify 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr "Okay... I saw in a comment you wrote how you rejected radiometric dating, which means rejecting scientific evidence for the age of both the layers and the fossils."
Why haven't you rejected it as well?
It doesn't work!
It's been proven!
How can we radiometric date newly made volcanic rock to millions of years?
Why do you have any faith in what radiometric dating says?
Are you that blind?
I know your not stupid, so what is the problem here?
It doesn't work, toss it.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr "describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible".
It was sarcasm dude.
The only ones who write to me here are crazy Darwinists.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Or even better, look at the Dover trial. The ID proponents were facing scientists and there was a point, when Michael Behe lost one of his best arguments. He was presented many scientific, confirmed articles about the evolution of the immune system and had no argument to respond. He was fundamentally owned. Btw, Jesus doesn't seem to have a very good influence on you. You got friends who write you? Nice! But describing yourself as "so popular" doesn't make you really credible..
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 ... point to an earth which is roughly 4.6 billion years old? Science is not a cluster of incoherent theories, science is a unit (which does not include pseudosciences like "flood geology" or "creation science"). If evolution was wrong, for example why do plate tectonics PROVE an old earth? The entire DNA PROVES evolution by clearly demonstrating a common descent. Inform yourself about the chromosome nr. 2 and tell me what you think about it.
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr "point to an earth which is roughly 4.6 billion years old?"
Says what?
Radiometric dating that dates newly made rock to millions of years? LOL
"why do plate tectonics PROVE an old earth?"
Plate tectonics has been completely discredited.
We have mapped the earths oceans and cant find subduction anywhere.
It's a dead theory that always needed Mexico to disappear to make it work anyway.
Chromosome #2 has 150,000 new sequences not in 2A or 2B.
Fusion theory now dead.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 ... point to an earth which is roughly 4.6 billion years old? Science is not a cluster of incoherent theories, science is a unit (which does not include pseudosciences like "flood geology" or "creation science"). If evolution was wrong, for example why do plate tectonics PROVE an old earth? The entire DNA PROVES evolution by clearly demonstrating a common descent. Inform yourself about the chromosome nr. 2 and tell me what you think about it.
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Radiometric dating, get into it. How about genomic evidence? Vestigial organs? Comparative anatomy? Comparative physiology? Geographical distribution? Observational evidence? You do understand, of course, that the fossil record is the weakest evidence for evolution. You do also realize, of course, that all of the evidence for evolution points in the same direction, right?
authorless 4 months ago
@authorless You brought up Radiometric dating, genomic evidence, Vestigial organs, Comparative anatomy, Comparative physiology, Geographical distribution, Observational evidence and said absolutely nothing about any of the things you brought up LOL.
You are a moron!
I mock you.
Say something to redeem yourself.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 The point is really quite simple, and even you can understand it: Your attack is on the fossil record, which is but one of the domains of knowledge that verifies evolution. I needn't say anything about them other than what they are, you are a big boy, you can do a web search. I know there are some big words in there, li'l slugger, but you can get through it. Now, as your superior in every way, I am allowing you to have the last word, enjoy.
authorless 4 months ago
@authorless "Now, as your superior in every way, I am allowing you to have the last word, enjoy."
Oh great and wondrous one!
Please consider my first request to actually say something in support of Darwin's evolution.
Show us all that you understand what those BIG words mean by putting them into a sentence that supports your theory that we came from slime.
Don't hide your greatness from us any longer.
Educate us Oh mighty one.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 What is your answer to the evidence in this video?
morticiamom1 4 months ago
@morticiamom1 I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic. I hope so, at least.
nichins 4 months ago
@morticiamom1 "What is your answer to the evidence in this video?"
Fair question that I answered a month ago.
I don't mind answering it again.
How we get from Rodhcetus (land mammal) to Dorudon (water mammal) is glossed over and just asserted.
Dawkins calls Pakicetus "an old fossil whale".
It's a wolf like animal making Dawkins a fool.
Rodhcetus does not resemble a dolphin.
The only evidence I can see is that these people are only seeing what they want to see.
That's not science.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr Are you Swiss German?
I agree with you that just saying something doesn't make it true.
I have fun with evolutionists because they assert their evidence and push it in a direction the evidence doesn't want to go".
So I mock them :-)
Is that so bad?
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Looks like I'm much younger than you but still know more about discussing. What I said about the fossils WAS a proof of evolution, you jackass. It is simply not possible that someting like this has happened by sheer accident. You are not bringing arguments, you are simply saying that evolution is unfalsifiable, and I have already refuted that. What do you think about the rock layers and the fossils? This is evidence for evolution. Dont' you want to talk about it?
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr All right. calm down so we can think clearly.
What evidence did you present that I didn't take seriously?
I'm sorry I lost track because I'm so popular and have so many friends writing me.
Please excuse me for dropping the ball this time.
What evidence did you present?
I do want to talk about it.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr Your the most religious person I've ever met.
Your so religious that it doesn't even occur to you that you are.
Your mega religious.
You believe a theory with zero evidence.
As a matter of fact you believe in a theory with evidence against it yet you still hold on to your belief.
I on the other hand can look at thousands of years of prophecy (delivered), the creation (obviously delivered), and the prophecy about mockers -you-(delivered).
You have lies and nonsense :-)
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Calling yourself better educated on the subject than me and asking for evidence? Fine. Lets get started: Since the beginning of modern archeology, scientists have found millions of fossils all around the globe. By analysing the exact rock layer, you can relate them to other fossils in different rock layers. If one fossil was found in the wrong rock layer(for example a modern rabbit in a rock layer with dinosaurs), the entire evolution theory would break.
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
pgpeg1973Schwiizr 4 months ago
You can't argue with a vocal evolutionists because evolution isn't the point with them.
Atheism is the point with them.
I can and do attack their evidence when presented.
Most evolutionist/atheists won't present evidence in an open forum for fear of ridicule.
I really like mocking evolutionists.
These are grown people who believe and defend a story without evidence.
They believe because they must believe.
To not believe would make them accountable to God.
So they fight for the lie.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience2 "They believe because they must believe." did you ever hear an evolutionist or an atheist say believe the theory evolutionist or suffer in the lake of fire? No, that's the religionus people
AHopeforPeace1 4 months ago
@pgpeg1973Schwiizr not only do I deny the claim for macro evolution but I laugh at how gullible Darwinists are.
Similarities are not scientific.
The fossil record does not support macro evolution.
It actually shows the impossibility of macro evolution.
In 150 years of looking for fossil evidence of the macro nothing has been found to support it.
I know that just because we haven't found a clear transitional fossil doesn't mean none exist but common already.
150 years of looking.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 You don't get it, do you? EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. Just like every person is in a transitional stage between fetus and adult. What you seem to be looking for is a bearded baby - which is not something the theory of aging would predict.
Zendrig 4 months ago
@Zendrig Wrong.
The transitional stages between a fetus and an adult have zero to do with evolution.
I mean nothing.
I'm not the one here that doesn't get it.
How you could even equate the two just shows us that you need help with this.
My suggestion to you is to read all my posts on the subject and learn.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
the whale hippo relation is an interesting new fact for me. Learning new things is always a plus.
FattyMcFox 4 months ago
Vestigial or remnant bones...what! That old fairy tale is still around? Ha it has sense been proven that those are NOT vestigial bones but are used to anchor the muscles of the whale genitalia. Without these vital bones whales could not reproduce. It really is funny how so called 'scientist' with fill in the gaps with nonsense to fit their theory when something is just unknown at the time. The facts should support your theory not fairy tale junk science....LOL
yabruf 4 months ago
I wouldn't try to reason with an atheist. They will push whatever non-scientific mumbo jumbo they can just to cover up the existence of God. They are unable to utilize their critical thinking skills after being brainwashed with junk science in the public school system. Once they stop following the "religion" of evolution, only then will you be able to reason with them.
yabruf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The dolphin head looks nothing like the head of Dorudon.
How can anyone connect the two?
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
flyingscience2 4 months ago
That drawing shows a wolf like creature stretched out with it's legs behind it. LOL
Then it's easy to "IMAGINE" this evolution but that's all it is.
Drawings are not evidence of anything.
How does Dawkins explain the snout at the top of the head.
When did the breathing pipe start to move?
How about the fact that whale blow holes aren't connected to their stomach?
He can't and it's clear this "wolf" would have died trying to "evolve".
Dawkins suffers from the "Father Time" delusion.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 hes explaining how evolution works not how pokemon work.....
kebablarz 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 delete your account and start a new one. If you think you know biology, you don't, and are a willing charlatan. Paleontologists know how animals walked or swam based on bone structure, bone thickness, bone density, air density, etc. They don't just "imagine" dinosaur bones how T rex's walked, dipshit. Nor do they "imagine" the back legs. How does Dawkins explain the snout that moved upwards throughout these intermediate species? Here I'll help you, Mr.. Science
iliveon 4 months ago
@iliveon Don't be angry because I point out the flaws in evolutionists reasoning.
Your post shows how bitter, angry and profane you are but it doesn't shine any light on any argument to discredit me.
If you really want to get rid of me then convince me of your argument.
I've been waiting for someone of intelligence to alter my position that evolution is a scam but mostly I just get ignorant angry atheists.
So what are you?
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 "how bitter, angry and profane you are" Because I am sick and tired of people poisoning good sound science in favor of faith based bullcrap. I can give you dozens of scientific biology groups and paleontology societies that all say evolution is true. I don't know what else you want. the fossils are there, genetics confirms it. I will give you a site for example just because I have them at my disposal. ornl. gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml there
iliveon 4 months ago
@iliveon You truly don't understand anything about this subject.
You have to refer me to people that you put your faith in because you are unable to understand what is being discussed.
You are being misled by these people just as you are ignorant of the facts and are also misleading people.
I envy your faith.
It takes much more faith to believe in nothing as you do then to believe in God.
Your bitter and angry because you sense that you've been duped but haven't put your finger on it yet.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 No, I am sorry, but there is no faith involved in demonstrable evidence. I am in college studying biology and I can, with my own hands, do work with DNA. I am sorry that you base your life on faith and not demonstrable reality. And this is why faiths do not agree with one another.
iliveon 4 months ago
@iliveon All you have to do is demonstrate your demonstrable evidence.
So far all we get are assertions.
As someone studying this it would be useful to know that not one ounce of demonstrable evidence for evolution has ever been presented.
We have tried and failed to make lifeforms "evolve" in the lab.
We don't know the mechanism to do that and it's a glaring "missing" in the evolutionary sciences.
What I'm telling you requires no faith.
I deal in facts iliveon.
Darwinism is religion.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Are you serious right now?
Something tells me you have seen the evidence and probably are a conspiracy theorist... I invite you right now, to come to Maryland, US. At the university of maryland, baltimore county, to be demonstrated bacterial evolution. We KNOW the mechanisms of DNA, and people study it for a living... Are you kidding me telling me that science is faith? How the fuck are you using a computer right now?
iliveon 4 months ago
@iliveon "We KNOW the mechanisms of DNA"
Let's make sure we are on the same page iliveon.
There is what is called micro evolution (variation) which is known about, studied and real.
It's the study of variation within kinds of lifeforms.
So your bacteria have a genetic variation much like we see many varieties of dogs.
No new genetic information is needed to do this.
Your bacteria will never "Evolve" into a new life form nor will a dog change into a different kind of animal.
Got it?
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 "No new genetic information is needed to do this.
We have documented new proteins coming into existence, do you know what transcription and translation is? It means amino acids can form randomly into new sequences, there are so many things we've discovered about DNA and RNA, and mutation.. So much information out there. The facts are humans and other animals evolve in the same way that bacteria do. It works per generation, small changes and variation and natural selection of them
iliveon 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Your bacteria will never "Evolve" into a new life form nor will a dog change into a different kind of animal.
Genetic diversity automatically means they have the potential to have varied offspring. Proteins and RNA and structural components of organisms can lead to what we would call a new species, meaning they cannot breeed anymore.. it is due to variation. Look up polyploid new species, we have documented many species that can make new species in ONE generation, EVOLUTION
iliveon 4 months ago