Robert Gentry--- The Center of the Universe Part 1

[777godwithme]

There's a big difference between Macro and Micro evolution.

[777godwithme]

Can God deceive? Yes! He does not deceive HIs children however. In the end days He's going 2 send "Strong delusion" 2 unbelieversd a&scoffers. He doesn't love everyone. He hates the wicked. He does offer redemption though, out of HIs loving nature. He is the judge, and if a judges son comitted murder, he would have to follow the law to the fullest, in order to prove himself just. God is just, and does not purposely hate, but He is righteous and won't tolerate evil. 2 love good,1 must hate evil

[gregrutz]

If they had quoted the Quran would that make it the real book of God.

BTW There is 'earth' under the water.

[zawirek33]

dobra , niech ktoś tłumaczy!!!!!

[LoricaLady]

Robert Gentry's research is awesome!

[BackwardsCup]

This video is bad and you should feel bad.

[GodKillerAtheist]

religious propaganda Fuck these muslims spread their propaganda everywhere.

I love how he says controversy con-oh-ver-se sounds uber gay sexual.

[4me2cclearly]

back in the days of the Bible, people thought the Earth WAS the Universe. Period.

Then the world is flat, there is no gravity, we came from 2 people, the sun revolves around the Earth, the universe is what science calls our Solar system, stars are not suns.

[Mekelsior]

@4me2cclearly It may be true that a lot of people believed the earth was flat, the Hebrew paradigm however is different. They believed the earth was round and was placed on the heavens, hanging on nothing. As for Adam and Eve, it is more plausble that we come from humans than from non humans. We are all the sons and daughters of your parents who are again sons and daughters of their parents and so on and so forth, it all goes back to the first two parents and there you have it, perfect logic.

[mellr0]

@Mekelsior

As for Adam and Eve, it is more plausble that we come from humans than from non humans

Thats a nice line of logic mekelsior, one which needs to be taken further to understand where evolutional theory comes from. 2 tall animals are more likely to have a tall offspring than 2 short animals.

If tall animals are more easily able to get food than shorter, in times when food is scarce, more tall animals survive, so there are more children.

[Mekelsior]

@mellr0 You are close in describing lamarks theories on the matter. Natural selection can only remove phenotypes that are not fit for survival it can not influence the mutations and how they behave in any way. NS removes. Length of necks etc are Mendellian variations and not Darwinian evolution. Im very skeptical to the theory of evolution in all of their conclusions, the evidence is against what we could call macro evolution. I have yet to encounter any real empirical evidence on the matter.

[mellr0]

@Mekelsior

Lamarks theories are early basis for evolution, and there is no actual technical term "Mendelian variations", unless you are referring to a "Mendelian trait", a phenotype described by a single Locus which shows basic, generational variance. Height isnt a Mendelian trait, BTW.

[Mekelsior]

@mellr0 Height is a trait heavily influenced by environment, eating habbits and so on. Genes may express it too Im not sure about that anyway, it is not so important to this discussion anyway. We are discussion variations and or evolution, if variations can replace evolution or be a sufficient explaination to what we observe and also believe to observe in the fossil record. The point is, Lamark has been debunked so why use it as evidence?

[MrRichardQED]

@Mekelsior Go to talkorigins(dot)org and search for macroevolution,you will find an article divided in severall parts that is called "29+ evidences for macroevolution" complete with sources,evidence etc On the same website you will also find observed speciation events, just search for speciation. The claims you make are completely baseless!!!!!

You also fail to understand how the evolution works in detail.You see our genome allready has severall possibilities stored out of which it can "choose"

[Mekelsior]

@MrRichardQED Again, the explainations given to these events of macro evolution can be substituted by others. What if the geonome already contained all the possible variations and all that happens is Mendelian variations by one gene being shut off and another being switched on given the situation and surroundings of the creature? Meaning to say, a creature adapt due to their environment but there are limits based on what their geonome contains the extent of evolution possible.

[MrRichardQED]

@Mekelsior What if the geonome already contained all the possible variations

you can ask what if questions all you want, the evidence says otherwise, period. We observe new genetic information in the genome. btw its funny that your second explanation allready shows that the first one is absurd. Do you at least think a little before posting ?

Imbreeding is ONLY a problem for very close related specimen, and its no problem when you reproduce asexual

[Mekelsior]

@MrRichardQED This possibility would mean that theory of evolution is redundant and can safely be discarded. Another possibility is that there are limits to what evolution as the darwinists percieve it can do, that is only very simple modifications and very simple novelties can be formed via mutations and natural selection. Example is nylon eating bacteria. Both cases are possible to verify scientifily, and I belive most of it has been verified as well.

[Mekelsior]

@mellr0 While it is reasonable to believe that tall animals get tall offspring and in an environment where being tall is a benefit they would survive more easily it does not mean however that their physiology would change to the extent that they would become new creatures with completely new structures. Such as land based to sea based animals (ie Canine to Whale evolution) even though canine is the insufficient to describe the hype of the evolutionists in this sense it makes the point.

[mellr0]

@Mekelsior

That would be valid but goes against the evidence already discovered. Whales do, infact, have vestigial legs that are deep within their blubber structure. What, did god's hand slip?

Your problem is that you are oversimplifying by a huge margin. If its advantageous to be tall, thats more likely to be passed down, but so are other genes as well.

Some of the gene variations dont go together even within a species. Its why some couples just can't have kids, despite fertility treatments.

[1111lappin]

@mellr0

Bahah Vestigial Legs!

They are used for mating! Similar to snakes so they can grasp eachother - evidence for a common designer not ancestor.

What a burner!

[1111lappin]

@mellr0 @mellr0

Bahah Vestigial Legs!

They are used for mating! Similar to snakes so they can grasp eachother - evidence for a common designer not ancestor.

What a burner!

[mellr0]

@1111lappin

Cool.... except you only find them on dissections, under 4 inches of skin and subcutaneous fat, and they are only thin layers of bone with no point. There isn't any that sticks out like on a snake, and some snakes (the older species) don't have them. They aren't used at all in mating or anything else in whales.

So, why is your supposed immortal superbeing going "Meh.. might as well put useless lumps of bone into something that doesnt need it and never uses it."

[gregrutz]

@1111lappin show us a common designer.

[MrRichardQED]

@Mekelsior As for Adam and Eve, it is more plausble that we come from humans than from non humans

Not really. It is much more plausible that we evovled from monkeylike creatures then that we are all decendants of 2 people. Can you say imbreeding ? After just a few generationsthe offspring of adam and eve would be sterile. So perfect ILLOGIC.

About macroevolution, how did you get the idea that evidence is gainst that ? Thats a completely baseless claim. We can even observe speciation directly

[Mekelsior]

@MrRichardQED The Evolutionists has a bigger problem of inbreeding than Creationists by far, just think about it for a moment, you begin inbreeding on the cellular level if not before, at least we wait until there is a good host to do so. XD Given the paradigm, if Adam and Eve were true, then inbreeding would be irrelevant due to their perfect physiology, remember they were created by God with the PURPOSE of filling the earth with children. =)

[Mekelsior]

@MrRichardQED Speciation is NOT evidence for macro evolution. Perhaps we have a different understanding of the term? Just because science have a defintion of something that does happen, does not mean by default that we all evolved from fauna or flora. Variations within the genes explains the speciation we have around us, dog breeding is a perfect example of this, from the Grand Dane to the tiny tiny "dog creature" Chihuahua, are all variations of dog, classified as dog.

[Mekelsior]

@MrRichardQED So the same is for every other creature that share common traits, such as the house cat and the tiger, they are same kind of animal yet different expression of the genes, some are simply shut off permanently. Now the house cat and the tiger cant interbreed so by scientific measures they are different completely and thus example of macro evolution, by Mendelian variation it is not the case.

[MrRichardQED]

@Mekelsior then explain to me why house cat and tiger have different genes ? Rest tomorrow or when i have more time

[4me2cclearly]

Right off the bat he contaminates any rational discussion that could occur had the question been asked without prejudice. You can not asked a question, and infer your own answer to influence and distract from the logical first question as to what, may have created the universe. Not a who, witch infers a creator, where there need not be one. It is a misguided and poorly asked question.

[Mekelsior]

@4me2cclearly Very few ask questions without prejudice, it is better to be honest and postulate in the beginning what we believe and then argue if that belief is called for or if is false. I believe in God and in a literal 6 days creation. You need to ask questions with everything, why do you believe in evolution rather than any other theory, asuming you do believe, if you dont then why not? If you are afraid to ask questions because of agenda of the asking party, how can you then learn?