I know a man. I believe he was one of the most intelligent men to walk this earth. Perhaps you should look him up. He was a GREAT scientist. His name was Nikola Tesla. He believed in God.
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 Science is faith? Sonce when is "it poped into existance on it's won without cause and became unimaginable complex over an unimaginable and unsupportable vast expansion of time" evce been science? How has any of that ever been run through the Scientific Method? OK, so you have a mouth. What denialist doesn't. Move on. CYA
@klesks8686 Yeah, for a creationist, he doesn't seem to understand what creationist think. I just made a video response to a video he made to me and I found myself using AiG to rebut him as well.
@klesks8686 That 80% thing is crazy. I'm aware of those websites. I was just trying a new method on him. He probably wont respond anyway because he blocked me, but basically it's a bait and hook tactic. Just doing it for fun.
You Christians threatening us Atheists with hell fire.
So an atomless, brainless and nerveless soul is going to feel pain and burn in an everlasting lake of fire which needs no oxygen, electricity and solid matter to keep it burning LMFAO.
A truly all powerful God would not need DNA or any of these other life supporting mechanisms to subsatin life.
But of course the religious imagination isn't free enough to grasp this, they say the lord moves in very mysteries ways, a cunning bit of religious programming that stops pretty much any bit of curiously before it get's a chance to pull out of the station.
@IMAGINARYphilosophy To an atheist anyone who understands science ,logic and common sense is an idiot.For the BB ,ToE and abiogenesis to be true,would mean we could never do science since science depends on things behaving the same way all the time,if this can't be depended upon we couldn't know anything.For example:For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction,if this were not true the space program could not exist,nor could physics.
@CBALLEN That was an utterly pointless string of words that conveyed little substantive meaning. Science does not depend on "things behaving the same way every time" and whatever source lead you to this ridiculous misconception is highly suspect. Example: Today it is sunny outside with no cloud cover. Yesterday it was raining. Is meteorology therefore invalid because the weather did not behave the same today as yesterday? No. Science observes patterns and builds a framework based on them.
@repairer2010 You shouldn't accept that because it isn't true. Chimps did not become humans. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Acquaint yourself better with evolutionary theory and evidence and you won't have these ridiculous misconceptions.
@IMAGINARYphilosophy Science says everything that begins must have a beginner,life only comes from life,intelligence only comes from intelligence,everything only produces after it's own kind,Matter cannot be created or destroyed,the universe had a beginning,matter cannot produce information,things decline not get better,any information had to come from intelligence ect. Atheists must deny ALL THIS to believe as they do,so whose the idiot?
@CBALLEN Everything you have written here is false and portrays that you either have a poor understanding of science or a personal interest in propagating false information. The most glaring error you have made is claiming "matter cannot be created or destroyed." If you merely misspoke and meant to say that "mass" can neither be created or destroyed, then it would perhaps behoove your argument to speak more carefully and, in general, to better research your points.
@IMAGINARYphilosophy Oh,so matter can be created and destroyed,wow!I guess you neglected to listen to Mr. Riddle when he spoke about the law of information too?The law states that ALL INFORMATION WHEN TRACED BACK TO IT'S ORIGIN ALWAYS COMES FROM INTELLIGENCE!Game over! OH,WAIT,YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE DO YOU?No matter,you're still wrong whether you believe it or not.
@CBALLEN I think you are confused. I believe in science. I do not believe in theology that claims to be science. Further, I find your response flippant and immature. You dismiss it when I show you to be wrong, then assert a new point and claim arbitrary victory before I can refute you yet again. It is a response typical of someone who has neither the intellectual heft, nor the basis in fact to support their argument. [Continued.]
@CBALLEN As to the substance of your response, after watching Mr. Riddle's erroneous and laughably constructed argument once more, I did not see him reference a "law of information" in this video. And after searching for some such law, I was unable to find reference to one via some other source. As such, I cannot say that any such law exists.
@CBALLEN So how many different elements can you use to make water?How many times can you through something up in the air before it fails to come down?How many times have you seen two human beings produce something other than a human?ect
@CBALLEN Your questions do not substantiate your assertion that "science depends on things behaving the same way all the time". First, the word "water" refers to a chemical compound created by the union of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Your question deals more with linguistics than with science. Second, the observable action of objects of greater density than air falling to the ground forms the framework of the Theory of Gravity. [Continued.]
@CBALLEN Science does not depend on the Theory of Gravity being true, it merely is the process by which we observe and describe gravity and build a framework based on our observations, as I have said before. Finally, I take your third question to be a comical dig at evolutionary theory, and it is the type of toothless attack I would expect from one who is poorly informed on the process of evolutionary change and the Theory of Natural Selection.
As for what will humans become, as biotechnology continues to develop, we well be able to determine what we become. If this is hard to believe look at how the world has changed over the last 100 years. No one born at the beginning of the 20th century could have ever imagined the world of the late 20th century. It would have sounded like science fiction, and that kind of change is only accelerating.
What a waste of time. 9 and a half minutes based on the fact that this guy doesn't understand how DNA works. When he asks: "How is information added?", what he means is: "Information cannot be added." Not only is this untrue, but it also does NOT prove the statement: "Materialism is false"
He even admits that he is using circular reasoning! (and quickly makes a retarded strawman) 8:42
I am amazed by this idiot. Science discovered DNA. So the religious mob take it on board and try to prove evolution is not true !!!! Ha Ha ha what an idiot !!
It is self-evident that such complex patterns of information did not arise by chance. Information always comes from mind. This, however, does not prove the Earth is young or that change has not taken place over time.
"information always destroys evolution" - information is a subjective concept based on an individuals ability to identify patterns, your cant objectively call anything 'information'.
"basic science destroys evolution." - the other sciences don't just confirm evolution but in the base of microbiology allows you to completly reconstruct the tree of life.
no, the second law, only applies to closed systems, you idiots always screw this up. Earth is an open system because it receives energy from the sun. the second law doesn't apply.
- the fossil record proves that 'a fish became a man', the technology used in paternity tests proves our relatedness to chimps, comparative anatomy and genetics (in particular ERV's) prove interrelatedness of each species.
each of the above don't simply prove evolution, they can independently, they produce the same tree of life and hence independently verify eachother.
New genetic information.... Its called mutations! Its a fact. Look it up. I love it. One moron talking to a bunch of morons. In the first 10 minutes not once did he provide the proof he claimed he was going to give. Evolution is true because of the mountain of evidence behind it. The bible is true because the bible said so. Honestly if you are a christian watching this, can you not see through this turd? Regardless if you are a believer or not.
I did not say they could not lead normal lives ...what was said that it is NOT vestigil and was found to be nessessary for GI health.....and I suppose that the people born with 6 fingers in BHOPAL India , are evolutionary steps forward also , right ??
The only one working on assumption here is you. For instance, in humans the appendix is good for little more than fighting infection, while in rabbits and other herbivores the appendix is useful in digesting foliage.
humans do better when they eat plant materials..and not meats,..they are healther, and as for fighting infection ...the entire G.I tract and everything associated with it ..IS for fighting infection, the immune system is eveything to the body as a whole, it regulates or has a part nearly every system , from muscle growth to the autonomic sytems that regulate heart rate, GI muslces and gladular operation, so saying that the appendix JUST helps in fighting infection is intelectually dishonest.
I never said JUST for fighting infection, to make it out as if the appendix is highly useful or even necessary is the intellectually dishonest position, some humans are born without it at all.
" the appendix is good for little more than fighting infection " notice you said " little more then " that translates into the word "JUST ", because there is nothing else it does- according to your statement....also see next post top of page..
Yes, and everything they have claimed is vestigial has been discovered to have important function. They cannot let go because this means God is their creator and that they do not like.
there is nothing that is " vestigial " as you put it , that had one type of function , and now is used for an entirely differant purpose, the term " vestigial tail " for example , there is no other function for a tail ...other then being a tail.
Nonsence. Just because you say so holds no weight. By the way, when evolutionists who control the journals stop refusing to review the work of creationists to filter their evidences out of academia, then spouting about peer review will be worth something. Presently, it means nothing.
@NephilimFree 'when evolutionists who control the journals stop refusing to review the work of creationists' Do you have an example of a paper or work that was rejected based on anything other than academic quality?
@NephilimFree - Peer review would mean you & your creationist friends would need to enable ratings on these videos. Here's some peer-review in the meantime... *Thumbs Down* ;-)
Now don't complain or cry about it. It's the peer review you asked for.
"information exists independent of a mind to interpret it."
You just contradicted yourself sporty. The requirement to interpret information verifies that information is knowledge which requires a sender and a revciever, and is a product of intelligence.
Variation does not change morphology. Morphology is form and structure. Not form OR structure. There is no known example of morphology difference between any variety within and kind (baramin/family). Cecal valves did not evolve. The lizard already once had them. THey are not an example of new structure caused by new genetic information: no evolutionary change.
Having more bone does not change morphology. More of the same is not evolutionary change. It would be, in the end, extinction.
So...is it not information to know which way is north? Is it not information to know the exact position of the moon?
You have a very strange definition of information. If you want to talk about information sensibly in the context of DNA, you need to talk about the functionality of DNA. DNA can make itself more functional (by adding more starting codons), or it can change it's functionality by single point mutation.
@NephilimFree Information theory would disagree with you. a theory that deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible. In fact a search of the literature for 'immaterial information' returns absolutely nothing
@NephilimFree How do you explain computer models of evolution which add information based on very basic laws? How do you explain the complexity of snow flakes and the intricacies of the crystal lattice, growing into beautiful, complex, and predictable patterns from the "information" contained in a simple molecular seed? Complex patterns are an emergent property of nature in our reality. Stop denying it.
@NephilimFree Your inability or unwillingness to accept the possibility that "information" evolved from material processes is not proof of anything other than you don't like this possibility. Make no mistake but your emotional responses to phenomena, i.e. You feel wonder at the sun set, etc. is not evidence for the existence of a creator any more than my lack of faith in God's existence proves he does not exist. These things are completely objective of us and exist in their own right.
@killugh Nature cannot produce information. It is a produce of mind which requires intelligence to be produced.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
- Gitt, Werner, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Head of the Department of Information Technology.
@NephilimFree Actually, you're right: it's a pretty extraordinary thing if you think about it that "information" could arise out of material processes. What I don't do is mistake my current ignorance about the origins of this extraordinary thing as evidence for the existence of a Creator. And there have been attempts to explain how DNA emerged from primitive RNA molecules and that these proteins can actually be produced by the interactions of various chemical agents.
@killugh Nature cannot produce information. Information is a product of intelligence. Nature couldn't produce DNA therefore. What you don't realize is that DNA itself isn't information. It's a physical representation of information, which must exist prior to the medium designed to convey it. The genetic information, a product of mind, was designed and created prior to the molecule, which was then designed and produced to represent the information. That's both ID and Special Creation. So sorry.
@NephilimFree To be honest you make a completely unsubstantiated assumption, e.g. DNA is not itself information but an "intelligence" (likely the God you believe to exist anyways) created it before hand.
You believe in more than you understand my friend. I wish you peace.
Variation does not change morphology. It does not introduce new morphological structures or transform extant structures into ones with new biomechanical function. Variety provides evidence of Special Creation bvecause it demonsttrates the limitations to change, which END at morphology.
We have tons of evcidence of the limitations to variation, and none that variation causes morphological change in species.
"Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident...you have essentially "lost your mind."
- Jay Homnick, referring to the insanity of Darwinists
"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."
- Karl Stern, University of Montreal Psychiatrist
That just means he's wrong and has no idea what information is in a genetic context, information is added to genomes all the time through duplication and mutation.
LOL I love it when atheists put down their own heros when they have to, usch as when they get stumped, so they can keep on going with the magical Mystery Tour of evolutionism.
Information is immaterial. Nature cannot produce it. DNA is information. Evolutionism is dead. Design is a fact of science. By the time your kids are 50, evolution will not be in any school book. Only design will be spoken of.
There are no 'atheist heroes' anyone who says nature can't produce information simply has no idea what information is. Information is a property of an emergent system.
"I suppose the reason we leapt at Origin of the Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores" - Sir Julian Huxley, Head of UNESCO - one of the world's leading evolutionist, interview for TV program.
DNA is information stored with algorithms which conforms to linguistics law, all of which are immaterial. The material cannot create that which is immaterial! Information, algorithms, and linguistics cannot be produced by nature! This is imperical evidence that all life is a product of intelligence. Intelligence is mind. Since nature cannot produce these, they can only be a product of a supernatural mind.
It's not really an algorithm, it's more closely comparable to a cipher, even thats not entirely accurate. Information is a property of matter/energy and not immaterial. Anyway, where are you getting that nature can't produce algorithms?
No, DNA is stored and retrieved with algorithms. The cipehers are algorithms. So efficient, complex, and useful are these algorithms that some of them have been decoded and are now being applied to computing science to help man do things better.
Nature cannot produce algorithms. Go look up the definition of algorithm in Websters on-line dictionary.
The dictionary definition of algorithm is so vague as to constitute anything that uses a process to produce the human applied concept of complexity, there are hundreds of natural processes which do so.
You really don't see the backwardness of proposing an infinitely complex uncreated designer as a necessity for the creation of relatively simple self replicating systems?
There's no such thing as a relatively simple self-replicating living system.
It's backwards to believe God would cause something to be by it;'s own means and not express his pwoer and creativity. Philosophically, your statement is backwards from the truth.
Your right, DNA is a lot more complex than software. If Kent is so stupid then why can't anyone win a debate against him? You should think about that sometime.
@TheScienceFoundation Actually my points were very cut and dry and extremely to the point. All these fossils are found in sedimentary rock, sedimentary rock only forms under water! All these organisms did die in a flood, they did die at different times, but not vastly different times, probably only weeks or months apart.
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are products only of intelligence and cannot be produced bynature. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
None of the creatures claimed to be transitional demonstrate transition. looking at 2 animals of different homologies and believing one begat the other over a vast amount of time is not evidence, it's resumption. it's faith.
The features of the creatures claimed to be transitional do not demonstrate transition at all.
I find it funny too how they claim 2 fossils are transitional to one another when they have totally different bone structure. A true transitional fossil would be two fossils exactly the same except for one new structure, there should be billions of these if evolution happened. Yet we find none.
You mean DNA? It was perfect before the noachian Flood because life on Earth was protected by a canoppy around the Earth which filtetred ultraviolate and gamma radiation. Since the canopy fell to Earth as rain during the flood, all life has been bombarded with radiation and mutations began taking place. All life has suffered as a result. The fossils verify that life was bigger, stronger, and likely smarter before the flood than after it.
In the 1800's, Darwin put under a microscope DNA and only saw a blob. If Darwin were alive today "Origin of Speices" will not exist and he will accept the complexies within DNA.
Your link did not come up. There are no migrated basal stumps. They either have ribs attached or they do not exist. There's no basal stumps in any fossil which are not present in any supposed clearly ancestoral species of another, which one can point to and say, "Look! The one just like it has no unused, mirgated-to-a-new-position basal stumnps, but this one does!"
No fossil exists which demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there'd be tens of thousands of such exmples recovered.
So the question remains: Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
He did this because he wanted to move Icthyostega from the water to the land, where it would better support his perception of transition from other amphibians. He even invented a ridiculous "inchworm" locomotion method for the creature, and swapped it's caudal and thoractic vertabrae to support his claim. He did these things because Icthyostega's ribs did not allow for it to be a water-dwelling creature. I made an error in my prev post. He was attempting to move it from land to water.
"In Ichthyostega, the neural spines of the vertebrae behind the shoulder girdle are angled backwards, while those above and in front of the pelvic girdle are angled forwards."
But this is false. No spine of any land dwelling creature is configured this way. Not one. Alhberg selected vertabrae from many examples and rearanged them so as to create the appearance of a spine that would raise Ichth. higher from the ground to make it seem land-dwelling.
"People: NF's assertions regarding basal stumps is thoroughly exposed and refuted by:
Hyman's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy,"
No. There are no exmaples of migrating, transforming basal stumps. There are no examples of transition in the fossils whatsoever, in fact. Every prominant evolutionist scientist in the world had admited that clear transitions are not present in the fossils, including Dawkins, Gould, Cloud, etc.
It refers to neural spines, not basal stumps. Ichtyostega has no basal stumps! Per Ahlberg selected vertabrae from 600 existing fossil examples and rearanged the vertabrae to conform to his concept, not what extant examples of ichtyostagids are when found in the earth! This makes his reconstruction erroneous by intent. He admited himself it was unlike any known example.
You'd have learned this if you had read my article.
"The fossil record absolutely supports fish to amphibian evolution"
Nonsence. There are no examples. There are only assumptions. There is no series of creatures which demonstrate the transition of a single morphological feature, just animals of completely different homology that evolutionists assume are related.
This series by Mike Riddle ought to been titled:"Stealing the Mind"...Mike's real first name isn't Tom, by any chance? What hopeless drivel from beginning to end!What we see here is a thorough and willful lack of understanding of Chemistry, Biochemistry, DNA, and the development of DNA from its' base components.This is a clear illustration of the ethical void displayed by arrogant "pastors" who lie, distort, exaggerate,dissemble,conceal,confuse,and obfuscate any truth...
A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil,but a fool is hotheaded and reckless. Proverbs 14:16 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life,turning a man from the snares of death Proverbs 4:27....The Lord is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.Proverbs 15:29......All a man's ways seem innocent to him,but motives are weighed by the Lord.proverbs 16:2.....When a wicked man dies,his hope perishes;all he expected from his power comes to nothing.
Obviously I did. he threatened to sue me if I put my article on the net. He said the university would probably pay for the lawyers. It definately embaressed him, and angered him that he his hegemony regarding Icthyostega was revealed. BTW, he never clained icthyostega had a transitional spine as you have, because he knows such a claim is unsupported by the bones themselves.
YOu don't pay attention. Icthyostega has bicipital ribs and spine. it does not have migrating basal stumps or any thing in between the spine of a fish and that of an amphibian. Go look at the creature in fossil form and illustrations of it.
So the wuestion remains. If evolution were true, why are there no examples of such spiney transition in any fossil?
I forgot to mention, those reconstructions were of Icthyostega. And that's what the article is about. They didn't they to change it's ribs and spine to being those of a fish with basal stumps, since they couldn't do that and get away with it. But what they did do is beyond creative liscence.
Anyway, no, Icthyostega is not transitional, asnd it's spine and ribs do not demonstrate migration of basal stumps. It's a bicipital amphibian. It shows no signs of transition in the ribs and spine.
BTW, fossil reconstructions made by evolutionists Jennifer Clack (2004) and Per Ahlberg (2006) are fraudulent. I debated Per Ahlberg about it and destroyed him. he threatened to sue me if i put an article i told him I was writing about his reconstruction on the net. I did, he didn't. Want to read it? I'm sure he has. I'm sure the admins of the University Upsalla did too, since his pic dissapeared from their site 2 wks after I posted the artivcle. He was embaressed greatly.
Ichthyiostega is an amphibian tetrapod with bicipital ribs and spine. It does not have a transitional spine with migrating basal stumps becoming parapopheses. It's bicipital.
"The fossil record absolutely supports fish to amphibian evolution"
If that were true, whay are there no transitional forms between the pine and ribs of fish (parapopheses and diapopheses) and those of amphibian tetrapods (bicipital)?
There is no such fossil. Not one. How could such transition be true therefore? Do try to excplain it.
Stop avoiding other people's questions and answer them. Discussion is a two wayt street. If you don't know whyt the fossil record does not souppor fish to amphibian "evolution", just say so, otherwise, answer the question below. Don't wimp out. Stand up for your fantasy.
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
"Already did, I'm still waiting on the scientific theory of creationism"
If you have, then you are simnply a denialist as I have already stated. Your worldview was never had by anyone prior Darwin's day, and science and the experience of God of millions has discredited that 200 yr old fantasy. You have nothing to stand on and never did.
You're the one refusing to elaborate on the scientific theory of creation. Darwins theory has not been discredited, it has been spectacularly confirmed.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
It's logically idiotic. That's what evolutionism is. The number of neurons in our brains and the amount of time evos need to claim it could evolve is sheer insanity. We know the mutation rate in humans. It's about a billlion trilllion trillion times too slow for anything at all to be caused by it.
You have been brainwashed all of your life in school. Evolution is illogical and discredited by science. The information in this video alone discredits evolution. You should watch it and learn.
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
Yes they're in agreement, evolution happened, the fossil record supports it (closing your eyes sticking your fingers in your ears and going nyah nyah nyah 'I dont see it it didn't happen' doesn't mean it doesn't) genetics supports it and observational and experimental science supports it.
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are not found anywhere in nature except in the DNA molecule. How do you suppose nature put this amazing ability into DNA if algorithms do not exist in nature? The obvious is that it cannot happen. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
No, I said videos of scientists. No, you are not playing your game well. No, you are not helping yourself. And no, the truth is not on your side.
Cheetah? It's a cat. It's a kind of cat. Just like the duckbill platypus is a kind unto itself. it has no potential ancestors and destroys evolutionism all by itself.
You silly evo God deniers. You can't get your own theiry right.
"You mean you haven't seen any of the thousands of videos on YouTube of scientists doing this very thing?"
No, I said scientific.
When I heard "One of the problems facing geology today is the fossilized tree" I knew it was going to be absolute creationist ignorance. Polystrate trees were understood over 100 years ago, I imagine the video goes on to ignore/misunderstanding radiometric dating methods
I know a man. I believe he was one of the most intelligent men to walk this earth. Perhaps you should look him up. He was a GREAT scientist. His name was Nikola Tesla. He believed in God.
blindhunt3r 11 months ago
I fear for our future generations. I weep for our future generations. The light of knowledge is being taken from them.
twatoast 11 months ago
We determine what is "TRUE" through "LOGIC"!!! 5/5.
cloudzaH 11 months ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 Science is faith? Sonce when is "it poped into existance on it's won without cause and became unimaginable complex over an unimaginable and unsupportable vast expansion of time" evce been science? How has any of that ever been run through the Scientific Method? OK, so you have a mouth. What denialist doesn't. Move on. CYA
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@klesks8686 Yeah, for a creationist, he doesn't seem to understand what creationist think. I just made a video response to a video he made to me and I found myself using AiG to rebut him as well.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@klesks8686 That 80% thing is crazy. I'm aware of those websites. I was just trying a new method on him. He probably wont respond anyway because he blocked me, but basically it's a bait and hook tactic. Just doing it for fun.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@cchesmark poor argument, you didnt prove anything otherwise, nice try
truthknowledge. com
MopDMTBARTL 1 year ago
You mean Education turns people into Atheists? Gasp!
MisleadGuidance 1 year ago
This entire video relies on the theory that the translation of the translation of the transcription from a second source is the word of God.
MisleadGuidance 1 year ago
Mike Riddle--stealing your mind alright--what a bogus liar these dope is...not a word of truth to any of it!
suzykreemcheese 1 year ago
Lol @ 1:24 the way he says "Well les look at it"
selious04 1 year ago
You Christians threatening us Atheists with hell fire.
So an atomless, brainless and nerveless soul is going to feel pain and burn in an everlasting lake of fire which needs no oxygen, electricity and solid matter to keep it burning LMFAO.
ReptiliansnGreys 1 year ago
A truly all powerful God would not need DNA or any of these other life supporting mechanisms to subsatin life.
But of course the religious imagination isn't free enough to grasp this, they say the lord moves in very mysteries ways, a cunning bit of religious programming that stops pretty much any bit of curiously before it get's a chance to pull out of the station.
ReptiliansnGreys 1 year ago
This man is an idiot.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@IMAGINARYphilosophy To an atheist anyone who understands science ,logic and common sense is an idiot.For the BB ,ToE and abiogenesis to be true,would mean we could never do science since science depends on things behaving the same way all the time,if this can't be depended upon we couldn't know anything.For example:For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction,if this were not true the space program could not exist,nor could physics.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN That was an utterly pointless string of words that conveyed little substantive meaning. Science does not depend on "things behaving the same way every time" and whatever source lead you to this ridiculous misconception is highly suspect. Example: Today it is sunny outside with no cloud cover. Yesterday it was raining. Is meteorology therefore invalid because the weather did not behave the same today as yesterday? No. Science observes patterns and builds a framework based on them.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
Should be "How ignorance destroys evolution".
God's existence is always proven when religious people say, "Explain how...." or "I can't understand how....", "Then tell me how....."
If science doesn't know all the answers....then GOD DID IT.
Just like God used be blamed for every thunderclap, and every volcano.
Its 2010......Dump the barbaric ignorance please people....time to wake up
Futureplanet 1 year ago
simply can't accept that my grand-grand-....parents were chimps...!!!........if a chimp became a man ......what will a man be....???jojojojojoojojohh
repairer2010 1 year ago
@repairer2010 You shouldn't accept that because it isn't true. Chimps did not become humans. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Acquaint yourself better with evolutionary theory and evidence and you won't have these ridiculous misconceptions.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@IMAGINARYphilosophy Science says everything that begins must have a beginner,life only comes from life,intelligence only comes from intelligence,everything only produces after it's own kind,Matter cannot be created or destroyed,the universe had a beginning,matter cannot produce information,things decline not get better,any information had to come from intelligence ect. Atheists must deny ALL THIS to believe as they do,so whose the idiot?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Everything you have written here is false and portrays that you either have a poor understanding of science or a personal interest in propagating false information. The most glaring error you have made is claiming "matter cannot be created or destroyed." If you merely misspoke and meant to say that "mass" can neither be created or destroyed, then it would perhaps behoove your argument to speak more carefully and, in general, to better research your points.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@IMAGINARYphilosophy Oh,so matter can be created and destroyed,wow!I guess you neglected to listen to Mr. Riddle when he spoke about the law of information too?The law states that ALL INFORMATION WHEN TRACED BACK TO IT'S ORIGIN ALWAYS COMES FROM INTELLIGENCE!Game over! OH,WAIT,YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE DO YOU?No matter,you're still wrong whether you believe it or not.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I think you are confused. I believe in science. I do not believe in theology that claims to be science. Further, I find your response flippant and immature. You dismiss it when I show you to be wrong, then assert a new point and claim arbitrary victory before I can refute you yet again. It is a response typical of someone who has neither the intellectual heft, nor the basis in fact to support their argument. [Continued.]
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@CBALLEN As to the substance of your response, after watching Mr. Riddle's erroneous and laughably constructed argument once more, I did not see him reference a "law of information" in this video. And after searching for some such law, I was unable to find reference to one via some other source. As such, I cannot say that any such law exists.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@CBALLEN So how many different elements can you use to make water?How many times can you through something up in the air before it fails to come down?How many times have you seen two human beings produce something other than a human?ect
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Your questions do not substantiate your assertion that "science depends on things behaving the same way all the time". First, the word "water" refers to a chemical compound created by the union of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Your question deals more with linguistics than with science. Second, the observable action of objects of greater density than air falling to the ground forms the framework of the Theory of Gravity. [Continued.]
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Science does not depend on the Theory of Gravity being true, it merely is the process by which we observe and describe gravity and build a framework based on our observations, as I have said before. Finally, I take your third question to be a comical dig at evolutionary theory, and it is the type of toothless attack I would expect from one who is poorly informed on the process of evolutionary change and the Theory of Natural Selection.
IMAGINARYphilosophy 1 year ago
@repairer2010
As for what will humans become, as biotechnology continues to develop, we well be able to determine what we become. If this is hard to believe look at how the world has changed over the last 100 years. No one born at the beginning of the 20th century could have ever imagined the world of the late 20th century. It would have sounded like science fiction, and that kind of change is only accelerating.
tlowery2009 1 year ago
What a waste of time. 9 and a half minutes based on the fact that this guy doesn't understand how DNA works. When he asks: "How is information added?", what he means is: "Information cannot be added." Not only is this untrue, but it also does NOT prove the statement: "Materialism is false"
He even admits that he is using circular reasoning! (and quickly makes a retarded strawman) 8:42
TamaThePeck 1 year ago
I am amazed by this idiot. Science discovered DNA. So the religious mob take it on board and try to prove evolution is not true !!!! Ha Ha ha what an idiot !!
ikinmoore 1 year ago
It is self-evident that such complex patterns of information did not arise by chance. Information always comes from mind. This, however, does not prove the Earth is young or that change has not taken place over time.
DrStevenz 1 year ago
Stealing the mind??? It sound like brain washing to me.
atchisrj1 1 year ago
Pathetic
ComplexP2 2 years ago
I can't believe that people can actually take this as some sort of truth. This guy clearly has no understanding of what he's speaking out against.
ichleibemeinenvr6 2 years ago
information always destroys evolution....basic science destroys evolution.
darpachief 2 years ago
@darpachief
yet again, somebody has become confused between natural selection and evolution.
evolution is an empircal fact.
foxmcloud555 2 years ago
@darpachief
"information always destroys evolution" - information is a subjective concept based on an individuals ability to identify patterns, your cant objectively call anything 'information'.
"basic science destroys evolution." - the other sciences don't just confirm evolution but in the base of microbiology allows you to completly reconstruct the tree of life.
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 Yes, the second law of thermodynamics destroys evolution
theoak84 1 year ago
no, the second law, only applies to closed systems, you idiots always screw this up. Earth is an open system because it receives energy from the sun. the second law doesn't apply.
types10000 1 year ago
what evidence? mutation does not prove a fish becomes a man! Last I checked there hasnt been proof of evolution
devoceans 2 years ago
@devoceans
what you are talking about is natural selection.
evolution on the other hand, there most certainatly is proof of.
foxmcloud555 2 years ago
- the fossil record proves that 'a fish became a man', the technology used in paternity tests proves our relatedness to chimps, comparative anatomy and genetics (in particular ERV's) prove interrelatedness of each species.
each of the above don't simply prove evolution, they can independently, they produce the same tree of life and hence independently verify eachother.
types10000 1 year ago
New genetic information.... Its called mutations! Its a fact. Look it up. I love it. One moron talking to a bunch of morons. In the first 10 minutes not once did he provide the proof he claimed he was going to give. Evolution is true because of the mountain of evidence behind it. The bible is true because the bible said so. Honestly if you are a christian watching this, can you not see through this turd? Regardless if you are a believer or not.
thestunnedninja 2 years ago
since when is atheism a philosophy?
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
Do you know what inoculation means? It means to fight infection.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
yes I understand that :
but the point being. that is not its only function.....it is not vestigil.. it is nessessary to for continued health of the GI tract
thefixer100 2 years ago
Wrong, people are even born without appendixes and live perfectly normal lives.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
once again you are giving your opinion,
as fact and clouding the issue
I did not say they could not lead normal lives ...what was said that it is NOT vestigil and was found to be nessessary for GI health.....and I suppose that the people born with 6 fingers in BHOPAL India , are evolutionary steps forward also , right ??
thefixer100 2 years ago
It's obviously not necessary for GI health when people are born without it and have no problems.
There is no 'step forward' its a tree not a ladder, there's beneficial for an environment.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@thefixer100
no, but when HIV develops a new receptor, that most certainatly is an evolutionary step forward.
foxmcloud555 2 years ago
Already have, it's nothing but the same fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The only one working on assumption here is you. For instance, in humans the appendix is good for little more than fighting infection, while in rabbits and other herbivores the appendix is useful in digesting foliage.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
humans do better when they eat plant materials..and not meats,..they are healther, and as for fighting infection ...the entire G.I tract and everything associated with it ..IS for fighting infection, the immune system is eveything to the body as a whole, it regulates or has a part nearly every system , from muscle growth to the autonomic sytems that regulate heart rate, GI muslces and gladular operation, so saying that the appendix JUST helps in fighting infection is intelectually dishonest.
thefixer100 2 years ago
I never said JUST for fighting infection, to make it out as if the appendix is highly useful or even necessary is the intellectually dishonest position, some humans are born without it at all.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
your own words: quote-
" the appendix is good for little more than fighting infection " notice you said " little more then " that translates into the word "JUST ", because there is nothing else it does- according to your statement....also see next post top of page..
thefixer100 2 years ago
*chuckle*
not a bad argument...
and even darwin refuted his own theories later in life ..it was everyone else that could not let go of it...
and notice that eveloutionists always revise their arguments every decade or so with new explanations , that consistently get proven wrong,
thefixer100 2 years ago
Yes, and everything they have claimed is vestigial has been discovered to have important function. They cannot let go because this means God is their creator and that they do not like.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Except that vestigial never meant useless as creationists claim, vestigial means not retaining original function.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
there is nothing that is " vestigial " as you put it , that had one type of function , and now is used for an entirely differant purpose, the term " vestigial tail " for example , there is no other function for a tail ...other then being a tail.
thefixer100 2 years ago
wrong, the tailbone connects several muscles in the lower back.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You haven't provided me with anything. Show me a documentation of permanent morphological change that arose due to random genetic mutation.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You haven't shown me anything. Show me this work that demnstrated 1 and 2 in my statement.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nonsence. Just because you say so holds no weight. By the way, when evolutionists who control the journals stop refusing to review the work of creationists to filter their evidences out of academia, then spouting about peer review will be worth something. Presently, it means nothing.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
@NephilimFree 'when evolutionists who control the journals stop refusing to review the work of creationists' Do you have an example of a paper or work that was rejected based on anything other than academic quality?
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@NephilimFree - Peer review would mean you & your creationist friends would need to enable ratings on these videos. Here's some peer-review in the meantime... *Thumbs Down* ;-)
Now don't complain or cry about it. It's the peer review you asked for.
CO2Junkie 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Presently, Nephy, you mean nothing!
suzykreemcheese 1 year ago
Show me this permanent morphological change to a species caused by random mutation. Where is it? To do so, you need to demonstrate that there was:
1) change to morphology (not just shape, but form and structure (morphology)
2) that the change was permanently passed on in the species in offspring for 10 generations and was not repaird by DNA error correction.
Show me sporty.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"information exists independent of a mind to interpret it."
You just contradicted yourself sporty. The requirement to interpret information verifies that information is knowledge which requires a sender and a revciever, and is a product of intelligence.
Good job sporty.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
No, you liar:
No, you liar.
nar(dot)oxfordjournals(dot)org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794
pnas(dot)org/content/97/9/4463(dot)abstract
klesks8686 1 year ago
Variation does not change morphology. Morphology is form and structure. Not form OR structure. There is no known example of morphology difference between any variety within and kind (baramin/family). Cecal valves did not evolve. The lizard already once had them. THey are not an example of new structure caused by new genetic information: no evolutionary change.
Having more bone does not change morphology. More of the same is not evolutionary change. It would be, in the end, extinction.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Once more, information is knowledge which requires a sender and reciever. it is immaterial. Nature cannot produce information. It is impossible.
Try to remember that.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
"Nature cannot produce information."
So...is it not information to know which way is north? Is it not information to know the exact position of the moon?
You have a very strange definition of information. If you want to talk about information sensibly in the context of DNA, you need to talk about the functionality of DNA. DNA can make itself more functional (by adding more starting codons), or it can change it's functionality by single point mutation.
TamaThePeck 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Information theory would disagree with you. a theory that deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible. In fact a search of the literature for 'immaterial information' returns absolutely nothing
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@NephilimFree How do you explain computer models of evolution which add information based on very basic laws? How do you explain the complexity of snow flakes and the intricacies of the crystal lattice, growing into beautiful, complex, and predictable patterns from the "information" contained in a simple molecular seed? Complex patterns are an emergent property of nature in our reality. Stop denying it.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@NephilimFree.
'Information is not knowledge'
Albert Einstein.
ReptiliansnGreys 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Nonsense, you liar.
suzykreemcheese 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Your inability or unwillingness to accept the possibility that "information" evolved from material processes is not proof of anything other than you don't like this possibility. Make no mistake but your emotional responses to phenomena, i.e. You feel wonder at the sun set, etc. is not evidence for the existence of a creator any more than my lack of faith in God's existence proves he does not exist. These things are completely objective of us and exist in their own right.
killugh 1 year ago
@killugh Nature cannot produce information. It is a produce of mind which requires intelligence to be produced.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
- Gitt, Werner, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Head of the Department of Information Technology.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Actually, you're right: it's a pretty extraordinary thing if you think about it that "information" could arise out of material processes. What I don't do is mistake my current ignorance about the origins of this extraordinary thing as evidence for the existence of a Creator. And there have been attempts to explain how DNA emerged from primitive RNA molecules and that these proteins can actually be produced by the interactions of various chemical agents.
--Killugh, YouTube Guy
killugh 1 year ago
@killugh Nature cannot produce information. Information is a product of intelligence. Nature couldn't produce DNA therefore. What you don't realize is that DNA itself isn't information. It's a physical representation of information, which must exist prior to the medium designed to convey it. The genetic information, a product of mind, was designed and created prior to the molecule, which was then designed and produced to represent the information. That's both ID and Special Creation. So sorry.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree To be honest you make a completely unsubstantiated assumption, e.g. DNA is not itself information but an "intelligence" (likely the God you believe to exist anyways) created it before hand.
You believe in more than you understand my friend. I wish you peace.
killugh 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Sender = Messenger RNA. Receiver = Ribosomes.
owchywawa 1 year ago
Let's play the 'it's a conspiracy' game for a second, name one article that was rejected without sufficient noting as to why.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Variation does not change morphology. It does not introduce new morphological structures or transform extant structures into ones with new biomechanical function. Variety provides evidence of Special Creation bvecause it demonsttrates the limitations to change, which END at morphology.
We have tons of evcidence of the limitations to variation, and none that variation causes morphological change in species.
Your faith is unfounded and blind.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident...you have essentially "lost your mind."
- Jay Homnick, referring to the insanity of Darwinists
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Yes, if you believe creationist strawmen are anywhere near an accurate representation of what evolution actually is, you're insane.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."
- Karl Stern, University of Montreal Psychiatrist
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Who said blind chance and what has a psychiatrist got to do with cosmology?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
That just means he's wrong and has no idea what information is in a genetic context, information is added to genomes all the time through duplication and mutation.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
LOL I love it when atheists put down their own heros when they have to, usch as when they get stumped, so they can keep on going with the magical Mystery Tour of evolutionism.
Information is immaterial. Nature cannot produce it. DNA is information. Evolutionism is dead. Design is a fact of science. By the time your kids are 50, evolution will not be in any school book. Only design will be spoken of.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
There are no 'atheist heroes' anyone who says nature can't produce information simply has no idea what information is. Information is a property of an emergent system.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Information is immaterial. It's not physical. Molecules cannot contrive immaterial concepts.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"I suppose the reason we leapt at Origin of the Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores" - Sir Julian Huxley, Head of UNESCO - one of the world's leading evolutionist, interview for TV program.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
DNA is information stored with algorithms which conforms to linguistics law, all of which are immaterial. The material cannot create that which is immaterial! Information, algorithms, and linguistics cannot be produced by nature! This is imperical evidence that all life is a product of intelligence. Intelligence is mind. Since nature cannot produce these, they can only be a product of a supernatural mind.
DNA is empirical proof of design.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
It's not really an algorithm, it's more closely comparable to a cipher, even thats not entirely accurate. Information is a property of matter/energy and not immaterial. Anyway, where are you getting that nature can't produce algorithms?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No, DNA is stored and retrieved with algorithms. The cipehers are algorithms. So efficient, complex, and useful are these algorithms that some of them have been decoded and are now being applied to computing science to help man do things better.
Nature cannot produce algorithms. Go look up the definition of algorithm in Websters on-line dictionary.
Algorithms in DNA prove design.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The dictionary definition of algorithm is so vague as to constitute anything that uses a process to produce the human applied concept of complexity, there are hundreds of natural processes which do so.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
lol I would expect an ardent atheist to try to put down the definition of something that refutes thir worldview.
No, the definition of algorithm is not vauge. lol
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Yes it is, and even if it were your strawman, you still haven't explained how nature can't produce it
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You really don't see the backwardness of proposing an infinitely complex uncreated designer as a necessity for the creation of relatively simple self replicating systems?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
There's no such thing as a relatively simple self-replicating living system.
It's backwards to believe God would cause something to be by it;'s own means and not express his pwoer and creativity. Philosophically, your statement is backwards from the truth.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So you're saying that the simplest life that ever existed is at least as complex as god?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I said that? Where? lol
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You said that life was not simple after I asked was life simple compared to god.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Now watch the video and learn from this scientist. He's trying to teach you something.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I think you mean pseudo-scientist and yes, its pseudo-science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Funny how
"I'm not doing your homework for you"
is interchangeable without missing a beat with
"I'm not providing sources for anything I say"
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
lol @ people who think thumbing comments up or down based on their own mysticism is somehow an argument.
StickamChicks 2 years ago
DNA is not software, IDiots.
This guy is not a scientist, has no scientific facts, he is useing the bible as if it is fact.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Your right, DNA is a lot more complex than software. If Kent is so stupid then why can't anyone win a debate against him? You should think about that sometime.
micah1116 2 years ago
LOL
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Spewing so much nonsense that your opponent can't refute it all AND make their point does not equal winning a debate.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation Actually my points were very cut and dry and extremely to the point. All these fossils are found in sedimentary rock, sedimentary rock only forms under water! All these organisms did die in a flood, they did die at different times, but not vastly different times, probably only weeks or months apart.
micah1116 2 years ago
Oh so thats why they're never found together, ever?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You are willfully ignorant.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are products only of intelligence and cannot be produced bynature. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
None of the creatures claimed to be transitional demonstrate transition. looking at 2 animals of different homologies and believing one begat the other over a vast amount of time is not evidence, it's resumption. it's faith.
The features of the creatures claimed to be transitional do not demonstrate transition at all.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Yes, that's why Darwin didn't use it.
gamesbok 2 years ago
I find it funny too how they claim 2 fossils are transitional to one another when they have totally different bone structure. A true transitional fossil would be two fossils exactly the same except for one new structure, there should be billions of these if evolution happened. Yet we find none.
micah1116 2 years ago
Hey man, they only need 2 fossils, one of a dog-like creature and one of a whale, and man, that's all the proof you could ever need! Right? 0o :P
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The Bible is the Greatest book ever written author God himself
ofreshartist 2 years ago
One might ask why it's so badly written.
gamesbok 2 years ago
You mean DNA? It was perfect before the noachian Flood because life on Earth was protected by a canoppy around the Earth which filtetred ultraviolate and gamma radiation. Since the canopy fell to Earth as rain during the flood, all life has been bombarded with radiation and mutations began taking place. All life has suffered as a result. The fossils verify that life was bigger, stronger, and likely smarter before the flood than after it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
In the 1800's, Darwin put under a microscope DNA and only saw a blob. If Darwin were alive today "Origin of Speices" will not exist and he will accept the complexies within DNA.
There was never a soup!
POC777 3 years ago
Your link did not come up. There are no migrated basal stumps. They either have ribs attached or they do not exist. There's no basal stumps in any fossil which are not present in any supposed clearly ancestoral species of another, which one can point to and say, "Look! The one just like it has no unused, mirgated-to-a-new-position basal stumnps, but this one does!"
No fossil exists which demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there'd be tens of thousands of such exmples recovered.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
You are oviously a very educated man, in order to fluently list these scources. I'm glad you are so enthusiasticly defend this.
RJL738 2 years ago
So the question remains: Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
He did this because he wanted to move Icthyostega from the water to the land, where it would better support his perception of transition from other amphibians. He even invented a ridiculous "inchworm" locomotion method for the creature, and swapped it's caudal and thoractic vertabrae to support his claim. He did these things because Icthyostega's ribs did not allow for it to be a water-dwelling creature. I made an error in my prev post. He was attempting to move it from land to water.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 3
The article claims by Ahlberg claims:
"In Ichthyostega, the neural spines of the vertebrae behind the shoulder girdle are angled backwards, while those above and in front of the pelvic girdle are angled forwards."
But this is false. No spine of any land dwelling creature is configured this way. Not one. Alhberg selected vertabrae from many examples and rearanged them so as to create the appearance of a spine that would raise Ichth. higher from the ground to make it seem land-dwelling.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 6
"People: NF's assertions regarding basal stumps is thoroughly exposed and refuted by:
Hyman's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy,"
No. There are no exmaples of migrating, transforming basal stumps. There are no examples of transition in the fossils whatsoever, in fact. Every prominant evolutionist scientist in the world had admited that clear transitions are not present in the fossils, including Dawkins, Gould, Cloud, etc.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 5
"refer to #4"
It refers to neural spines, not basal stumps. Ichtyostega has no basal stumps! Per Ahlberg selected vertabrae from 600 existing fossil examples and rearanged the vertabrae to conform to his concept, not what extant examples of ichtyostagids are when found in the earth! This makes his reconstruction erroneous by intent. He admited himself it was unlike any known example.
You'd have learned this if you had read my article.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 4
"The fossil record absolutely supports fish to amphibian evolution"
Nonsence. There are no examples. There are only assumptions. There is no series of creatures which demonstrate the transition of a single morphological feature, just animals of completely different homology that evolutionists assume are related.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 5
You're right. Obviously an invisible guy did it using magic. How could the scientific community have been so blind?
gamesbok 2 years ago
This series by Mike Riddle ought to been titled:"Stealing the Mind"...Mike's real first name isn't Tom, by any chance? What hopeless drivel from beginning to end!What we see here is a thorough and willful lack of understanding of Chemistry, Biochemistry, DNA, and the development of DNA from its' base components.This is a clear illustration of the ethical void displayed by arrogant "pastors" who lie, distort, exaggerate,dissemble,conceal,confuse,and obfuscate any truth...
pontecanis 3 years ago
A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil,but a fool is hotheaded and reckless. Proverbs 14:16 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life,turning a man from the snares of death Proverbs 4:27....The Lord is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.Proverbs 15:29......All a man's ways seem innocent to him,but motives are weighed by the Lord.proverbs 16:2.....When a wicked man dies,his hope perishes;all he expected from his power comes to nothing.
jesusLostChildren777 3 years ago
"Obviously you didn't "
Obviously I did. he threatened to sue me if I put my article on the net. He said the university would probably pay for the lawyers. It definately embaressed him, and angered him that he his hegemony regarding Icthyostega was revealed. BTW, he never clained icthyostega had a transitional spine as you have, because he knows such a claim is unsupported by the bones themselves.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 8
If the things you planned to print are true, he cant sue you, so its obvious you didnt.
scienceweek(.)com/2005/sw051111-4(.)htm
refer to #4
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
YOu don't pay attention. Icthyostega has bicipital ribs and spine. it does not have migrating basal stumps or any thing in between the spine of a fish and that of an amphibian. Go look at the creature in fossil form and illustrations of it.
So the wuestion remains. If evolution were true, why are there no examples of such spiney transition in any fossil?
NephilimFree 3 years ago 9
It is, and there are
scienceweek(.)com/2005/sw051111-4(.)htm
refer to #4
Still waiting on the scientific theory of creationism
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
People: NF's assertions regarding basal stumps is thoroughly exposed and refuted by:
Hyman's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy,
L.H, Hyman, M.H. Wake, Eds.
Published by University of Chicago Press, 1992
ISBN 0226870138, 9780226870137
795 pages
Ppg: 195-222
pontecanis 3 years ago
So the question remains: Why are there no examples of transition from the pine and ribs of fish to amphibians if evolution were true?
NephilimFree 3 years ago 7
There are.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
I forgot to mention, those reconstructions were of Icthyostega. And that's what the article is about. They didn't they to change it's ribs and spine to being those of a fish with basal stumps, since they couldn't do that and get away with it. But what they did do is beyond creative liscence.
Anyway, no, Icthyostega is not transitional, asnd it's spine and ribs do not demonstrate migration of basal stumps. It's a bicipital amphibian. It shows no signs of transition in the ribs and spine.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 8
Of course Ichthyostega is a transitional. Also, still waiting on the scientific theory of creationism.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
BTW, fossil reconstructions made by evolutionists Jennifer Clack (2004) and Per Ahlberg (2006) are fraudulent. I debated Per Ahlberg about it and destroyed him. he threatened to sue me if i put an article i told him I was writing about his reconstruction on the net. I did, he didn't. Want to read it? I'm sure he has. I'm sure the admins of the University Upsalla did too, since his pic dissapeared from their site 2 wks after I posted the artivcle. He was embaressed greatly.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Obviously you didn't Professor Ahlberg is fond of being corrected, as that means science has progressed.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
Ichthyiostega is an amphibian tetrapod with bicipital ribs and spine. It does not have a transitional spine with migrating basal stumps becoming parapopheses. It's bicipital.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"The fossil record absolutely supports fish to amphibian evolution"
If that were true, whay are there no transitional forms between the pine and ribs of fish (parapopheses and diapopheses) and those of amphibian tetrapods (bicipital)?
There is no such fossil. Not one. How could such transition be true therefore? Do try to excplain it.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
Stop avoiding other people's questions and answer them. Discussion is a two wayt street. If you don't know whyt the fossil record does not souppor fish to amphibian "evolution", just say so, otherwise, answer the question below. Don't wimp out. Stand up for your fantasy.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
The fossil record absolutely supports fish to amphibian evolution, and I've already told you why. The only one avoiding any questions here are you.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
Already have, icthyostega, tiktaalik, acanthostega, ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
"Already did, I'm still waiting on the scientific theory of creationism"
If you have, then you are simnply a denialist as I have already stated. Your worldview was never had by anyone prior Darwin's day, and science and the experience of God of millions has discredited that 200 yr old fantasy. You have nothing to stand on and never did.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
You're the one refusing to elaborate on the scientific theory of creation. Darwins theory has not been discredited, it has been spectacularly confirmed.
If you agree with this comment, give it a thumbs down.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
Not true ( not unusual for you). Darwin's views were not uncommon for any thinking person even before the publication of 'Origin of Species'.
Notably Anaximander contended that humans evolved from fish.
The error you make is that you fail to see that Evolution is a logical necissity. It doesn't depend on emperical evidence.
It's true because of the meaning of the words reproduction, variation and selection. It's logically necessary.
gamesbok 2 years ago
It's logically idiotic. That's what evolutionism is. The number of neurons in our brains and the amount of time evos need to claim it could evolve is sheer insanity. We know the mutation rate in humans. It's about a billlion trilllion trillion times too slow for anything at all to be caused by it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago 2
"volution is a logical necissity"
You have been brainwashed all of your life in school. Evolution is illogical and discredited by science. The information in this video alone discredits evolution. You should watch it and learn.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Already did, I'm still waiting on the scientific theory of creationism, along with objectively verifiable evidence.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
We heave examined the evidence. Many scienctists have. There is agreement. Watch this and swallow your ignorance:
/watch?v=4LNzeHU2Tt0
It's ignorance as well for you to deny the information in this vide. You spout non-science. Science supports creation because it is a fact.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Yes they're in agreement, evolution happened, the fossil record supports it (closing your eyes sticking your fingers in your ears and going nyah nyah nyah 'I dont see it it didn't happen' doesn't mean it doesn't) genetics supports it and observational and experimental science supports it.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
You think none exist, you don't want to see or accept them, this does not mean they are not there.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Already given examples, ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Now I'll ask one of mine again. What is the scientific theory of creationism?
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are not found anywhere in nature except in the DNA molecule. How do you suppose nature put this amazing ability into DNA if algorithms do not exist in nature? The obvious is that it cannot happen. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
Once again, understand what an algorithm is and how its used in a genetic context.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
"No, I said scientific."
No, I said videos of scientists. No, you are not playing your game well. No, you are not helping yourself. And no, the truth is not on your side.
Cheetah? It's a cat. It's a kind of cat. Just like the duckbill platypus is a kind unto itself. it has no potential ancestors and destroys evolutionism all by itself.
You silly evo God deniers. You can't get your own theiry right.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
Sure there are scientists on youtube, none of them elaborate on any scientific theory or mechanism of creationism, nor do any non scientists
We were talking about the cheetah in reference to the flood, and how it busts it due to genetic variability.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
"I still have yet to see a single creationist provide their alternative scientific theory"
You mean you haven't seen any of the thousands of videos on YouTube of scientists doing this very thing?
"I can't look! No no no!"
"along with any testable observable evidence"
Search YouTube for "Drama in the Rocks".
"I can't look! No no no!"
"I shouldn't hold my breath"
You won't look either. hehe.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
"You mean you haven't seen any of the thousands of videos on YouTube of scientists doing this very thing?"
No, I said scientific.
When I heard "One of the problems facing geology today is the fossilized tree" I knew it was going to be absolute creationist ignorance. Polystrate trees were understood over 100 years ago, I imagine the video goes on to ignore/misunderstanding radiometric dating methods
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
If you're going to even argue that the flood was real, search for noahs ark and the cheetah. Also google 'fossils hydrodynamic principles'
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago