Aronra is a scientist and Ian Juby is not. When it comes to science, I'm going to listen to a scientist. When you're interested in learning any subject, wouldn't you want to listen to an expert with credentials?
Clearly, Mr Juby and AronRa need a live debate. I agree that Ratings Disabled is the weird idea you can shut out the opposition. I understand the more wacky creat, etc can't be bothered to spell it, disabling ratings and approving comments (they do!!!), but Mr Juby shouldn't - he is a good debater and he should have nothing to hide. PS I would probably rate this as a Like - I know nothing about genetics, but I like a good rant.
@odinata "How do you know Juby is a good debater?" I'm watching him debate here. Would you like to debate him? He knows his religion inside out, and he's studied the science. He is firmly on one side. He uses so many fallacious arguments that only a logician, not a scientist or a mere mortal, would be able to counter him. There are lots of creationists who are inconsequential. Mr Juby isn't. He is one of the key anti-science lobby hindering social evolution. So let's have that debate.
Quote mining at its worst. Here's what wazooloo claimed the article said:
the "expression of AIm is variable, as supported by the large spread of the [cholesterol count] data, as well as other associated biochemical abnormalities."
Here's what the article ACTUALY said:
"The PHENOTYPIC expression of the AIM mutation is variable [3], as supported by the large spread of the HDL-Ch data, as well as of other associated biochemical abnormalities."
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
@Mogley52 Creationism is not a science. Creation science is an oxymoron. If a scientist is a creationist then this is incidental. IE a creationist who just happens to have the right credentials in neuroscience
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Ian, if you didn't quote mine AronRa at all with this first thing and he really did phrase it like all creationists think mutations are rare, then I'll give you that- a point to you. It's not a big point though, and of course my expectations are very low for the rest of the video, but good starter point if it's fo real.
@circusOFprecision I have read some of his sources and ones that actually substantiate AronRa's claims he ignores or doesnt even comment on. Example: Sequencing of 50 Human Exomes Reveals Adaptation to High Altitude The ones that support his side are mentioned and explored further. He also dismisses claim 3 since the Delta 5 mutation allows resistance to one strain of HIV. Hes being deliberately dishonest like most creationists.Aron Ra corrected the tetrachromatic claim
It's called adaptation. The problem is that people like AronRa and other self appointed "experts" claim that adaptation is a random/mutation selection process, and that it leads to all diversity. That's fine to believe in, but it's completely ambiguous and unfalsifiable = pseudoscience. Yet you guys parade around here talking about "facts", attacking anyone who challenges your stupidity (which serves your world view by the way). There's an ear full for you. Go ponder it.
Why do you feel that your undereducated personal opinions on the subject are superior to scientific fats--to the extent that you call people who do follow the science "mindless zombies"?
I mean, after all, just yesterday we discovered how little you really know....
I'm calling them mindless zombies for adopting the atheistic attitudes they merely believe the science justifies. I don't think the science justifies their attitudes what so ever.
Really, what do I not know? That certain aspects of genetic recombination are stochastic? Get off your high horse. Or what? That fitness equals reproductive success? I know what I was taught, but I question what it implies and how it is interpreted. It's called thinking critically.
What ever helps you sleep better at night. You just can't seem to live with the fact that you might be wrong, that the consensus doesn't promise the truth, and that there are other people out there with different opinions worth listening to.
Yeah, that's it. No actually, I read what informed people have to say about it. What you do is dismiss automatically everything that is not in-line with your biased point of view. That is why you are unable to event attempt to understand what is really going on. Or if you do know, all you've every articulated to me is the outdated Neo-Darwinian framework, and then you throw in a scientific miracle here and there and tout non-explanations as "brute facts".
No actually you've read what you think confirms your predawn conclusion about your rebellious opinions and baked it all into a batch of whacky pot brownies that taste like wrong.
That's not "critical thinking".
That's just makin it up as you go along.
Note the scoreboard when you get chance.
Note when pressed you conceded on just about everything.
While you spend all this time and effort saying meaningless, false things, you do realize that I am continuing my research. The deeper it goes the more I realize how simplistic your understanding of things really is. So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words. Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can.
You are a clueless, sad soul. I don't know...all of them having to do with intelligence being involved in genetic systems. And then you can move out from there to all of that which your false assumptions have affected.
The intelligence is a property of the systems, circus, like blood pressure is a property of a cardiovascular system (with even more wonderful feedback loops involved).
None of it is anything close to what the YECs are jibber jabbering about.
What is a wonderful feedback loop and how did it come into existence? The answer you will be forced to give will ultimately be a tautology and a non-explanation. That's why I don't accept it.
You may not agree with a Feynman digram either--so what?
We already have seen that what you don't understand about science could fill a library.
You are hung up on your personal opinions, whenyou should be opening yourself to what you can know--which isn't going to be all that much in the long run.
Joining the YECs just reduced that amount to a fraction of what it could have been.
I like QED, it's very interesting. But that isn't the whole picture.
You might be right about one thing. I may not be encouraged to learn as much from the mainstream, but that won't be the YECs fault at all. It will be because of people like you.
It's this simple. I prefer the truth, period. I prefer the truth over science, over philosophy, over religion, over your biased opinion. You think science is the truth and your metaphysics is the truth even though you don't truly understand what science is or what your metaphysics actually entail. Church has nothing to do with this, the more you say those kinds of things, the more you demonstrate that you are completely inept at understanding what I am saying.
@circusOFprecision "It's this simple. I prefer the truth, period." You don't behave in a way that indicates that is a accurate reflection of your intention. YEC is dogma. There is no other truth.But as we see, the FACTS don't corroborate the story. You some kind of "LoneWolf" or something? Going aginst the lemmings. Nah. You are denying the truth because it doesn't fit your opinions. You have claimed that you are closer to the YEC than you are to the scientist. YEC sucks.
The YEC crowd is willing to acknowledge the problems with your "scientific" thinking. It suits them for various reasons, but one is that it is a simple fact that real problems exist in evolutionary theory. I have the key ingredient (no I didn't discover it by myself), but few people are willing to acknowledge it. Don't worry, you are "kind" compared to some of these arrogant pricks. The thing is, YEC does get one thing right, there is an intelligence beyond us.
You know what is funny? They aren't willing to acknowledge the problems with their own thinking, which makes articulating the problems of others an exercise in futility. It resembles the discourse taking place between you and I.
Your doing what you always do. You are identifying my ideas with your religious phobia instead of listening. I already told you that whether the earth is young or old is irrelevant to me. I've never pointed you towards the Bible except that you should read it just to have read it. I'm not talking about Jesus. I'm talking straight up science, but going against the brainwashing and thinking for myself. You are smart enough to grasp the implications, then you go on defense.
The problem is that your ideas have been completely discredited by years of actual scientific research. You are not an expert in this field, you don't understand it and thus you are just talking nonsense. The only way you can get around the fact that all the experts disagree with you is by invoking some kind of conspirecy of brainwashing. Conspirecy theories are wonderful like that, they allow you to continue in your erronious views despite all the evidence to the contrary.
No, people like you make assertions and pull them out of their asses. You don't know where genetic systems came from or how they have been able to accomplish the majesty of earth's ecology. You have bits and pieces, but you cling to false assumptions. You think truth is evil, don't worry there are many people like you. The sad part is that you don't realize it and you refuse to even think about it because of your religious phobia.
Blood pressure is the property of a system. Intelligence is the property of a system...except that with intelligence it is derived from mental situations which have separate awareness from the larger system. Why? Because intelligence is NOT merely a physical property, it is also a mental property. You completely ignore the representational and the accountability of it.
Our cells are intelligent. The cooperation of these intelligences produces our intelligence. Intelligence doesn't simply emerge from non-intelligence. It is an amplification and coordination. It's like a school of fish. Each fish is intelligent in itself, but the swarm of fish begin to take on a higher level of intelligence.
Exactly. Its the same with "temperature" a single atom has no "temperature" because the tempertature of something is defined by the agitation of all the atoms in the substance in relation to each other. The phrase "the temperature of an atom" has no meaning much like the "blood pressure of a single blood cell" has no meaning.
Blood pressure, like temperature is an emergent property.
This is not temperature. Temperature is a macroscopic property applied to a system of atoms. One can have an excited atom that will emit a photon and millions of these atoms in a system will cause that system to have a temperature but each individual atom can only be described as being in an exicited state. The term heat or temperature is meaningless on this scale.
The problem is that you are talking about the physical properties of a system, ignoring the fact that they do depend upon the physical states of the sub-systems. Without blood cells and vessels, the idea of blood pressure doesn't even exist. The point I was making is that intelligence may "emerge", but it emerges at a much smaller scale than we would like to believe. I used the example of an intelligent school of fish. The individual fish are too intelligent.
I see no evidence that intelligence emerges at anything like the cellular scale. I can't think of a single example of anything that could genuinly be described as intelligent behaviour by anything much smaller than an insect and even insects are pushing it to be honest. In order to describe cells as behaving intelligently one would need to change the meaning of the word intelligent.
I don't think you are looking hard enough. There are scientists who disagree with you. Horizontal gene transfer often requires that one bacteria approach another and send genetic material via a tube. There are many examples of individual and coordinated behavior within microbes that is best explained of the little critters can distinguish themselves from their environment and make choices based upon electrical and chemical signals.
Ok well I guess it means what you mean by "intelligent". Plants can make "intelligent" choices about how to respond to their environment. In fact irritability is one of the 7 signs of life common to all living things. But responding to ones environment is different to intelligence.Whilst hard to define precicelly intelligence must have something to do with being self aware and conscious.
YOu haven't been able to demonstrate ONE false assumption on this side, when right above you you have a guy who is saying that the Earth has to be 6,000 thousand years old because his belief in Jesus means it MUST be NO OTHER WAY.
If that's not a false assumption, then there are no such things.
NO amount of evidence will make a YEC believe anything else.
That's not science.
And NOTE that not a single secular scientist feels its true.
Intelligence is a property of these biological systems like blood pressure is a property of a cardiovascular system, circus. None of it is anything close to what these YECs are jibber jabbering about.
@circusOFprecision He also claims in #5 that mutations are a "loss" of information and always detrimental. Again more creationist tosh which hasnt been substantiated yet in all cases like he claims.#6 then includes the same Natural selection is losing information not gaining it argument. After that I stopped reading once he mentioned intelligent design. Again another deceitful creationist. I dont expect you to take the blinders off though.
If the functionality of a gene is lost, how is that not detrimental. But again, this is about adaptation and variation. Bacteria exhibit many different non-random genetic processes which can adapt their genomes to environmental stress. Also, many mutations have no effect, but the net effect of neutral mutations is usually genetic degradation.
@circusOFprecision Also how can Ian even say all mutations are detrimental when he ADMITS in the opening that there are a lot of mutations per zygote and they continue to mutate throughout out our lives? We should have all been spontaneously aborted according to Ian's logic
Because they are near neutral. They don't really effect the functionality of proteins and enzymes or biological processes. It's when enough of them build up in the wrong way that they become a problem. I would be looking at all of the genetic diseases that continue to appear and asking myself where all of those are coming from...doesn't take a genius.
"I would be looking at all of the genetic diseases that continue to appear and asking myself where all of those are coming from...doesn't take a genius."
Why aren't you asking yourself why organisms that supposedly design there own genomes are designing genomes that are supposedly becoming more poorly designed over time.
Oh, and of course why there isn't any evidence for any of these things occurring.
I already explained it to you. The genetic expression system and cellular processes have to manage so many tasks, the more stressful the tasks, the more difficult it becomes to maintain genetic "purity". It gets even more difficult with cell specialization, where trillions of cells are working together with bacteria and other microorganisms. It's the complexity of it. If the environmental stresses are removed, genetic health can possibly return because our bodies can heal.
You don't understand what I am saying, but that's cool. I could care less. All you have to do is look at all of the processes going on inside cells to see the complexity. What is required to accurately coordinate and regulate cellular activity is a mind boggling feat we still don't fully understand. But hey, you think I've never formally studied Biology or done real research. That's cool, just one more instance of you being wrong.
No mutation in Tibetans? Oh dear, think you better give Profesor Rasmus Nielsen a call. He is a real scientist whos findings call "Bullshit" in your video.
I would say the same about studying anything about evolution and other things that have never been observed by science, only pushed at us in hopes that for some reason that will make you feel better if the world was really here by chaos. Why even worry about IQ if you die and have no point afterwards anyway?
Ian, you failed to point out any mistakes in AronRa's video. You simply quote-mined and twisted the contents of those articles, which could be due to lack of knowledge, dishonesty, or both.
If AronRa ever makes a mistake, he will admit it and correct it. Most importantly, AronRa will never lie and willingly spread misinformation, which is in stark contrast which is what YOU do all the time.
You have some nerve, with your reputation for twisting the truth, to call someone else a liar.
Ian, you failed to point out any mistakes in AronRa's video. You simply quote-mined and twisted the contents of those articles, which could be due to lack of knowledge, dishonesty, or both.
If AronRa ever makes a mistake, he will admit it and correct it. Most importantly, AronRa will never lie and willingly spread misinformation, which is in stark contrast which is what YOU do all the time.
You have some nerve, with your reputation for twisting the truth, to call someone else a liar.
"Creationist scientists," "Conference on Creationism," by their very definition, these terms are unscientific and have no power to sway science in any way, because they are biased. They start out with the assumption that God exists, and therefore try to mitigate facts into psuedoscience that will support what they believe. So they are contaminated in their views, and so (at least in my mind) invalid.
(THUMBS DOWN) this man lost validity in his arguments a long time ago, but the most enjoyable one was his video on over population and dictating canada has a lot of land to spare for the populations to go.... completely disregarding what overpopulation means, even a child understands capacity to carry. Ian you're an abhorrent failure, please turn on your ratings so that you may be ranked deservedly: poorly.
I wrote "thumbs down" because this guy DISABLED HIS RATINGS, which is a sure sign of intellectual cowardice and in YouTube dynamics. Yes, I KNOW you can't *vote* on the truth of a proposal. But that's not my criticism here. (Ever notice how those on the pro-science side always enable their ratings, while those on the side of pseudoscience, quackery and whackery almost always disable theirs?)
How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time? Good job Ian, sorry you won't get the credit you deserve for your effort. Just look at the most popular comments, you disabled the ratings. Oh my! More whining instead of presenting an argument. Is it perhaps because you utterly destroyed AronRa in this video? Yes, just perhaps. Sore losers.
"How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time? "
@odinata "Why are you the only person who thinks so?" YOU ARE A LIAR Kent Hovind destroyed them in EVERY debate he had with them. Science certainly doesn't confirm YOUR assertion because you're full of shit. You're a sockpuppet and a liar. Go back to your silly unscientific Coffee with Claire vids and bore everyone over there with your supreme genius.
"How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time?"
How is it that YECs always think they win, even when they get their asses handed to them time and time again? The most likely explanation is the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'm sending you a video response. AronRa did a video on The Evolution of Morality, where he makes many wild and illogical claims, and I go over his incorrect claims and logical fallacies, similar to what you did here.
You seem familiar. I can't place where I've seen you before. Perhaps I've seen one of your videos a long time ago, or maybe we met? Can't remember. Nontheless, well done video, and demonstrates Aron's desperate faith in evolutionism and atheism.
@circusOFprecision It isn't a defense or justification. I've grown tired of YouTubers that do not allow ratings and/or comments. I've decided that any video that does not have ratings enabled I will not watch. 99.999% of the time there is only ONE reason that ratings get disabled on a video.
How can you tell a creationist/creationshit video from a proper one? Easy, they won't allow you to judge it, I wonder why. I'm just flabbergasted that it's possible to publish comments.
Wow, this guy knows nearly nothing in the field he is speaking. What are his qualifications? Must be a middle school graduate. What is he doing teaching this stuff when he doesn't even understand the subject matter? ROFL. His "refutations" are nothing more than a demonstration that he has no clue what he is talking about.
Actually, for a really good laugh, there's a sequence with this blockhead in another creationshit video, unfortunately I can't remember which one but it's worth a search, I think Potholer 54 also covered it. Here you get his credentials: of course, he doesn't have ANY of ANY kind. But, we're told, he is so intelligent that his IQ is off the chart. So there!
He has no clue? He has no qualifications? Since you are wrong on both assertions and didn't even bother to do any research or actually listen to the video, your comment only makes you the one who has not clue. Put forth an argument instead of complain. Doubtful you could actually do that, it's much easier to just go with the crowd like a mindless zombie.
@circusOFprecision Juby has ZERO credentials. Sorry to inform you. He doesn't even have a bachelor's degree of any kind, let alone science. Sorry, there is just too much in this video for me to bother with. He has already been discredited with everyone except christians looking for something to latch onto. Have fun with it. Evil evolution must be stopped!
The sad part is that you don't understand the problems within the scientific consensus. Creationists may latch onto these real problems and use them to bolster their religious views, but of course they would! If someone asks an atheist for scientific evidence, are they going to bring up evolutionary theory (the Neo-Darwinian version)? Of course they do!!!
@circusOFprecision First off, atheism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Second off there are NO PROBLEMS with scientific consensus; there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence that does not fit with (macro) evolution despite scientists testing it for decades. There is as much evidence for (macro) evolution as there is for gravitational theory. Anyone that denies that is deluding themselves. Instead of arguing, why not go to google scholar and see for yourself?
@AndyCielecki Did Einstein need ratings to make his theories true? What if a scientist doesn't post his findings on YouTube, but on Facebook? Does he need the new Timeline to make it true? What if he didn't turn timeline on? Watch the video, learn the facts, don't go by popular vote, for that doesn't make evolution true... even if so, only 4 of 10 people believe evolution (in America by popular poll) as why they have no purpose.
@brothermeng ya but he butchers the scientific method so badly.... I mean, really really badly. I don't understand how anyone can stand up and defend this individual.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Indeed. It's the evidence. Of course, dishonest gits like Juby don't care one iota about evidence. "
I would beg to differ. I study science all over the world, and I have never been shown one shred of evidence for, which I assume you lean towards, evolution and a earth made by chaos, no design, etc. The very same data can be seen by us creation scientists, we just start from a different belief, and belief is all evolutionists have, no evidence.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Ian sorry to piss on your fire but DNA does not contain information its just molecules. In order for information to exist it requires that there is some mind to interpret the "code" contained within the medium of choice. We humans can impose an interpretation on DNA as containing information but the DNA does not know anything about this imposition. Its just self replicating molecules that's all. Once you understand this you will hopefully see why you entire video is based on a misconception.
Aronra is a scientist and Ian Juby is not. When it comes to science, I'm going to listen to a scientist. When you're interested in learning any subject, wouldn't you want to listen to an expert with credentials?
Ciara62789 3 days ago
Clearly, Mr Juby and AronRa need a live debate. I agree that Ratings Disabled is the weird idea you can shut out the opposition. I understand the more wacky creat, etc can't be bothered to spell it, disabling ratings and approving comments (they do!!!), but Mr Juby shouldn't - he is a good debater and he should have nothing to hide. PS I would probably rate this as a Like - I know nothing about genetics, but I like a good rant.
bobinhk1 3 days ago
@bobinhk1
How do you know Juby is a good debater?
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata Because he agrees with him.
Ciara62789 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ciara62789 "Because he agrees with him." Could you say that out loud please?
bobinhk1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "How do you know Juby is a good debater?" I'm watching him debate here. Would you like to debate him? He knows his religion inside out, and he's studied the science. He is firmly on one side. He uses so many fallacious arguments that only a logician, not a scientist or a mere mortal, would be able to counter him. There are lots of creationists who are inconsequential. Mr Juby isn't. He is one of the key anti-science lobby hindering social evolution. So let's have that debate.
bobinhk1 2 days ago
By the way--emergent properties don't"emerge" like a worm "emerges" from the ground.
I understand your desire to enforce to opinions of a top down "God" has something to do with your rejection of "emerging".
But its not magic.
It's more of a way of describing hierarchies.
Think about that blood pressure thing a little longer.
Its a good starting point.
And I have some concessions to make about the important differences with "intelligence".
But first consider the similarities.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quote mining at its worst. Here's what wazooloo claimed the article said:
the "expression of AIm is variable, as supported by the large spread of the [cholesterol count] data, as well as other associated biochemical abnormalities."
Here's what the article ACTUALY said:
"The PHENOTYPIC expression of the AIM mutation is variable [3], as supported by the large spread of the HDL-Ch data, as well as of other associated biochemical abnormalities."
MaelMenoret 4 days ago
Comment removed
MaelMenoret 4 days ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 days ago
Resistance to one strain, is still a resistance... The more you know.
Atchuu2004 5 days ago
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
creationary geneticist. WTF?
thestunnedninja 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 5 days ago
@Mogley52 Creationism is not a science. Creation science is an oxymoron. If a scientist is a creationist then this is incidental. IE a creationist who just happens to have the right credentials in neuroscience
ptango101 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 days ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 5 days ago
Ian, if you didn't quote mine AronRa at all with this first thing and he really did phrase it like all creationists think mutations are rare, then I'll give you that- a point to you. It's not a big point though, and of course my expectations are very low for the rest of the video, but good starter point if it's fo real.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 5 days ago
This guy is basically just asserting these things and hoping no one will check anything out
EarlFaulk 5 days ago
@EarlFaulk
Except that he provides sources and arguments and encourages people to check them out for themselves. Take the blinders off.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision I have read some of his sources and ones that actually substantiate AronRa's claims he ignores or doesnt even comment on. Example: Sequencing of 50 Human Exomes Reveals Adaptation to High Altitude The ones that support his side are mentioned and explored further. He also dismisses claim 3 since the Delta 5 mutation allows resistance to one strain of HIV. Hes being deliberately dishonest like most creationists.Aron Ra corrected the tetrachromatic claim
EarlFaulk 5 days ago
@EarlFaulk
It's called adaptation. The problem is that people like AronRa and other self appointed "experts" claim that adaptation is a random/mutation selection process, and that it leads to all diversity. That's fine to believe in, but it's completely ambiguous and unfalsifiable = pseudoscience. Yet you guys parade around here talking about "facts", attacking anyone who challenges your stupidity (which serves your world view by the way). There's an ear full for you. Go ponder it.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Why do you feel that your undereducated personal opinions on the subject are superior to scientific fats--to the extent that you call people who do follow the science "mindless zombies"?
I mean, after all, just yesterday we discovered how little you really know....
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
I'm calling them mindless zombies for adopting the atheistic attitudes they merely believe the science justifies. I don't think the science justifies their attitudes what so ever.
Really, what do I not know? That certain aspects of genetic recombination are stochastic? Get off your high horse. Or what? That fitness equals reproductive success? I know what I was taught, but I question what it implies and how it is interpreted. It's called thinking critically.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
You call everyone who doesn't believe in your religious opinions some variant of that, circus.
Face it, you just don't like people who know more about science than you.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
What ever helps you sleep better at night. You just can't seem to live with the fact that you might be wrong, that the consensus doesn't promise the truth, and that there are other people out there with different opinions worth listening to.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
You certainly don't accept the idea that you might be wrong, when there has never been a single indication that you have been anything but.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Do you consult a psychic for readings as part of this so-called "research"?
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Yeah, that's it. No actually, I read what informed people have to say about it. What you do is dismiss automatically everything that is not in-line with your biased point of view. That is why you are unable to event attempt to understand what is really going on. Or if you do know, all you've every articulated to me is the outdated Neo-Darwinian framework, and then you throw in a scientific miracle here and there and tout non-explanations as "brute facts".
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
No actually you've read what you think confirms your predawn conclusion about your rebellious opinions and baked it all into a batch of whacky pot brownies that taste like wrong.
That's not "critical thinking".
That's just makin it up as you go along.
Note the scoreboard when you get chance.
Note when pressed you conceded on just about everything.
The YECs wouldn't like that circus.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
While you spend all this time and effort saying meaningless, false things, you do realize that I am continuing my research. The deeper it goes the more I realize how simplistic your understanding of things really is. So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words. Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words. Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can."
What is that supposed to mean?
odinata 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words. Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can."
Is that a threat?
odinata 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words. Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can."
Is that a threat?
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"So there will come a time when you are going to have to eat those words.."
Eat what words?
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
You are a clueless, sad soul. I don't know...all of them having to do with intelligence being involved in genetic systems. And then you can move out from there to all of that which your false assumptions have affected.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
I'm not sad at all, circus.
You seem kind of unbalanced to be honest.
No false assumptions here.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
The intelligence is a property of the systems, circus, like blood pressure is a property of a cardiovascular system (with even more wonderful feedback loops involved).
None of it is anything close to what the YECs are jibber jabbering about.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
What is a wonderful feedback loop and how did it come into existence? The answer you will be forced to give will ultimately be a tautology and a non-explanation. That's why I don't accept it.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
You may not agree with a Feynman digram either--so what?
We already have seen that what you don't understand about science could fill a library.
You are hung up on your personal opinions, whenyou should be opening yourself to what you can know--which isn't going to be all that much in the long run.
Joining the YECs just reduced that amount to a fraction of what it could have been.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
I like QED, it's very interesting. But that isn't the whole picture.
You might be right about one thing. I may not be encouraged to learn as much from the mainstream, but that won't be the YECs fault at all. It will be because of people like you.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
NO, the similarity between the YEC and your own views have closed your mind to the facts.
You prefer philosophy to science and religion to reality.
I can't blame you for not liking me (I can however that your threats aren't justifiable),
but I can't be blamed for your willful ignorance.
If people who pursue the truth bother you, you aren't in the right place.
Dogma of the type you cling to goes best in churches.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
It's this simple. I prefer the truth, period. I prefer the truth over science, over philosophy, over religion, over your biased opinion. You think science is the truth and your metaphysics is the truth even though you don't truly understand what science is or what your metaphysics actually entail. Church has nothing to do with this, the more you say those kinds of things, the more you demonstrate that you are completely inept at understanding what I am saying.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
The YEC crowd is willing to acknowledge the problems with your "scientific" thinking. It suits them for various reasons, but one is that it is a simple fact that real problems exist in evolutionary theory. I have the key ingredient (no I didn't discover it by myself), but few people are willing to acknowledge it. Don't worry, you are "kind" compared to some of these arrogant pricks. The thing is, YEC does get one thing right, there is an intelligence beyond us.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
The scientific crowd is willing to acknowledge the problems with your magical thinking.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
You know what is funny? They aren't willing to acknowledge the problems with their own thinking, which makes articulating the problems of others an exercise in futility. It resembles the discourse taking place between you and I.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
YEC gets it all wrong.
God dunnit is never the right answer.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Your doing what you always do. You are identifying my ideas with your religious phobia instead of listening. I already told you that whether the earth is young or old is irrelevant to me. I've never pointed you towards the Bible except that you should read it just to have read it. I'm not talking about Jesus. I'm talking straight up science, but going against the brainwashing and thinking for myself. You are smart enough to grasp the implications, then you go on defense.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Well, self examination seems to be one of life's more difficult things.
Is the log in my eye, or do you have the log and I have the splinter?
I don't see the problem as unique to myself.
Present company included.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"I'm talking straight up science".
So you just cruise the YEC cites to catch the ear the sharks who are trolling for baby seals?
What.
You said that TRUTH is the only imprtant thing.
This dogma is the OPPOSITE of truth!
It just doen't make sense.
I've read the bible circus.
Its a disease, made only worse by the political activists who propose it isn't actually literature, when that's the best case scenario for it.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
The problem is that your ideas have been completely discredited by years of actual scientific research. You are not an expert in this field, you don't understand it and thus you are just talking nonsense. The only way you can get around the fact that all the experts disagree with you is by invoking some kind of conspirecy of brainwashing. Conspirecy theories are wonderful like that, they allow you to continue in your erronious views despite all the evidence to the contrary.
evilreligion 3 days ago
@evilreligion
What ideas?
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Will do.
And thanks.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"how did it come into existence?"
That's what "people like me" look for.
People like the YECs you pander to HATE taht.
They already know the answer (as far as they're concerned):
"God Dunnit. End of story. No more questions. that is the only answer and we will have no more speculation on the matter. Done and done."
That appears to be the attitude you prefer as well (if indeed you are really not a YEC already).
I think that's pure evil.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
No, people like you make assertions and pull them out of their asses. You don't know where genetic systems came from or how they have been able to accomplish the majesty of earth's ecology. You have bits and pieces, but you cling to false assumptions. You think truth is evil, don't worry there are many people like you. The sad part is that you don't realize it and you refuse to even think about it because of your religious phobia.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
The whole POINT of science is to try to figure it out.
Ass pulling is what Kent Hovind does, what Ian Juby does.
Science can't work that way, and its why what these bozos do DOESN'T work.
Come on man.
Use your head, not your dogma.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Nature thinks. Would you be willing to accept the implications of that? Or will you reject it because of the implications?
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
No matter how hard you examine a blood cell, you will never be able to know the blood pressure from it.
Blood pressure becomes meaningful when blood, vessels, heart, etc, are considered as a whole.
Now swap blood pressure with intelligence, and see what I mean.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Blood pressure is the property of a system. Intelligence is the property of a system...except that with intelligence it is derived from mental situations which have separate awareness from the larger system. Why? Because intelligence is NOT merely a physical property, it is also a mental property. You completely ignore the representational and the accountability of it.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@odinata
Our cells are intelligent. The cooperation of these intelligences produces our intelligence. Intelligence doesn't simply emerge from non-intelligence. It is an amplification and coordination. It's like a school of fish. Each fish is intelligent in itself, but the swarm of fish begin to take on a higher level of intelligence.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
O....kay.
Our cells our not intelligent in the same way that our brains our intelligent.
Cells combined in tissues have properties that don't exist when examined as individuals.
I think you understand this.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"Our cells are intelligent. The cooperation of these intelligences produces our intelligence. "
I don't think the same word is the best word for BOTH of those phenomena.
They really are two different things.
The whole is GREATER than the sum of the parts.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
When you zoom in on the blood cell, there is still an element of pressure. This exhibits the problem with reductionist thinking quite clearly.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Blood pressure is NOT a property of individual blood cells.
You are being the reductionist here.
"When you zoom in on the blood cell, there is still an element of pressure. "
Or is that what you mean to say is reductionist?
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"Our cells are intelligent. The cooperation of these intelligences produces our intelligence."
Sounds kind of like a fallacy of dividion to me.
I don't think the same word is the best word to apply to both of those phenomena--just one of them.
No, what cells have is something different.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"When you zoom in on the blood cell, there is still an element of pressure. "
Blood pressure.
No, your reductionism and fallacy of division don't work, circus.
Turn it up a notch.
There is NOT an "element of pressure" in a blood cell.
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Exactly. Its the same with "temperature" a single atom has no "temperature" because the tempertature of something is defined by the agitation of all the atoms in the substance in relation to each other. The phrase "the temperature of an atom" has no meaning much like the "blood pressure of a single blood cell" has no meaning.
Blood pressure, like temperature is an emergent property.
evilreligion 3 days ago
@evilreligion "the temperature of an atom" has no meaning". I don't get it, so what is meant by 'peak emittance wavelength of black-body photons'?
bobinhk1 3 days ago
@bobinhk1
This is not temperature. Temperature is a macroscopic property applied to a system of atoms. One can have an excited atom that will emit a photon and millions of these atoms in a system will cause that system to have a temperature but each individual atom can only be described as being in an exicited state. The term heat or temperature is meaningless on this scale.
evilreligion 3 days ago
@evilreligion
The problem is that you are talking about the physical properties of a system, ignoring the fact that they do depend upon the physical states of the sub-systems. Without blood cells and vessels, the idea of blood pressure doesn't even exist. The point I was making is that intelligence may "emerge", but it emerges at a much smaller scale than we would like to believe. I used the example of an intelligent school of fish. The individual fish are too intelligent.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision
I see no evidence that intelligence emerges at anything like the cellular scale. I can't think of a single example of anything that could genuinly be described as intelligent behaviour by anything much smaller than an insect and even insects are pushing it to be honest. In order to describe cells as behaving intelligently one would need to change the meaning of the word intelligent.
evilreligion 2 days ago
@evilreligion
I don't think you are looking hard enough. There are scientists who disagree with you. Horizontal gene transfer often requires that one bacteria approach another and send genetic material via a tube. There are many examples of individual and coordinated behavior within microbes that is best explained of the little critters can distinguish themselves from their environment and make choices based upon electrical and chemical signals.
circusOFprecision 2 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Ok well I guess it means what you mean by "intelligent". Plants can make "intelligent" choices about how to respond to their environment. In fact irritability is one of the 7 signs of life common to all living things. But responding to ones environment is different to intelligence.Whilst hard to define precicelly intelligence must have something to do with being self aware and conscious.
evilreligion 1 day ago
@odinata
You should watch this:
watch?v=rZat0Skisew
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision
YOu haven't been able to demonstrate ONE false assumption on this side, when right above you you have a guy who is saying that the Earth has to be 6,000 thousand years old because his belief in Jesus means it MUST be NO OTHER WAY.
If that's not a false assumption, then there are no such things.
NO amount of evidence will make a YEC believe anything else.
That's not science.
And NOTE that not a single secular scientist feels its true.
NOT ONE.
Weird? Nah.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Intelligence is a property of these biological systems like blood pressure is a property of a cardiovascular system, circus. None of it is anything close to what these YECs are jibber jabbering about.
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
*Enjoy the nit picking, insulting fun fair while you can*
Just what are you driving at, circus.
You just make threats to people you don't' agree with?
odinata 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision He also claims in #5 that mutations are a "loss" of information and always detrimental. Again more creationist tosh which hasnt been substantiated yet in all cases like he claims.#6 then includes the same Natural selection is losing information not gaining it argument. After that I stopped reading once he mentioned intelligent design. Again another deceitful creationist. I dont expect you to take the blinders off though.
EarlFaulk 5 days ago
@EarlFaulk
If the functionality of a gene is lost, how is that not detrimental. But again, this is about adaptation and variation. Bacteria exhibit many different non-random genetic processes which can adapt their genomes to environmental stress. Also, many mutations have no effect, but the net effect of neutral mutations is usually genetic degradation.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision Also how can Ian even say all mutations are detrimental when he ADMITS in the opening that there are a lot of mutations per zygote and they continue to mutate throughout out our lives? We should have all been spontaneously aborted according to Ian's logic
EarlFaulk 5 days ago
@EarlFaulk
Because they are near neutral. They don't really effect the functionality of proteins and enzymes or biological processes. It's when enough of them build up in the wrong way that they become a problem. I would be looking at all of the genetic diseases that continue to appear and asking myself where all of those are coming from...doesn't take a genius.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"I would be looking at all of the genetic diseases that continue to appear and asking myself where all of those are coming from...doesn't take a genius."
Why aren't you asking yourself why organisms that supposedly design there own genomes are designing genomes that are supposedly becoming more poorly designed over time.
Oh, and of course why there isn't any evidence for any of these things occurring.
odinata 5 days ago
@odinata
I already explained it to you. The genetic expression system and cellular processes have to manage so many tasks, the more stressful the tasks, the more difficult it becomes to maintain genetic "purity". It gets even more difficult with cell specialization, where trillions of cells are working together with bacteria and other microorganisms. It's the complexity of it. If the environmental stresses are removed, genetic health can possibly return because our bodies can heal.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"I already explained it to you.."
No you didn't.
That's the first time you mentioned it.
Can yo cite your source for this please?
odinata 5 days ago
@odinata
It is from a single source, it's from researching this stuff for a long time.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Yeah, I thought is sounded like bullshit straight out of your undereducated YEC mind.
"the more stressful the tasks, the more difficult it becomes to maintain genetic "purity"
Wow.
Just....WOW.
What exactly do you mean by "research"?
You certainly have never seen the inside of a classroom or university biology department...
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
You don't understand what I am saying, but that's cool. I could care less. All you have to do is look at all of the processes going on inside cells to see the complexity. What is required to accurately coordinate and regulate cellular activity is a mind boggling feat we still don't fully understand. But hey, you think I've never formally studied Biology or done real research. That's cool, just one more instance of you being wrong.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
@circusOFprecision
YOU don't understand what you are saying.
That's the rel problem with your attempts to invent your own science simply because you weren't able to learn from the real one.
If yoo have studied Biology or done any real research, it didn't take.
You still screw up the basics, and you just get whackier with each post.
Your only real skill is convincing idiot YEC's that you can sound smarter than they are--an easy task.
You just don't like reality....
odinata 4 days ago
@odinata
Not really. What didn't take was the further implications, the ones you keep confusing for science but are actually a part of your metaphysics.
circusOFprecision 4 days ago
No mutation in Tibetans? Oh dear, think you better give Profesor Rasmus Nielsen a call. He is a real scientist whos findings call "Bullshit" in your video.
Very dishonest video!
InsanoGerbil 6 days ago
***********WARNING**************
This video contains deliberate lies and false information. Watching it WILL lower your IQ
BlueAvantiGuy 6 days ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueAvantiGuy "Watching it WILL lower your IQ"
I would say the same about studying anything about evolution and other things that have never been observed by science, only pushed at us in hopes that for some reason that will make you feel better if the world was really here by chaos. Why even worry about IQ if you die and have no point afterwards anyway?
brothermeng 5 days ago
Ian, you failed to point out any mistakes in AronRa's video. You simply quote-mined and twisted the contents of those articles, which could be due to lack of knowledge, dishonesty, or both.
If AronRa ever makes a mistake, he will admit it and correct it. Most importantly, AronRa will never lie and willingly spread misinformation, which is in stark contrast which is what YOU do all the time.
You have some nerve, with your reputation for twisting the truth, to call someone else a liar.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago 10
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Ian has straight up lied to me before.
odinata 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
"Ian has straight up lied to me before."
No surprise there. Lying is Ian's modus operandi.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
Ian, you failed to point out any mistakes in AronRa's video. You simply quote-mined and twisted the contents of those articles, which could be due to lack of knowledge, dishonesty, or both.
If AronRa ever makes a mistake, he will admit it and correct it. Most importantly, AronRa will never lie and willingly spread misinformation, which is in stark contrast which is what YOU do all the time.
You have some nerve, with your reputation for twisting the truth, to call someone else a liar.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
"Creationist scientists," "Conference on Creationism," by their very definition, these terms are unscientific and have no power to sway science in any way, because they are biased. They start out with the assumption that God exists, and therefore try to mitigate facts into psuedoscience that will support what they believe. So they are contaminated in their views, and so (at least in my mind) invalid.
93Cobalt 6 days ago
(THUMBS DOWN) this man lost validity in his arguments a long time ago, but the most enjoyable one was his video on over population and dictating canada has a lot of land to spare for the populations to go.... completely disregarding what overpopulation means, even a child understands capacity to carry. Ian you're an abhorrent failure, please turn on your ratings so that you may be ranked deservedly: poorly.
2010paultron 6 days ago
I wrote "thumbs down" because this guy DISABLED HIS RATINGS, which is a sure sign of intellectual cowardice and in YouTube dynamics. Yes, I KNOW you can't *vote* on the truth of a proposal. But that's not my criticism here. (Ever notice how those on the pro-science side always enable their ratings, while those on the side of pseudoscience, quackery and whackery almost always disable theirs?)
criskity 1 week ago
How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time? Good job Ian, sorry you won't get the credit you deserve for your effort. Just look at the most popular comments, you disabled the ratings. Oh my! More whining instead of presenting an argument. Is it perhaps because you utterly destroyed AronRa in this video? Yes, just perhaps. Sore losers.
circusOFprecision 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
How is it that no one other than other than YECs think that YEC is anything other than garbage?
You got your ASS kicked.
Over and over and over again.
odinata 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time? "
Why are you the only person who thinks so?
Science certainly doesn't confirm your assertion.
odinata 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "Why are you the only person who thinks so?" YOU ARE A LIAR Kent Hovind destroyed them in EVERY debate he had with them. Science certainly doesn't confirm YOUR assertion because you're full of shit. You're a sockpuppet and a liar. Go back to your silly unscientific Coffee with Claire vids and bore everyone over there with your supreme genius.
MaximusArurealius 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"How is it that Young Earth Creationists, however religious they may be, still wipe the floor intellectually with their counterparts every single time?"
How is it that YECs always think they win, even when they get their asses handed to them time and time again? The most likely explanation is the Dunning-Kruger effect.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Well, if they lose, it isn't because of "intellectually blessed" individuals such as yourself and your hateful counterparts on here.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
Comment removed
laDy8A5737 1 week ago
I see from these comments that ( Evotards) are very religious. they like to believe in evolution lie than the truth.
IDpsalm14 1 week ago
Good Work wazooloo
drshamast 1 week ago
I really like your shirt! Hahaha!
I'm sending you a video response. AronRa did a video on The Evolution of Morality, where he makes many wild and illogical claims, and I go over his incorrect claims and logical fallacies, similar to what you did here.
You seem familiar. I can't place where I've seen you before. Perhaps I've seen one of your videos a long time ago, or maybe we met? Can't remember. Nontheless, well done video, and demonstrates Aron's desperate faith in evolutionism and atheism.
creationliberty 1 week ago
No ratings; did not watch.
jiberish001 1 week ago
@jiberish001
Excuses will get you nowhere.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision It isn't a defense or justification. I've grown tired of YouTubers that do not allow ratings and/or comments. I've decided that any video that does not have ratings enabled I will not watch. 99.999% of the time there is only ONE reason that ratings get disabled on a video.
jiberish001 4 days ago
How can you tell a creationist/creationshit video from a proper one? Easy, they won't allow you to judge it, I wonder why. I'm just flabbergasted that it's possible to publish comments.
Nefelisdiardi 1 week ago
So what's happened to the ratings?
saamohod 1 week ago
Wow, this guy knows nearly nothing in the field he is speaking. What are his qualifications? Must be a middle school graduate. What is he doing teaching this stuff when he doesn't even understand the subject matter? ROFL. His "refutations" are nothing more than a demonstration that he has no clue what he is talking about.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@ultim4t32
Actually, for a really good laugh, there's a sequence with this blockhead in another creationshit video, unfortunately I can't remember which one but it's worth a search, I think Potholer 54 also covered it. Here you get his credentials: of course, he doesn't have ANY of ANY kind. But, we're told, he is so intelligent that his IQ is off the chart. So there!
Nefelisdiardi 1 week ago
@ultim4t32
He has no clue? He has no qualifications? Since you are wrong on both assertions and didn't even bother to do any research or actually listen to the video, your comment only makes you the one who has not clue. Put forth an argument instead of complain. Doubtful you could actually do that, it's much easier to just go with the crowd like a mindless zombie.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
Comment removed
ultim4t32 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision Juby has ZERO credentials. Sorry to inform you. He doesn't even have a bachelor's degree of any kind, let alone science. Sorry, there is just too much in this video for me to bother with. He has already been discredited with everyone except christians looking for something to latch onto. Have fun with it. Evil evolution must be stopped!
ultim4t32 5 days ago
@ultim4t32
The sad part is that you don't understand the problems within the scientific consensus. Creationists may latch onto these real problems and use them to bolster their religious views, but of course they would! If someone asks an atheist for scientific evidence, are they going to bring up evolutionary theory (the Neo-Darwinian version)? Of course they do!!!
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision First off, atheism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Second off there are NO PROBLEMS with scientific consensus; there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence that does not fit with (macro) evolution despite scientists testing it for decades. There is as much evidence for (macro) evolution as there is for gravitational theory. Anyone that denies that is deluding themselves. Instead of arguing, why not go to google scholar and see for yourself?
ultim4t32 4 days ago
This guy loves air quotes!
ultim4t32 1 week ago
>Creationary Geneticist
OH GOD MY SDIES
TheTubeTimeMaster1 1 week ago
It's easy to spot a video that the author has little to no belief it...ratings are disabled.
AndyCielecki 1 week ago
@AndyCielecki Did Einstein need ratings to make his theories true? What if a scientist doesn't post his findings on YouTube, but on Facebook? Does he need the new Timeline to make it true? What if he didn't turn timeline on? Watch the video, learn the facts, don't go by popular vote, for that doesn't make evolution true... even if so, only 4 of 10 people believe evolution (in America by popular poll) as why they have no purpose.
brothermeng 1 week ago
@brothermeng ya but he butchers the scientific method so badly.... I mean, really really badly. I don't understand how anyone can stand up and defend this individual.
2010paultron 6 days ago
@brothermeng
"don't go by popular vote, for that doesn't make evolution true"
Indeed. It's the evidence. Of course, dishonest gits like Juby don't care one iota about evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Indeed. It's the evidence. Of course, dishonest gits like Juby don't care one iota about evidence. "
I would beg to differ. I study science all over the world, and I have never been shown one shred of evidence for, which I assume you lean towards, evolution and a earth made by chaos, no design, etc. The very same data can be seen by us creation scientists, we just start from a different belief, and belief is all evolutionists have, no evidence.
brothermeng 5 days ago
@brothermeng
"I have never been shown one shred of evidence for, which I assume you lean towards, evolution"
Then you have obviously "studied science" with huge blinders on, since the evidence for evolution practically forms an avalanche.
"The very same data can be seen by us creation scientists"
You explain all data with "a magic man dunnit", which is not falsifiable and hence not science.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 week ago
this is some fucking bullshit
TheDcac 1 week ago
Ian sorry to piss on your fire but DNA does not contain information its just molecules. In order for information to exist it requires that there is some mind to interpret the "code" contained within the medium of choice. We humans can impose an interpretation on DNA as containing information but the DNA does not know anything about this imposition. Its just self replicating molecules that's all. Once you understand this you will hopefully see why you entire video is based on a misconception.
evilreligion 1 week ago