Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
DNA molecule consists of an estimated 3 billion pairs of molecules called nucleotides. Mutations are changes in a nucleotide and have a variety of effects. Many are harmless, such as many substitutions. A certain amount of mutations are undoubtedly harmful. Perhaps 1 in 1,000 is useful, Each sperm and egg cell has several billion nucleotides so useful mutations can arise. If the mutation allows preferential survival and production of more offspring, more individuals with that mutation survive.
Evolution is just another religion. What's the difference between a Christian and an Evolutionist ? Nothing, you still feel like you're talking to a brick wall.
@iliveon been there done that.found nothing of relevance.richard dawkins said that if you expect to find strong evidence of transitional fossils you are going to be disappointed.many evolutionists say that they don't need fossils to proove it happened. and this is only one aspect that doesn't fit.so evolution is also based on faith. you rely need to believe in it to think its true.it's becoming more like a cult and slows down scientific progress. not to mention all the fake fossils. it's a fraud
@icsvortex665 don't be foolish giving me lies about evolution. Just because you haven't seen any fossils, doesn't mean they don't exist. Its called using museum sites and your human brain. The same way you look up stuff on google, you can do the same for fossils. Not to mention evolution wouldn't change even if fossils weren't around. Because genetics proves evolution, not to mention the hundreds of species of each "kind" as you foolish creationists like to say
@icsvortex665 We make detailed phylogenies with genome data that shows how all life is interconnected parsimoniously. Look up Phylogeny on google images. Scroll through some. Since allele frequency change is a fact evolution caused by changes in allele frequencies between individuals in the same populations is true. Chimp and human DNA comparisons and the chromosomal fusion mutation of chromosome number 2. Not to mention the huge hierarchical diagram that can be made via genome comparison
@iliveon been there done that. as for the dna thing if it's true you should find the same thing between reptiles and birds fish and frogs. frogs and reptiles and so on.and besides that there are lot's of animals with 46 chromosomes like some specie of rat beaver and other
@icsvortex665 Yes but when you have phylogenies produced by morphology studies, gene studies, areas where you find each species, viruses in genome studies, etc. It matches for each type of animal family. Parsimony means the most similarities and the least differences. It works for each family along with many other things that genes alone.
Sickle-cell anemia also grants resistance to, if not immunity from, Malaria. As it so happens SC Anemia happens to be prevalent in areas where Malaria is common. Mutation and natural selection in progress. And no, for the record, not all mutations are deletions in DNA. Seriously people, open a damn text book.
The ears of the seals are also adapted to allow them to hear underwater. Can pakicetus and ambulocetus just be extint mamals with no connection with whales?
"Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information." Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome - P.17 This is from John Sanford, professor of genetics at Cornell University. He has 25 genetic patents and invented the gene gun.
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome, and have the opposite impact that evolution says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, congenital heat defects, Huntington's disease, Downs Syndrome, Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer's disease are the result of mutations. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
@achilles197474 Real compassionate. The reason why those things are still around today is because our technology and medicine due at least in part to our understanding of evolution has prolonged their lives and now they can actually live full, productive lives, passing on their genes. I find it appauling you would stoop to saying there are people out there who shouldn't be alive if evolution were true. How dare you! Frankly, their intellect makes them better at survival than creationists imo.
n his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
The "good mutation" assumption that drives evolution's engine is a fairy tale for adults. Read Cornell University's John Sanford's Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly demolishes the idea that mutations increase information in the genome. See chapter 10, p. 143 "All evidence points to human genetic degeneration" - Or ignore the science you simply don't want to believe.
I am a Christian, and an outspoken one at that. I apologize for my foolish brethren that still resist evolution, haha. Thanks to Ken Miller, Im working on converting as many of them to real science as I can. If you are an atheist reading this, take heart. More and more of my fellow Christians are accepting evolution. It's just a matter of time.
@loudchristian2112 ''I am a Christian, and an outspoken one at that. I apologize for my foolish brethren that still resist evolution, haha. Thanks to Ken Miller, Im working on converting as many of them to real science as I can. If you are an atheist reading this, take heart. More and more of my fellow Christians are accepting evolution. It's just a matter of time.
'' after that its only a matter of time we all accept religion/god is a myth!
"what books or sites would you recommend to deduct conclusions on the subject from??"
You mean on Evolution? Richard Dawkins has just released a book on the evidence for Evolution called "The Greatest Show on Earth". I've just finished it. It's necessarily a bit technical if you're OK with that.
AronRa's "Foundational Falsehood of Creation" is a good series. Thunderf00t and Potholer54 are also worth a look. For a laugh look up Pat Condell.
A cell created by the hand of some mythical being described by cavemen thousands of years ago is even more ludicrous. Just because we as humans don't have all the answers at this moment in time doesn't make your assumption of a "god" valid.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
I find it interesting that all you pro evoists can't accept the fact you've been had. It takes empirical evidence to prove facts not theoretical speculations. Go back to your gov't agency gods and tell them you've been good servants if it will help your brain-washed, gov. educated egos.
You know what I dont understand why Christians who have NO intention of listening and just watch this to hate comment even bother to watch anything on evolution.
@JoMariebentzler " why Christians who have NO intention of listening"
They're not interested in truth, they think they've found it. Modern Science is closing all the gaps where God used to live and there's almost nothing left for Him to do. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are about all that's left and we'll work them out just as we've worked out all the rest of reality.
Christians just sit in their intellectual vacuum shut off from the truth.
In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent! On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
Pt2 than it now has. Just 20,000 yrs ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy earth(E). One mil yrs ago the E would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, & it would have vaporized! It would appear that the E could not be over 7,000 ys old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!) src: evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm
@ElShadaiLives LOL! You idiot. The earths magnetic field varies in strength. It even reverses, that is, it goes negative to what it was. This is to be expected of a dynamo. The earths molten core has currents that rise towards the surface of the earth, cool down and fall back towards the center. Do that inside a spinning planet and you have a dynamo. Field strengths measured in rocks of various ages have confirmed the variable MF. Next galloping Gish piece of creotard crap please.
@TerrencePhillip66 Your argument? FAIL! If you had read the article you'd realize they are taking the mean measurement. click the little thumbnail at the bottom of the article & it will show you the list of scientists & government agencies involved w/ recording the history of Earth's Gravity since 1835.
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14%!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
What gives you racas the right to put down a man's collegiate degrees because he believes that Creation is the better explanation for the "!ORIGIN!" of life? Great argument! "That scientist is not reputable because he believes in Creation!" How ignorant is that, racas!?
@ElShadaiLives Not ignorant, accurate...your argument is called credentialism, and is another form of the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority...and this completely false...btw...where is the name of that organism that has no inorganic elements in it? Let's see it...
Miller sez, "he talked to a lady that just came back from a meeting that told him." FAIL! HEARSAY! ROFLMHO Miller, "tells us 2 things" Paleos will argu anything & that there are enumerable transitional fossils. Scientists arguing over fossils is proof of transitional forms? What poppycock! Either Miller couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it or he is exceptionally indoctrinate in this religion that he has lost his ability to use reason, logic & common sense!
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field has been being measured since 1835. The Earth can only be about 10,000 yrs old. evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm (Free PDF at bottom of page w/ the measurements since 1835) 1 more nail in the evo-delutionists' coffin!
@ElShadaiLives Dear dumb and stpid...go to all the creotard websites you like...then google to see how they were exposed as frauds! Evolution facts contains no facts about evolution, only creotard lies...the other things is, monumentally ignorant one...evolution is about the SPECIATION of life, not the age of the Earth, not about cosmology, and certainly does not address myths like the flood...BTW, your boy Gordon has NO reputable scientists supporting him , NONE.
@pontecanis Raca once again you speak in generalities, proof of your deception. Why would a sci'tist acknowlege a Reporter? How is it that plants grew to make oxygen when there was no Co2 to photosythesize? Where did the plant seed come from? Where did the atmosphere come from? Fairies? About the age of the Earth & sci'tists?
The matter contained in the earth is as old as the Universe! And by the way, raca, it is all deteriorating. Heaven & Earth will pass away just as it is written.
@ElShadaiLives FUCK!!! You are so ignorant of even the simplest of basics it is absolutely astonishing...did you attend any school or did you just get indoctrinated at home? Do you actually have even the remotest education after primary school, or did they push you through just to get rid of you...evolution is not about the age of the Earth, dimwit, but speciation. Not about the origin of the aerobic atmosphere through cyanpobacteria, but speciation. You are an utter loss, too wretched to exist
Frankly, you should consider having a vasectomy as soon as possible, so you cannot pass on your rancid genes...I would suggest a lobotomy, but there is so little in your head except dogma that it would be like waving a stick in the Grand Canyom...won't conact anything...nobody could tell you'd been lobotomized. Ordinarily, I am not this hostile...in your case, you seem so impaired that any other action is pointless...you cannot understand what you criticize, and you lack the awareness to know.
@ElShadaiLives If you are almost 70, you have gotten too old and semi-senile to be able to change now...I pity your kids...to be raised in such an atmosphere of stifling anti-intellectual poverty must have been wretched for them...perhaps they were able to gain some knowledge away from your fog of ignorance and incapacity to understand even the basics of science...you give American education a very bad name...
@pontecanis How slow are you? You can't stay on topic! Personal attacks is a childish way of saying, "I'm losing this debate so I'll attack him!" ROFLMHO! Later loser, I'll not bother w/ your childish debating tactics again. If you don't open your mouth you won't reveal your bad character.
@ElShadaiLives lmao 70 with kids in the supreme court? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. that's either the most pathetic lie for attention ever or it proves how dumb America really is.
@pontecanis Hey schlomo, catch up! W/o atmosphere your precious evolution doesn't exist! Natural selection? non-living matter just suddenly turns into living matter? Right!
The 1st life didn't evolve right? Why is there male & female. What would be the purpose, if cells started out asexually reproducing? Darwin mis-name his book as you are attesting to in your last diatribe! "ORIGIN" is the key here. YOU get that dumbo? ORIGIN OF SPECIES. NOT THE SPECIES THAT YOU CLAIM EVOLVED AFTERWARDS. RACA!
@ElShadaiLives What you refer to, as I stated, is abiogenesis, not evolution...thank you for confirming my impression that you do not understand anything that you criticize...I do have one request: Please name for me any one organism, just one mind, ONLY ONE, that does not contain inorganic elements. You are so sconvinced and such an expert, I sure you must have ONE...only one is necessary, jst one...not an entire species or genus, just ONE organism that has NO inorganic elements...I'm waiting..
@pontecanis “Scientists have been measuring earth's magnetid field since 1835 when the German mathematical genius Johann Karl Fredrich Gauss made the 1st measurement. It is obvious that the measurements, indicated below, are consistent in what they reveal.” src: evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm There is a whole list of sci'tists &! Gov agencies if you had the competency to look at the PDF I pointed out!
at less than 3 minutes Miller shows a picture of a extinct specie which looks like a relative of a croc or gator. Miller you got your head in the wrong end of your anatomy. Where is your DNA/RNA proof for such babel?
The sheer ignorance and arrogance of LoricaLady and ElShadaiLives is just comical. Please keep the comments coming ladies you are proving how dumb religion makes people.
@humandelusion Yeah you're right, your beliefs that you believe in on faith is a religion that has only been around for not quite 200 yrs. Show us 1, just 1 tansitional fossil. Show me a fossil w/ bone in it. You believe radio dating is accurate. You believe we all came from rain falling on rocks. You believe w/o proof that man is ape. You believe w/o proof in the Big Bang. You believe w/o proof in black holes. You believe in w/o proof that there is no Creator! How intelligent are you?
@ElShadaiLives Just because I study something doesn't mean I have to hold a strong belief in it. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution and radiometric dating. The big bang is a theory on how the Universe could have first started while evolution and fossils are facts.
Are you that arrogant that you need an answer? We are just animals living on this planet trying to understand our existence. If you want to believe in a book written by humans thousands of years ago thats your choice.
@ElShadaiLives I'm intelligent enough to understand the mind tricks that religions pull in order to control its members and society as a whole. Science is neutral and doesn't have a lust for power over people's lives and money which is why I choose science to answers the questions of life instead of the bible.
I'm humbled enough by astronomy to accept that I might not know the answer, but for you to say you're 100% correct that a magical man created the Earth is both ignorant and ridiculous.
@ElShadaiLives Is there some default that there IS a creator and I have to prove he (or she) doesn't exist? What if I told you there is a shoe in orbit around the Earth. I know it's there and you can't prove it's not. I was brought up in a family where I wasn't immersed in religion at a young age, so I can take a non-bias view at the entire situation. Let me tell you, the religious side sounds a lot crazier than black holes and the big bang.
@humandelusion It takes research. Not sitting in front of a parrot pulpit listening to him spout babel.
I feel for you. Religion is evil. All religions will stop when El returns. Every religion has its own interpretation of El's word. That's why there are so many. His law isn't grievous to be born. It's simple. As apposed to the 2.5 million laws presently in the U.S..
@humandelusion Do you think that the Creator needs man to do his bidding? With all the angels at his disposal? Do you think that the Creator reveals himself to certain individuals? I do! He revealed himself to me. In a way that would blow your mind. Will I share my story w/ you? NO. Why? It's mine & mine alone. When you are ready He will reveal himself to you. Or? NOT. Shalom
@ElShadaiLives Congratulations! I'm sure it's a great story that you have, but nothing that couldn't be scientifically proven. Anyways, if you want to live in your fantasy world that's fine by me, just get off your high horse in thinking that you're correct. Now go burn some Qurans while I'll troops fight a pointless war.
@humandelusion It is a mind blowing story. Mine, all mine! You'll never know. But, what an eye opener. Science could prove it? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! The only way they could is to put a whole lot of people on machines that measure brain waves. And when the event happens it would be recorded. But, scientists won't have a clue as to what had just happened unless they talk to the individual , "we picked up some unusual brain activity can you tell us what you experienced?" If they're smart? Answer, "NO!"
@ElShadaiLives Measuring brain waves...you mean with an EEG? Active monitoring with PET scans which can monitor chemical activity in real time? Single-beam CT scans? Only been doing it since the 70's my ignorant troll. Miller has forgotten more than Gordon has ever known...and is one of the most recognized educators in the world...his bio has 7 PAGES of professional papers on cell biology...Gordon has...not one paper, 12 pages of invited Science Lectures, Gordon...not one.
@ElShadaiLives Gordon does not report what scientists write, fool...he is an apologist, and not a reporter...what he writes is dogma, not even close to the truth. If you take what Gordon says and consider the exact opposite, that is what scientists ACTUALLY say...Gordon is a psychopathic liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time...he is no different from Kent Hovind in that regard...his credo is the end justifies the means, and lies for the bible are OK by him
@pontecanis Now, once again, you're a liar! You already commented that he is boring and you won't listen to him. Your loss. Your just trying to debase him because you know what he is reporting is correct or you wouldn't attack. You are trying to keep other ppl from listening to George. Not going to happen. Once ppl see what Geo is offering his fan base on YT will grow & grow. I have already had an offer to become a partner by YT. Get a life, raca!
@ElShadaiLives Ahh...I see ! You can't name an organism that has no inorganic elements in it! I'm not surprised...there aren't any! There is NO life form not based on elements, because elements are all that there is to make life! There isn't anything else to make it from!!...not only does life come from non-life, non-life is necessary for life. Had you even the simplest knowledge of biology and chemistry chemistry you would know that...and so would Gordon...but neither of you do...kafir!
@pontecanis There are no organic elements. They are elements. You combine elements - which are not organic - to make an organic compound. Specifically hydrogen, carbon and sometimes nitrogen or oxygen and so on. To ask a more sensible question, try 'name a life-form that has no organic compound in it', which is like asking name an organic life-from that has no organic compounds in it, which is about as stupid as your first request. Creotards are the crackheads of science.
@TerrencePhillip66~~ The question was actually designed as a snare [catches the unwary]...nobody can name a life form with organic elements as there are none, as you point out, nor is there a life-form without elements, period [hence the snare]...but some do have to believe there is a magical component that is there due to the invisible sky daddy...they just can't explain or identify...poor old ElShad had to expose himself sooner or later, his wiggle room disappeared...
I knew his sources were really bad, but Bell, Noory, and GISH are the real dregs...even Hovind has a leg up on those guys...mind you there are still George Gordon,Mike Riddle, and Billy Crone (shudder>>>barf<<<)...the sound you hear is maggots gagging everywhere! Tee Hee...and felicitations!
@TerrencePhillip66 Last night's C2C show was a good one. It was a repeat. Bk: "DR. MARY'S MONKEY" about the cancer causing SV40 virus that was in vaccinations and given to the majority of Americans. Also, 1st hr was of the murder of Senator Sonny Bono
@ElShadaiLives Gordon isn't boring...he is wrong...CONSTANTLY, consistently, continually!! He doesn't undertand what he criticizes in science, like you, and his continual mistakes expose him to be the fraud that he is...he will never be taken seriously, especuially by anyone with a real education in science...and neither will you, as you are too ignorant and closed-minded, despite what you profess to contend on your page about open-mindedness.
@humandelusion sez, "The sheer ignorance and arrogance of LoricaLady and ElShadaiLives is just comical. Please keep the comments coming ladies you are proving how dumb religion makes people." SPAM! Nothing to do w/ the video at hand.
@humandelusion There is ZERO testable chemistry to back up your bullshit assumptions from RNA forming and changing by chance to homochirality..your assumptions are allowed but never any intelligence
@5tonyvvvv I love debating creationists. You visit a creationist website like creation.com and copy and paste a quote about chirality and then call me unintelligent. Please do yourself a favor and read some non-bias studies instead of jumping on the religious bandwagon using childish tactics. Creationists always pick and choose which science to believe then make claims about the parts that fit their agenda best. That isn't science and it never will be.
@humandelusion U love debating creationists.with your ASSUMPTIONS!!..a cell by chance laughable and not science..DNA forming in a mud puddle or in the depths of the oceans..LOL..what a joke,and yes u have ZERO chemistry to back it where is digital code evolving from?..imaginary atheist chemistry..u nothing more than assumptions with stubborn arrogance!! primitive cells exist in your mind!!
@5tonyvvvv Why doesn't science have to try to prove that creationists are wrong? There is nothing to prove that your stance is correct. Science is searching for answers of the UNKNOWN. Proving a part of evolution has a hole in it doesn't justify a god (your god in particular since he is more valid than any of the others). FUCK you are all so close minded its unbelievable.
@LoricaLady ~Been quote-mining the logical fallacies again, huh? Too patheic for words....your statement is an excellent example of the Begging the Question Fallacy, as it depends on an unproven assumption...If A resembles B, then they probably lived the same way...resemblence does not imply precedence, and no paleontologist would make the mistake...only an ignorant creatobibliolator could make such a statement.
The continuous spamming of comments from a few of you clearly demonstrates Ken Miller was right. It doesn't matter how many transitional forms you are shown, you will never accept what science can so clearly and easily demonstrate.
@McPrfctday Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Theory of how evos speciate. All skinned species(S) are related(R). All toothed species are related. All quadraped S are R. All scaled S are R. All similar inner ear structured S are R. All bi-pedal S are R. All furred S are R. All finned S are R. All billed S are R. All web footed S are R. All flying S are R. S that have more than 1 trait i.e. scales & fins are more closely related than S w/ scales & legs. Theories are nothing more than unproven SPECULATION!
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice that I am not responding to That1Q (ditto any other posters) who has been following me around from one vid series to another, it is because he has demonstrated a pattern of name calling, obscenities & other behaviors which are antithetical to true scientific discussions. I spend my limited time debating with those who are able to remain civil and stick to the real issue of science. I'm guessing he thinks the abuse will make me go away. I just ignore him.
OK, LL, after extending comments all over this thread you've asked me to stick to the video (and I'm in agreement - this got totally out of hand). Fine, I'm prepared to do that. Select a single topic that Miller speaks to, and we'll work that topic only.
If you are going to enter new terms ("information"), define them. If you don't understand why scientists experiment, or why science is always provisional about theory, then ask and I'll explain. I don't know your background. Don't assume.
@puncheex "After entering comments all over this thread"..Yes, in trying to be polite & respond to your comments which were off topic, to the extent time allowed. I do not know what you mean by "comment at the top of the thread." Please reiterate. Miller gave 5 examples of so called transitional fossils to whales. (They don't even look like whales or 1 another!). What ev-i-ence is there that they are related to 1 another or whales or ever had progeny significantly different from themselves?
@LoricaLady: Well, you found it - the top of the thread. And I disagree that my comments were off topic - they answered yours, so both yours and mine must have been off.
Evidence for the five fossils being transitionals from a land mammal to whales. Today there are 28 separate specimen species, netting perhaps 50 animals, not counting the Basilosaurus, Eocetus and Zygorhiza that were known in the 19th century and mis-identified, of which hundreds of individuals are known. ...
1) They are all found in the same area of the world, the Indus Valley, which has existed over the whole period of this episode. Obviously, if they are a family, then they must enjoy he same habitat, and likely inhabit and speciate in the same area, up until they attain deep ocean capability and then can show up anywhere.
2) The following skeletal structures show a uniform progression from Pakicetus to Dorudon: head (bone structure, nostrils/blowhole), jaws, ears, front legs/flippers, pelvic girdle and back legs, tail/fluke.
3) dating progression. Dates determined for these specimens all fall into the same progression as the skeletal features indicate they should.
This is just an outline; I'll be getting into detail. You can start arguing now and get to the point (which will delay my detail), or wait.
@puncheex "Show a uniform progression.,.." Progression toward what? You can't show any progression unless you can demonstrate that Fossil A ever even had any progeny different from itself. This is the usual evolutionary spiel. Similairty proves descent. No, you need a lot more data than that. And it ain't there. Would you bet your next year's income that any of those animals descended from one another or turned into whales? Ask in the mirror. You'll start to understand "evidence."
@puncheex Again, please let's stick to the actual vid. Miller gives 5 "transitional fossils." What actual data ishows that they are related to one another or that any of them ever produced progeny signifcantly different from itself? I have asked this before. To lots of evolutionists, including you. They never A. those Qs. Why not? Because there is no answer. "They are in[(their humble opinion] the same area & look kinda alike" does not A. those Qs. Opinions don't = evidence. Cont.
Because the fossils don't have to belong to organisms that directly descended from each other. They could be cousins of the true descendants. It still makes them transitional, since they have the hallmarks we expect to see in fossils in that particular layer.
@MomoTheBellyDancer My friend, plz start to learn the mechanics of the scam of evolution. It starts with presenting evidenceless, dataless theories as if they are facts, and relies heavily on logical fallacies. Look at what you said, mirroring exactly how evo think & evo lit speak, "They could be [theoretical, evidenceless] cousins...they have the hallmarks [logical fallalcy of Correlation Does Not Imply causation] ..." Also learn that the "geoloigic column" & nice neat layers don't exist.
"They could be [theoretical, evidenceless] cousins"
The fact that we find morphological intermediates at the precise layers we expect them to be IS the evidence! This is exactly what happened with Tiktaalik: scientists didn't just dig around randomly, they searched for it and found it at the exact spot and layer they expected it to be.
"Also learn that the "geoloigic column" & nice neat layers don't exist."
So, all those geologists are involved in this "scam" as well?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Morphological intermediates, just means, They look sorta kinda like one another so that proves they are related. "Where we expected them" is based on circular reasoning. "If we find animals that look sorta kinda alike in our next dig, that shows evo is true. Look A & B look sorta kinda alike! We made a prediction that proves evo is true! Tiktaalik is just another scam. There is zip evidence that animal ever got close to walking on land. Google "Tiktaalik model." Cont.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Look at the Flikr photo of the actual skeletal model & then the artist's rendition. Do you notice that the skeltal fins have no fossilized muscles on them and that they are way shorter than the legs of the art work? The artist has added in muscles that push the fish forward in its mighty leap up Darwin's Tree of Life. The evidence is the fossil. Are those skeletal fins made for walkin'? I don' theeenk so. Evo artists consistently present phony visual data. Cont.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Don't believe me? Google Nat'l Geog. art of ambulocetus. There you see a "prewhale" (rolling eyes) with webbed feet. Look! It's transitioning for life in the sea Mama! Yeal right. Only problem is the ambulocetus actually had just what a "prewhale" needs - hooooves! Also see Bill Nye the occasionally science guy ape to man art based on fantasy & no real evidence but seen so many times people accept it as rea. And there's no geologic column scam or not.
It very likely had webbed feet, when you compare it to other animals who have them. But it's not even that important. More important is the SHAPE.
"hooooves! "
The ambulocetus had remnants of hooves, because its ancestor had them. Evolution works on existing shapes, so that comes as no surprise and is actually evidence for the ancestor being a land mammal.
"guy ape to man art "
Artwork is irrelevant. Only the fossils count ... and they speak volumes.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Plz quote scientific data saying ambulocetus had "the remnants of hooves." All I read said they had hooves. Period. Also, where do you see even remnants of hooves on that Nat'l Geog. drawing? The artwork shows Tiktaalik, which you mentioned as a transition, looking like it is a transtiion. The actual fossil shows a fish that looks like a fish. Period. Art work is not irrelevant when it is used to deceive people. It shows the mind set of those who pervert science.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "It had long digits ending with tiny hooves". Yes, all hooves are based on digits, whether the animal had big or tiny feet. The hoof of a horse is said to have "toes." So what is your point? How does that statement of yours show the animal is evolving into a whale?
C'mon, get real, these people are calling a hooved animal a prewhale. It probably had fur & horns, too! It's laughable that's what they have to present as a "transitional" whale form! Wake up.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Do you [LoricaLady] even read what I write?" Actually no, she doesn't. All this has been gone over on another thread along with her quote mines and the definition of "transitional". Evidence and information does not matter to her. She is only here to preach. Her posts are good for a laugh but don't expect to be able to reason with her.
@MomoTheBellyDancer All the speculation! Perhaps the tips of the bones were made that way so when it was exerting a lot of pressure evading a predator it wouldn't send the tips of the bones thru the flesh of the fins? Was it transitional? No! Just a dead specie of fish which may or may not be extinct.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "It very likely had webbed feet when you compare it with other animals." "Very likely" is evo speak, along with "might have...probably...we propose a model." Where is the ev-i-dence for what you said, though? Science needs evidence. No evidence = no science. No evidence presented as science, because it is "likely" - in their humble opinions - is pseudo science. Please learn to use your own mind & learn what science really requires & it's not "likely" & "expected."
@MomoTheBellyDancer I will ask you a rhetorical Q. which will demonstrate (1) you know what evidence really is (2) you are not at all sure evolutioniosts really have evidence for those transitions. Q. is: Would you bet next year's income, double or nothing (assuming the truth could be known beyond a shadow of a doubt) that any of those fossils ever produced any progeny that eventually turned into whales? If we wouldn't bet on it, children should not be taught it is evidence or science.
"that any of those fossils ever produced any progeny that eventually turned into whales?"
Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
Anyway, I just explained that the fossils don't have to represent an actual lineage. All you need is to find organisms with the expected traits in the layers you EXPECT them to find. So your question is nonsensical.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The fossils don't have to represent an actual [reflect on that word, it speaks volumes about what you think science is] lineage." You are saying there is no need for actual data! "All you need is to find organisms with the expected traits." So they tell you We found expected traits! and that is science? No real data, just "expected traits", after the fact of course, & their definition of "expected"? Convenienitly not testable, observable or repeatable. It's not science!
"You are saying there is no need for actual data!"
The fossils are the data.
"We found expected traits! and that is science?"
Yes! When you find what the theory predicts, it confirms the theory. Confirmed theories are all the rage in science. Didn't you know?
"after the fact of course"
No, they are EXPECTED. You have already been told that scientists purposefully searched for Tiktaalik, because they knew what to look for and where to look. Why are you so damn stubborn?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Try to understand this. They did not search for, & find Tiktaalik. That is a lie. Tthey searched for a fossil that had "characteristics of...similar homology to." Since many animals have similar features, naturally, they eventually found one. Again, they are using the logical fallacy of Correlation Implies Causation, i.e., if A looks sorta like B, A came from B. -case closed! Plz learn logical fallacies. Science cannot be illogical! Cont.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Look at Titktaalik. It's a fish. There's no ev-i-dence it's anything but one of innumerable extinct fish. There is 0 ev-i-dence it is moving from being a fish to being a land dweller. None. Zip. Not any. You are right. The evidence is the fossil. The evidence shows a fish. Period. Saying, "We expected to find it! That proves it is evolving into a land animal" is laughable bunk, not evidence. The fossil is the evidence. "It's evolving onto land" is the lie.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "There are very good indications..." there we go again presenting hypotheticals as evidence.I do read lots of evo lit. Fun to quote. Lots of "very good indications..." kinds of remarks & tons of logical fallacies. Friend, you have followed the usual pattern of YT evolutionists. When your belief system gets threatened you start name calling.
I prefer to debate with the (very) few who are objective & science basd. Hope you learn how real science works & evo ain't it. Bye!
It boggles the mind how anybody stubbornly hold to a position, even when it is shown to be so ill-informed as yours. Usually I would start to wonder what brings you to lying to yourself and others so much, but in your case I am really just fed up and exasperated by the sheer amount of in-your-face stupidity.
Let this hopefully be a lesson to others: this is what you get when you listen to the likes of Hovind too much. Beware and godspeed!
@LoricaLady Thumbs up! The bones landed there after the great flood. An extinct land animal because the bones of a fish were found on land? These people are the best science has to offer? These ppl make these outlandish conclusions & get published then it goes into a txtbook & fed to children! No wonder the Louvre in Paris has 3.5 miles of obsolete science books & growing in only a 100 yrs.
@LoricaLady It shows more than that! It shows that evolutionists worship the dead!
Another trait that proves that evolution is a religion, false that it may be. The great flood moved bones of species all over the planet. But evos would have us believe that fish bones found on dry land is proof of evolution! NOT! Fish bones found on dry land proves the great flood & that fish got trapped. ROFMHO
@ElShadaiLives ~Marvelously asinine...since there was no great flood, and no ark, and there is no evidence whatsoever for ID, I'd say your comment is pretty much manure...you might check the Burgess Shales, one of the largest fossils deposits on Earth...contain not a single vertebrate, no bony fishes,no mammals, no dinos, and of course no humans? Put there by a flood? Pretty funny...you and Lorica make a good pair of ignoramuses, neither know anything of science.
@pontecanis There wasn't? Prove it. Every country on Earth has in their history the great flood. Which is reasonable since it was Noah's family that repopulated the earth.
And your Red Herring is why? You can't show proof of evolution so you have to resort to a diversion. Get a life.
The area of the Earth is 5.10 x 10 6th km...the height of Mt. Everest +10 metres is approx 10,000 m. The required volume to cover the Earth to flood dimensions is 5.1x 10 18th cubic kilometers of water, the vast majority of it fresh...where did it come from? Where did it go...what happened to all the ocean fish killed by the fresh water? [None were in the ark]...what happened to all the freshwater fish killed by the brackish water [none were in the ark]...they were not repopulated from the ark.
@pontecanis Look at the salinity of the ocean now. Look at how much the salinity of the ocean increases every year. Then do the math and you'll find that around 4000 yrs ago the ocean was fresh water.
Strange that every single ancient reference to the seas describes them as salt, isn't it? Reverse calculating salinity only gets you so far...it is called an argument from ignorance...you cannot assume the oceans were never salty...if they weren't all fish species would have to had to evolve the ability to metabolize or excrete salt...you don't want to be making THAT argument, I think...
@ElShadaiLives So you are arguing that all salt water fish evolved the ability to metabolise and excrete salt!!! But you said evolution couldn't be possible...better get it straight....the error in the calculation is the assumption that it proceeds to zero, and started from there, which is logically indefensible, as there is no evidence. The earliest reference I could find to salt seas came from Sumeria, about 6000 BC [The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature ]---old enough?
@pontecanis You yourself gave all the examples as to why the Earth isn't saltier. But, the clue, that I gave you is, the ocean is measureably (every year) becoming more saline. With this bit of knowledge you can figure out that at the time of noah's flood the ocean wasn't very saline, and the deluge being fresh water, fresh water will stay on top of salt water so it could be that the fresh water fish stayed near the surface. Very logical.
@ElShadaiLives You are a buffoon. The rate of salt deposition and removal from the oceans is at a rough equilibrium. Diatoms and plankton absorb salt in their bodies. One estimate is 3.24 x 10^9 Kg/yr of sodium removed from the oceans during the Miocene era by diatoms alone. 0.16% of calcium carbonate is sodium by weight. This results in 4.1 x 10^9 kilograms of sodium removed each year. Many other mechanisms remove salt from the oceans. I guess they don't teach them in Sunday School.
@TerrencePhillip66 You missed the clue completely. The increase of saline in the ocean is measureable! All yer B.S. is nil as to the end result. MEASUREABLE! Now go look at how much it increases every year & do the math! And yes fresh water stays on top of salt water so it is logical for the fresh water fish to have lived close to the surface.
@ElShadaiLives The salt content of the oceans is not increasing. It is at a rough equilibrium. Geologists have known this for a long time. I stated two processes that take billions of kilograms of salt out of the water each year. There are over a dozen other processes known to scientists. Anyway, bogus creotard moon recession and salt content nonsense. Move on to your next galloping Gish claim. It's good for a laugh. Even for a creotard you are bottom of the barrel.
Since all humans and supposedly dinosaurs were killed by a biblical flood, how is it that at the Burgess Shales, the largest fossil deposits in N. America, there are no fish? There are no mammals, there are no vertebrates, there are no dinosaurs? And there are no humans? Because there was no flood, moron, and no ark...you are a thimbleminded ignoramus bibliolator---you worship the bible, not any god...your bloody psychopath preachers lie all the time and you are too ignorant to know better...
@pontecanis U talkng to yerself? Can you tell me for certain the currents at the time of the flood? Do you know what was meant by the deluge coming from below? Not just the heavens? The continents sank! All of them. El is an awesome El. I believe it, you believe what you want. Evolutionism is yer religion who am I to stand in the way of yer delusions? Intelligent Design is every where. ie male & female, symbiotic relationships. The Earth's position in relation to other bodies in our system.
@pontecanis Do you know that Noah had charts that showed Antartica w/ no snow or ice? We have checked the accuracy of the charts and they are dead on. There are some amazing proofs if you only open your mind.
@ElShadaiLives ~~If you are such an utter moron as to believe THIS nonsensical hoax, and you ignore all the evidence given to you based on actual scientific observation, then you are too deluded to actually have an intelligent conversation with anyone....the continents sank? Outrageous bullshit---the heat produced by such action would vaporize all the water on Earth, and there would still be no flood...you can't rewrite physics! Get yourself some treatment!
And your supposed authority on all of this is the king of the paranoid survivalist maniacs, George Gordon, the one with the phony unaccredited "School of Law", a man with no science background, who has no formal religious training at all...there's a good reason to give you credence! You swallow the swill this loon preaches, you are indeed in need of some serious help...this ignorant backwoods bozo knows nothing of what he speaks except some smattering of common law...btw, winding up in the ...
Supreme Court is not an accolade referring to his legal expertise, it is called "working the system"...appealing decision after decision through the various levels of the Court system...anyone can do it with enough money and time....usually people like Gordon are cunning,devious and well-known for obsessional thinking in often overtly paranoid fashion, conspiracy-theorists ad nauseam...and you think this emotionally-impaired knob is an expert on science??? Get real!
@pontecanis Listen up shat for brains! Gordon is doing book reviews authored by scientists. If you had a brain you might be half dangerous! There are scientists out there that don't believe in the evo fraud either.
@pontecanis sez, "you think this emotionally-impaired knob is an expert on science?"
NO, I don't believe he is an expert in science& neither does he. Another lesson? Listen to what he says in the audios. He tells U he is a reporter reviewing a book by scientists. He is quite good at it & been doing it for 10 yrs over the airwaves & internet in over 120 countries. PLEASE! Get your ears checked or take a course in comprehension, you desparatly need it!
@pontecanis sez, ".anyone can do it with enough money & time..." Listen up raca! It only cost a 'prose' about $3000 to take a case to the Sup Crt. But, U have to have shown yer competency to be accepted! Not just any dip-squat is accepted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Crt! Gordon & students fight against gov't tyrrany. Listen to "THE STING STORIES" on my channel. An excellent way to get an understanding about Gordon.
@pontecanis Once again a lesson in wisdom. If Gordon is what you say he is, why is his record 84% win of 65 cases? His wife has a 100% win record in 19 cases. Your the shat-for-brains that is so lacking in reason, logic & common sense that I understand why racas like you are called "functional illiterates."
genius guy! thanks for uploading! =)
iLOVENATURE2011 1 week ago
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago in playlist Evolution
DNA molecule consists of an estimated 3 billion pairs of molecules called nucleotides. Mutations are changes in a nucleotide and have a variety of effects. Many are harmless, such as many substitutions. A certain amount of mutations are undoubtedly harmful. Perhaps 1 in 1,000 is useful, Each sperm and egg cell has several billion nucleotides so useful mutations can arise. If the mutation allows preferential survival and production of more offspring, more individuals with that mutation survive.
nazrat07 7 months ago
Evolution is just another religion. What's the difference between a Christian and an Evolutionist ? Nothing, you still feel like you're talking to a brick wall.
dalesend 7 months ago
where can I see some reptile like mammals?
icsvortex665 7 months ago
@icsvortex665 google "reptile-like mammal fossil" and look at them
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon been there done that.found nothing of relevance.richard dawkins said that if you expect to find strong evidence of transitional fossils you are going to be disappointed.many evolutionists say that they don't need fossils to proove it happened. and this is only one aspect that doesn't fit.so evolution is also based on faith. you rely need to believe in it to think its true.it's becoming more like a cult and slows down scientific progress. not to mention all the fake fossils. it's a fraud
icsvortex665 7 months ago
@icsvortex665 don't be foolish giving me lies about evolution. Just because you haven't seen any fossils, doesn't mean they don't exist. Its called using museum sites and your human brain. The same way you look up stuff on google, you can do the same for fossils. Not to mention evolution wouldn't change even if fossils weren't around. Because genetics proves evolution, not to mention the hundreds of species of each "kind" as you foolish creationists like to say
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon dude :| who told you I was a creationist?!?as for dna how does dna prove evolution?
icsvortex665 7 months ago
@icsvortex665 We make detailed phylogenies with genome data that shows how all life is interconnected parsimoniously. Look up Phylogeny on google images. Scroll through some. Since allele frequency change is a fact evolution caused by changes in allele frequencies between individuals in the same populations is true. Chimp and human DNA comparisons and the chromosomal fusion mutation of chromosome number 2. Not to mention the huge hierarchical diagram that can be made via genome comparison
iliveon 7 months ago
@icsvortex665 I'll send you a couple things
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon been there done that. as for the dna thing if it's true you should find the same thing between reptiles and birds fish and frogs. frogs and reptiles and so on.and besides that there are lot's of animals with 46 chromosomes like some specie of rat beaver and other
icsvortex665 7 months ago
@icsvortex665 Yes but when you have phylogenies produced by morphology studies, gene studies, areas where you find each species, viruses in genome studies, etc. It matches for each type of animal family. Parsimony means the most similarities and the least differences. It works for each family along with many other things that genes alone.
iliveon 7 months ago
@icsvortex665
"so evolution is also based on faith"
Ah no the fossil record has lots of evidence, but theres far far more than that.
gorilla199uncensored 7 months ago
Sickle-cell anemia also grants resistance to, if not immunity from, Malaria. As it so happens SC Anemia happens to be prevalent in areas where Malaria is common. Mutation and natural selection in progress. And no, for the record, not all mutations are deletions in DNA. Seriously people, open a damn text book.
hksin11186 8 months ago
The ears of the seals are also adapted to allow them to hear underwater. Can pakicetus and ambulocetus just be extint mamals with no connection with whales?
prototypo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information." Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome - P.17 This is from John Sanford, professor of genetics at Cornell University. He has 25 genetic patents and invented the gene gun.
achilles197474 9 months ago
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome, and have the opposite impact that evolution says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, congenital heat defects, Huntington's disease, Downs Syndrome, Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer's disease are the result of mutations. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
achilles197474 9 months ago
@achilles197474 Real compassionate. The reason why those things are still around today is because our technology and medicine due at least in part to our understanding of evolution has prolonged their lives and now they can actually live full, productive lives, passing on their genes. I find it appauling you would stoop to saying there are people out there who shouldn't be alive if evolution were true. How dare you! Frankly, their intellect makes them better at survival than creationists imo.
Ripley747 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
n his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
achilles197474 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "good mutation" assumption that drives evolution's engine is a fairy tale for adults. Read Cornell University's John Sanford's Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly demolishes the idea that mutations increase information in the genome. See chapter 10, p. 143 "All evidence points to human genetic degeneration" - Or ignore the science you simply don't want to believe.
achilles197474 10 months ago
I am a Christian, and an outspoken one at that. I apologize for my foolish brethren that still resist evolution, haha. Thanks to Ken Miller, Im working on converting as many of them to real science as I can. If you are an atheist reading this, take heart. More and more of my fellow Christians are accepting evolution. It's just a matter of time.
loudchristian2112 10 months ago 16
@loudchristian2112 - Youre a liar....
xterminatorSD 3 months ago
@xterminatorSD News to me.
loudchristian2112 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loudchristian2112 ''I am a Christian, and an outspoken one at that. I apologize for my foolish brethren that still resist evolution, haha. Thanks to Ken Miller, Im working on converting as many of them to real science as I can. If you are an atheist reading this, take heart. More and more of my fellow Christians are accepting evolution. It's just a matter of time.
'' after that its only a matter of time we all accept religion/god is a myth!
MrThaPatrick 2 months ago
@loudchristian2112 Some of those Christians resist evolution for scientific reasons.
Kursinphists 2 months ago
@Kursinphists and to them a recommend this full lecture.
loudchristian2112 2 months ago
@loudchristian2112 And to this lecture, a lecture on how evolution is impossible.
/watch?v=TCWM3TqwcBw
Kursinphists 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
"what books or sites would you recommend to deduct conclusions on the subject from??"
You mean on Evolution? Richard Dawkins has just released a book on the evidence for Evolution called "The Greatest Show on Earth". I've just finished it. It's necessarily a bit technical if you're OK with that.
AronRa's "Foundational Falsehood of Creation" is a good series. Thunderf00t and Potholer54 are also worth a look. For a laugh look up Pat Condell.
warren52nz 11 months ago
i love how clear he talks.
xxTaKe2xx 11 months ago
If only all catholics were Ken Miller =[
haz020190 1 year ago
A cell created by the hand of some mythical being described by cavemen thousands of years ago is even more ludicrous. Just because we as humans don't have all the answers at this moment in time doesn't make your assumption of a "god" valid.
humandelusion 1 year ago
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
humandelusion 1 year ago
I find it interesting that all you pro evoists can't accept the fact you've been had. It takes empirical evidence to prove facts not theoretical speculations. Go back to your gov't agency gods and tell them you've been good servants if it will help your brain-washed, gov. educated egos.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
You know what I dont understand why Christians who have NO intention of listening and just watch this to hate comment even bother to watch anything on evolution.
JoMariebentzler 1 year ago 5
@JoMariebentzler " why Christians who have NO intention of listening"
They're not interested in truth, they think they've found it. Modern Science is closing all the gaps where God used to live and there's almost nothing left for Him to do. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are about all that's left and we'll work them out just as we've worked out all the rest of reality.
Christians just sit in their intellectual vacuum shut off from the truth.
"The Internet..... where Religion goes to die"
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz right you are sir!
JoMariebentzler 1 year ago
@warren52nz what books or sites would you recommend to deduct conclusions on the subject from??
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
Creationists: 0
There is no controversy: 1 more
muzvh1 1 year ago
Thank God for Kenneth Miller!
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent! On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s(E) magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of E’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Pt2 than it now has. Just 20,000 yrs ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy earth(E). One mil yrs ago the E would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, & it would have vaporized! It would appear that the E could not be over 7,000 ys old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!) src: evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives LOL! You idiot. The earths magnetic field varies in strength. It even reverses, that is, it goes negative to what it was. This is to be expected of a dynamo. The earths molten core has currents that rise towards the surface of the earth, cool down and fall back towards the center. Do that inside a spinning planet and you have a dynamo. Field strengths measured in rocks of various ages have confirmed the variable MF. Next galloping Gish piece of creotard crap please.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 Your argument? FAIL! If you had read the article you'd realize they are taking the mean measurement. click the little thumbnail at the bottom of the article & it will show you the list of scientists & government agencies involved w/ recording the history of Earth's Gravity since 1835.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt1 In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the 1st measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14%!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
What gives you racas the right to put down a man's collegiate degrees because he believes that Creation is the better explanation for the "!ORIGIN!" of life? Great argument! "That scientist is not reputable because he believes in Creation!" How ignorant is that, racas!?
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Not ignorant, accurate...your argument is called credentialism, and is another form of the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority...and this completely false...btw...where is the name of that organism that has no inorganic elements in it? Let's see it...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Miller sez, "he talked to a lady that just came back from a meeting that told him." FAIL! HEARSAY! ROFLMHO Miller, "tells us 2 things" Paleos will argu anything & that there are enumerable transitional fossils. Scientists arguing over fossils is proof of transitional forms? What poppycock! Either Miller couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it or he is exceptionally indoctrinate in this religion that he has lost his ability to use reason, logic & common sense!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field has been being measured since 1835. The Earth can only be about 10,000 yrs old. evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm (Free PDF at bottom of page w/ the measurements since 1835) 1 more nail in the evo-delutionists' coffin!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Dear dumb and stpid...go to all the creotard websites you like...then google to see how they were exposed as frauds! Evolution facts contains no facts about evolution, only creotard lies...the other things is, monumentally ignorant one...evolution is about the SPECIATION of life, not the age of the Earth, not about cosmology, and certainly does not address myths like the flood...BTW, your boy Gordon has NO reputable scientists supporting him , NONE.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Raca once again you speak in generalities, proof of your deception. Why would a sci'tist acknowlege a Reporter? How is it that plants grew to make oxygen when there was no Co2 to photosythesize? Where did the plant seed come from? Where did the atmosphere come from? Fairies? About the age of the Earth & sci'tists?
The matter contained in the earth is as old as the Universe! And by the way, raca, it is all deteriorating. Heaven & Earth will pass away just as it is written.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives FUCK!!! You are so ignorant of even the simplest of basics it is absolutely astonishing...did you attend any school or did you just get indoctrinated at home? Do you actually have even the remotest education after primary school, or did they push you through just to get rid of you...evolution is not about the age of the Earth, dimwit, but speciation. Not about the origin of the aerobic atmosphere through cyanpobacteria, but speciation. You are an utter loss, too wretched to exist
pontecanis 1 year ago
Frankly, you should consider having a vasectomy as soon as possible, so you cannot pass on your rancid genes...I would suggest a lobotomy, but there is so little in your head except dogma that it would be like waving a stick in the Grand Canyom...won't conact anything...nobody could tell you'd been lobotomized. Ordinarily, I am not this hostile...in your case, you seem so impaired that any other action is pointless...you cannot understand what you criticize, and you lack the awareness to know.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Actually dum-dum I have kids that work for the Supreme Crt. ROFLMHO!
I'm almost 70 butt-wipe! & unlike you my sperm is still swimming using the only tail man has ever had!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives If you are almost 70, you have gotten too old and semi-senile to be able to change now...I pity your kids...to be raised in such an atmosphere of stifling anti-intellectual poverty must have been wretched for them...perhaps they were able to gain some knowledge away from your fog of ignorance and incapacity to understand even the basics of science...you give American education a very bad name...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis How slow are you? You can't stay on topic! Personal attacks is a childish way of saying, "I'm losing this debate so I'll attack him!" ROFLMHO! Later loser, I'll not bother w/ your childish debating tactics again. If you don't open your mouth you won't reveal your bad character.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives lmao 70 with kids in the supreme court? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. that's either the most pathetic lie for attention ever or it proves how dumb America really is.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@pontecanis Hey schlomo, catch up! W/o atmosphere your precious evolution doesn't exist! Natural selection? non-living matter just suddenly turns into living matter? Right!
The 1st life didn't evolve right? Why is there male & female. What would be the purpose, if cells started out asexually reproducing? Darwin mis-name his book as you are attesting to in your last diatribe! "ORIGIN" is the key here. YOU get that dumbo? ORIGIN OF SPECIES. NOT THE SPECIES THAT YOU CLAIM EVOLVED AFTERWARDS. RACA!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives What you refer to, as I stated, is abiogenesis, not evolution...thank you for confirming my impression that you do not understand anything that you criticize...I do have one request: Please name for me any one organism, just one mind, ONLY ONE, that does not contain inorganic elements. You are so sconvinced and such an expert, I sure you must have ONE...only one is necessary, jst one...not an entire species or genus, just ONE organism that has NO inorganic elements...I'm waiting..
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis “Scientists have been measuring earth's magnetid field since 1835 when the German mathematical genius Johann Karl Fredrich Gauss made the 1st measurement. It is obvious that the measurements, indicated below, are consistent in what they reveal.” src: evolutionfacts dawt com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a dawt htm There is a whole list of sci'tists &! Gov agencies if you had the competency to look at the PDF I pointed out!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
evolutionfacts dawt com/index dawt htm Photo of human footprints w/ dinosaur footprints.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
at less than 3 minutes Miller shows a picture of a extinct specie which looks like a relative of a croc or gator. Miller you got your head in the wrong end of your anatomy. Where is your DNA/RNA proof for such babel?
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
The sheer ignorance and arrogance of LoricaLady and ElShadaiLives is just comical. Please keep the comments coming ladies you are proving how dumb religion makes people.
humandelusion 1 year ago 18
@humandelusion Yeah you're right, your beliefs that you believe in on faith is a religion that has only been around for not quite 200 yrs. Show us 1, just 1 tansitional fossil. Show me a fossil w/ bone in it. You believe radio dating is accurate. You believe we all came from rain falling on rocks. You believe w/o proof that man is ape. You believe w/o proof in the Big Bang. You believe w/o proof in black holes. You believe in w/o proof that there is no Creator! How intelligent are you?
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Just because I study something doesn't mean I have to hold a strong belief in it. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution and radiometric dating. The big bang is a theory on how the Universe could have first started while evolution and fossils are facts.
Are you that arrogant that you need an answer? We are just animals living on this planet trying to understand our existence. If you want to believe in a book written by humans thousands of years ago thats your choice.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives I'm intelligent enough to understand the mind tricks that religions pull in order to control its members and society as a whole. Science is neutral and doesn't have a lust for power over people's lives and money which is why I choose science to answers the questions of life instead of the bible.
I'm humbled enough by astronomy to accept that I might not know the answer, but for you to say you're 100% correct that a magical man created the Earth is both ignorant and ridiculous.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Is there some default that there IS a creator and I have to prove he (or she) doesn't exist? What if I told you there is a shoe in orbit around the Earth. I know it's there and you can't prove it's not. I was brought up in a family where I wasn't immersed in religion at a young age, so I can take a non-bias view at the entire situation. Let me tell you, the religious side sounds a lot crazier than black holes and the big bang.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@humandelusion It takes research. Not sitting in front of a parrot pulpit listening to him spout babel.
I feel for you. Religion is evil. All religions will stop when El returns. Every religion has its own interpretation of El's word. That's why there are so many. His law isn't grievous to be born. It's simple. As apposed to the 2.5 million laws presently in the U.S..
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@humandelusion Do you think that the Creator needs man to do his bidding? With all the angels at his disposal? Do you think that the Creator reveals himself to certain individuals? I do! He revealed himself to me. In a way that would blow your mind. Will I share my story w/ you? NO. Why? It's mine & mine alone. When you are ready He will reveal himself to you. Or? NOT. Shalom
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Congratulations! I'm sure it's a great story that you have, but nothing that couldn't be scientifically proven. Anyways, if you want to live in your fantasy world that's fine by me, just get off your high horse in thinking that you're correct. Now go burn some Qurans while I'll troops fight a pointless war.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@humandelusion Here you think this is happenstance?
expasy dawt ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails dawt pl
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@humandelusion It is a mind blowing story. Mine, all mine! You'll never know. But, what an eye opener. Science could prove it? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! The only way they could is to put a whole lot of people on machines that measure brain waves. And when the event happens it would be recorded. But, scientists won't have a clue as to what had just happened unless they talk to the individual , "we picked up some unusual brain activity can you tell us what you experienced?" If they're smart? Answer, "NO!"
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Measuring brain waves...you mean with an EEG? Active monitoring with PET scans which can monitor chemical activity in real time? Single-beam CT scans? Only been doing it since the 70's my ignorant troll. Miller has forgotten more than Gordon has ever known...and is one of the most recognized educators in the world...his bio has 7 PAGES of professional papers on cell biology...Gordon has...not one paper, 12 pages of invited Science Lectures, Gordon...not one.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis sez, "Gordon...not one." Diatribe! Gordon is a reporter dip-squat! He reports what scientists write, you brainless twit!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Gordon does not report what scientists write, fool...he is an apologist, and not a reporter...what he writes is dogma, not even close to the truth. If you take what Gordon says and consider the exact opposite, that is what scientists ACTUALLY say...Gordon is a psychopathic liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time...he is no different from Kent Hovind in that regard...his credo is the end justifies the means, and lies for the bible are OK by him
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Now, once again, you're a liar! You already commented that he is boring and you won't listen to him. Your loss. Your just trying to debase him because you know what he is reporting is correct or you wouldn't attack. You are trying to keep other ppl from listening to George. Not going to happen. Once ppl see what Geo is offering his fan base on YT will grow & grow. I have already had an offer to become a partner by YT. Get a life, raca!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Ahh...I see ! You can't name an organism that has no inorganic elements in it! I'm not surprised...there aren't any! There is NO life form not based on elements, because elements are all that there is to make life! There isn't anything else to make it from!!...not only does life come from non-life, non-life is necessary for life. Had you even the simplest knowledge of biology and chemistry chemistry you would know that...and so would Gordon...but neither of you do...kafir!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis There are no organic elements. They are elements. You combine elements - which are not organic - to make an organic compound. Specifically hydrogen, carbon and sometimes nitrogen or oxygen and so on. To ask a more sensible question, try 'name a life-form that has no organic compound in it', which is like asking name an organic life-from that has no organic compounds in it, which is about as stupid as your first request. Creotards are the crackheads of science.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66~~ The question was actually designed as a snare [catches the unwary]...nobody can name a life form with organic elements as there are none, as you point out, nor is there a life-form without elements, period [hence the snare]...but some do have to believe there is a magical component that is there due to the invisible sky daddy...they just can't explain or identify...poor old ElShad had to expose himself sooner or later, his wiggle room disappeared...
pontecanis 1 year ago
I knew his sources were really bad, but Bell, Noory, and GISH are the real dregs...even Hovind has a leg up on those guys...mind you there are still George Gordon,Mike Riddle, and Billy Crone (shudder>>>barf<<<)...the sound you hear is maggots gagging everywhere! Tee Hee...and felicitations!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 Last night's C2C show was a good one. It was a repeat. Bk: "DR. MARY'S MONKEY" about the cancer causing SV40 virus that was in vaccinations and given to the majority of Americans. Also, 1st hr was of the murder of Senator Sonny Bono
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Gordon isn't boring...he is wrong...CONSTANTLY, consistently, continually!! He doesn't undertand what he criticizes in science, like you, and his continual mistakes expose him to be the fraud that he is...he will never be taken seriously, especuially by anyone with a real education in science...and neither will you, as you are too ignorant and closed-minded, despite what you profess to contend on your page about open-mindedness.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@humandelusion sez, "...I'll troops fight a pointless war." Sorry can't answer this incomprehensible diatribe.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@humandelusion sez, "The sheer ignorance and arrogance of LoricaLady and ElShadaiLives is just comical. Please keep the comments coming ladies you are proving how dumb religion makes people." SPAM! Nothing to do w/ the video at hand.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@humandelusion There is ZERO testable chemistry to back up your bullshit assumptions from RNA forming and changing by chance to homochirality..your assumptions are allowed but never any intelligence
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I love debating creationists. You visit a creationist website like creation.com and copy and paste a quote about chirality and then call me unintelligent. Please do yourself a favor and read some non-bias studies instead of jumping on the religious bandwagon using childish tactics. Creationists always pick and choose which science to believe then make claims about the parts that fit their agenda best. That isn't science and it never will be.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@humandelusion U love debating creationists.with your ASSUMPTIONS!!..a cell by chance laughable and not science..DNA forming in a mud puddle or in the depths of the oceans..LOL..what a joke,and yes u have ZERO chemistry to back it where is digital code evolving from?..imaginary atheist chemistry..u nothing more than assumptions with stubborn arrogance!! primitive cells exist in your mind!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Why doesn't science have to try to prove that creationists are wrong? There is nothing to prove that your stance is correct. Science is searching for answers of the UNKNOWN. Proving a part of evolution has a hole in it doesn't justify a god (your god in particular since he is more valid than any of the others). FUCK you are all so close minded its unbelievable.
humandelusion 1 year ago
@LoricaLady ~Been quote-mining the logical fallacies again, huh? Too patheic for words....your statement is an excellent example of the Begging the Question Fallacy, as it depends on an unproven assumption...If A resembles B, then they probably lived the same way...resemblence does not imply precedence, and no paleontologist would make the mistake...only an ignorant creatobibliolator could make such a statement.
pontecanis 1 year ago
The continuous spamming of comments from a few of you clearly demonstrates Ken Miller was right. It doesn't matter how many transitional forms you are shown, you will never accept what science can so clearly and easily demonstrate.
Kurpalac 1 year ago 15
@Kurpalac delusional. go find one; prove your discourse for yourself. Good luck w/ that.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Bones of species found everywhere are certainly proof of a great flood!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Comment removed
McPrfctday 1 year ago
@McPrfctday You should learn that using your pet names for your mother on YT might upset her.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Comment removed
McPrfctday 1 year ago
@McPrfctday Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Theory of how evos speciate. All skinned species(S) are related(R). All toothed species are related. All quadraped S are R. All scaled S are R. All similar inner ear structured S are R. All bi-pedal S are R. All furred S are R. All finned S are R. All billed S are R. All web footed S are R. All flying S are R. S that have more than 1 trait i.e. scales & fins are more closely related than S w/ scales & legs. Theories are nothing more than unproven SPECULATION!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
I believe in evolution.
imsocool213 1 year ago
@imsocool213 so do i :)
MikaelDryden 1 year ago
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice that I am not responding to That1Q (ditto any other posters) who has been following me around from one vid series to another, it is because he has demonstrated a pattern of name calling, obscenities & other behaviors which are antithetical to true scientific discussions. I spend my limited time debating with those who are able to remain civil and stick to the real issue of science. I'm guessing he thinks the abuse will make me go away. I just ignore him.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
OK, LL, after extending comments all over this thread you've asked me to stick to the video (and I'm in agreement - this got totally out of hand). Fine, I'm prepared to do that. Select a single topic that Miller speaks to, and we'll work that topic only.
If you are going to enter new terms ("information"), define them. If you don't understand why scientists experiment, or why science is always provisional about theory, then ask and I'll explain. I don't know your background. Don't assume.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex "After entering comments all over this thread"..Yes, in trying to be polite & respond to your comments which were off topic, to the extent time allowed. I do not know what you mean by "comment at the top of the thread." Please reiterate. Miller gave 5 examples of so called transitional fossils to whales. (They don't even look like whales or 1 another!). What ev-i-ence is there that they are related to 1 another or whales or ever had progeny significantly different from themselves?
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady: Well, you found it - the top of the thread. And I disagree that my comments were off topic - they answered yours, so both yours and mine must have been off.
Evidence for the five fossils being transitionals from a land mammal to whales. Today there are 28 separate specimen species, netting perhaps 50 animals, not counting the Basilosaurus, Eocetus and Zygorhiza that were known in the 19th century and mis-identified, of which hundreds of individuals are known. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
...
1) They are all found in the same area of the world, the Indus Valley, which has existed over the whole period of this episode. Obviously, if they are a family, then they must enjoy he same habitat, and likely inhabit and speciate in the same area, up until they attain deep ocean capability and then can show up anywhere.
...
puncheex 1 year ago
...
2) The following skeletal structures show a uniform progression from Pakicetus to Dorudon: head (bone structure, nostrils/blowhole), jaws, ears, front legs/flippers, pelvic girdle and back legs, tail/fluke.
3) dating progression. Dates determined for these specimens all fall into the same progression as the skeletal features indicate they should.
This is just an outline; I'll be getting into detail. You can start arguing now and get to the point (which will delay my detail), or wait.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex "Show a uniform progression.,.." Progression toward what? You can't show any progression unless you can demonstrate that Fossil A ever even had any progeny different from itself. This is the usual evolutionary spiel. Similairty proves descent. No, you need a lot more data than that. And it ain't there. Would you bet your next year's income that any of those animals descended from one another or turned into whales? Ask in the mirror. You'll start to understand "evidence."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@puncheex Again, please let's stick to the actual vid. Miller gives 5 "transitional fossils." What actual data ishows that they are related to one another or that any of them ever produced progeny signifcantly different from itself? I have asked this before. To lots of evolutionists, including you. They never A. those Qs. Why not? Because there is no answer. "They are in[(their humble opinion] the same area & look kinda alike" does not A. those Qs. Opinions don't = evidence. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"They never A. those Qs. Why not? "
Because the fossils don't have to belong to organisms that directly descended from each other. They could be cousins of the true descendants. It still makes them transitional, since they have the hallmarks we expect to see in fossils in that particular layer.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer My friend, plz start to learn the mechanics of the scam of evolution. It starts with presenting evidenceless, dataless theories as if they are facts, and relies heavily on logical fallacies. Look at what you said, mirroring exactly how evo think & evo lit speak, "They could be [theoretical, evidenceless] cousins...they have the hallmarks [logical fallalcy of Correlation Does Not Imply causation] ..." Also learn that the "geoloigic column" & nice neat layers don't exist.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"They could be [theoretical, evidenceless] cousins"
The fact that we find morphological intermediates at the precise layers we expect them to be IS the evidence! This is exactly what happened with Tiktaalik: scientists didn't just dig around randomly, they searched for it and found it at the exact spot and layer they expected it to be.
"Also learn that the "geoloigic column" & nice neat layers don't exist."
So, all those geologists are involved in this "scam" as well?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Morphological intermediates, just means, They look sorta kinda like one another so that proves they are related. "Where we expected them" is based on circular reasoning. "If we find animals that look sorta kinda alike in our next dig, that shows evo is true. Look A & B look sorta kinda alike! We made a prediction that proves evo is true! Tiktaalik is just another scam. There is zip evidence that animal ever got close to walking on land. Google "Tiktaalik model." Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady
"They look sorta kinda like one another so that proves they are related"
Do you think it is a coincidence when cousins resemble each other?
"Where we expected them is based on circular reasoning."
So it's also circular reasoning when I expect see the Eiffel Tower when I visit Paris?
"There is zip evidence that animal ever got close to walking on land."
Then explain why it had limbs fit for doing doing so.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Look at the Flikr photo of the actual skeletal model & then the artist's rendition. Do you notice that the skeltal fins have no fossilized muscles on them and that they are way shorter than the legs of the art work? The artist has added in muscles that push the fish forward in its mighty leap up Darwin's Tree of Life. The evidence is the fossil. Are those skeletal fins made for walkin'? I don' theeenk so. Evo artists consistently present phony visual data. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady
"the artist's rendition"
.. is not relevant.
"The evidence is the fossil."
Indeed. So, what's the problem?
"Are those skeletal fins made for walkin'?"
Yes, they were made for both swimming and walking. Tiktaalik is a true intermediate.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Don't believe me? Google Nat'l Geog. art of ambulocetus. There you see a "prewhale" (rolling eyes) with webbed feet. Look! It's transitioning for life in the sea Mama! Yeal right. Only problem is the ambulocetus actually had just what a "prewhale" needs - hooooves! Also see Bill Nye the occasionally science guy ape to man art based on fantasy & no real evidence but seen so many times people accept it as rea. And there's no geologic column scam or not.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"webbed feet"
It very likely had webbed feet, when you compare it to other animals who have them. But it's not even that important. More important is the SHAPE.
"hooooves! "
The ambulocetus had remnants of hooves, because its ancestor had them. Evolution works on existing shapes, so that comes as no surprise and is actually evidence for the ancestor being a land mammal.
"guy ape to man art "
Artwork is irrelevant. Only the fossils count ... and they speak volumes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Plz quote scientific data saying ambulocetus had "the remnants of hooves." All I read said they had hooves. Period. Also, where do you see even remnants of hooves on that Nat'l Geog. drawing? The artwork shows Tiktaalik, which you mentioned as a transition, looking like it is a transtiion. The actual fossil shows a fish that looks like a fish. Period. Art work is not irrelevant when it is used to deceive people. It shows the mind set of those who pervert science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"quote scientific data saying ambulocetus had the remnants of hooves."
You can easily find that in the peer-reviewed literature, for instance in the articles of Thewissen and Hussain.
"they had hooves."
It had long digits ending with tiny hooves on each one.
"drawing" "artwork"
I told you before why artwork is irrelevant. Do you even read what I write?
"The actual fossil shows a fish that looks like a fish. "
Yes, a fish adapted to walk on land. An intermediate form.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 2
@MomoTheBellyDancer "It had long digits ending with tiny hooves". Yes, all hooves are based on digits, whether the animal had big or tiny feet. The hoof of a horse is said to have "toes." So what is your point? How does that statement of yours show the animal is evolving into a whale?
C'mon, get real, these people are calling a hooved animal a prewhale. It probably had fur & horns, too! It's laughable that's what they have to present as a "transitional" whale form! Wake up.
for whales.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"Yes, all hooves are based on digits"
But those "hooves" were way too small to be of any use.
"So what is your point"
Ambulocetus inherited those hooves from its ancestor, even though they didn't serve a proper function anymore.
"How does that statement of yours show the animal is evolving into a whale?"
My statement doesn't, but the fossils do.
"calling a hooved animal a prewhale"
That's because it had evolved from a land-dwelling, hooved species.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Do you [LoricaLady] even read what I write?" Actually no, she doesn't. All this has been gone over on another thread along with her quote mines and the definition of "transitional". Evidence and information does not matter to her. She is only here to preach. Her posts are good for a laugh but don't expect to be able to reason with her.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer All the speculation! Perhaps the tips of the bones were made that way so when it was exerting a lot of pressure evading a predator it wouldn't send the tips of the bones thru the flesh of the fins? Was it transitional? No! Just a dead specie of fish which may or may not be extinct.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "It very likely had webbed feet when you compare it with other animals." "Very likely" is evo speak, along with "might have...probably...we propose a model." Where is the ev-i-dence for what you said, though? Science needs evidence. No evidence = no science. No evidence presented as science, because it is "likely" - in their humble opinions - is pseudo science. Please learn to use your own mind & learn what science really requires & it's not "likely" & "expected."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I will ask you a rhetorical Q. which will demonstrate (1) you know what evidence really is (2) you are not at all sure evolutioniosts really have evidence for those transitions. Q. is: Would you bet next year's income, double or nothing (assuming the truth could be known beyond a shadow of a doubt) that any of those fossils ever produced any progeny that eventually turned into whales? If we wouldn't bet on it, children should not be taught it is evidence or science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"that any of those fossils ever produced any progeny that eventually turned into whales?"
Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
Anyway, I just explained that the fossils don't have to represent an actual lineage. All you need is to find organisms with the expected traits in the layers you EXPECT them to find. So your question is nonsensical.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The fossils don't have to represent an actual [reflect on that word, it speaks volumes about what you think science is] lineage." You are saying there is no need for actual data! "All you need is to find organisms with the expected traits." So they tell you We found expected traits! and that is science? No real data, just "expected traits", after the fact of course, & their definition of "expected"? Convenienitly not testable, observable or repeatable. It's not science!
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"You are saying there is no need for actual data!"
The fossils are the data.
"We found expected traits! and that is science?"
Yes! When you find what the theory predicts, it confirms the theory. Confirmed theories are all the rage in science. Didn't you know?
"after the fact of course"
No, they are EXPECTED. You have already been told that scientists purposefully searched for Tiktaalik, because they knew what to look for and where to look. Why are you so damn stubborn?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Try to understand this. They did not search for, & find Tiktaalik. That is a lie. Tthey searched for a fossil that had "characteristics of...similar homology to." Since many animals have similar features, naturally, they eventually found one. Again, they are using the logical fallacy of Correlation Implies Causation, i.e., if A looks sorta like B, A came from B. -case closed! Plz learn logical fallacies. Science cannot be illogical! Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"Try to understand this"
You're being very smug for someone who obviously doesn't understand a thing about the thing she's criticizing.
"They did not search for, & find Tiktaalik."
Yes, they did. They had been digging on Ellesmere Island for five years because they knew it had to be there. It's not a fluke.
"Science cannot be illogical! "
Yet you're claiming that the scientists are. Go figure.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont. Look at Titktaalik. It's a fish. There's no ev-i-dence it's anything but one of innumerable extinct fish. There is 0 ev-i-dence it is moving from being a fish to being a land dweller. None. Zip. Not any. You are right. The evidence is the fossil. The evidence shows a fish. Period. Saying, "We expected to find it! That proves it is evolving into a land animal" is laughable bunk, not evidence. The fossil is the evidence. "It's evolving onto land" is the lie.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"It's a fish."
Nobody denies that it is . But it has features to walk on land. It's an intermediate.
"There is 0 ev-i-dence it is moving from being a fish to being a land dweller."
There are very good indications that it is. Go read the literature and stop being such an in-your-face liar.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "There are very good indications..." there we go again presenting hypotheticals as evidence.I do read lots of evo lit. Fun to quote. Lots of "very good indications..." kinds of remarks & tons of logical fallacies. Friend, you have followed the usual pattern of YT evolutionists. When your belief system gets threatened you start name calling.
I prefer to debate with the (very) few who are objective & science basd. Hope you learn how real science works & evo ain't it. Bye!
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
"Hope you learn how real science works"
It boggles the mind how anybody stubbornly hold to a position, even when it is shown to be so ill-informed as yours. Usually I would start to wonder what brings you to lying to yourself and others so much, but in your case I am really just fed up and exasperated by the sheer amount of in-your-face stupidity.
Let this hopefully be a lesson to others: this is what you get when you listen to the likes of Hovind too much. Beware and godspeed!
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 3
@LoricaLady Thumbs up! The bones landed there after the great flood. An extinct land animal because the bones of a fish were found on land? These people are the best science has to offer? These ppl make these outlandish conclusions & get published then it goes into a txtbook & fed to children! No wonder the Louvre in Paris has 3.5 miles of obsolete science books & growing in only a 100 yrs.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@LoricaLady It shows more than that! It shows that evolutionists worship the dead!
Another trait that proves that evolution is a religion, false that it may be. The great flood moved bones of species all over the planet. But evos would have us believe that fish bones found on dry land is proof of evolution! NOT! Fish bones found on dry land proves the great flood & that fish got trapped. ROFMHO
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives ~Marvelously asinine...since there was no great flood, and no ark, and there is no evidence whatsoever for ID, I'd say your comment is pretty much manure...you might check the Burgess Shales, one of the largest fossils deposits on Earth...contain not a single vertebrate, no bony fishes,no mammals, no dinos, and of course no humans? Put there by a flood? Pretty funny...you and Lorica make a good pair of ignoramuses, neither know anything of science.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis There wasn't? Prove it. Every country on Earth has in their history the great flood. Which is reasonable since it was Noah's family that repopulated the earth.
And your Red Herring is why? You can't show proof of evolution so you have to resort to a diversion. Get a life.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
The area of the Earth is 5.10 x 10 6th km...the height of Mt. Everest +10 metres is approx 10,000 m. The required volume to cover the Earth to flood dimensions is 5.1x 10 18th cubic kilometers of water, the vast majority of it fresh...where did it come from? Where did it go...what happened to all the ocean fish killed by the fresh water? [None were in the ark]...what happened to all the freshwater fish killed by the brackish water [none were in the ark]...they were not repopulated from the ark.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Look at the salinity of the ocean now. Look at how much the salinity of the ocean increases every year. Then do the math and you'll find that around 4000 yrs ago the ocean was fresh water.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Strange that every single ancient reference to the seas describes them as salt, isn't it? Reverse calculating salinity only gets you so far...it is called an argument from ignorance...you cannot assume the oceans were never salty...if they weren't all fish species would have to had to evolve the ability to metabolize or excrete salt...you don't want to be making THAT argument, I think...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis No, show me the ancient references you are referring to. You can't do the math? I am sure a 7th or 8th grader could do it.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives So you are arguing that all salt water fish evolved the ability to metabolise and excrete salt!!! But you said evolution couldn't be possible...better get it straight....the error in the calculation is the assumption that it proceeds to zero, and started from there, which is logically indefensible, as there is no evidence. The earliest reference I could find to salt seas came from Sumeria, about 6000 BC [The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature ]---old enough?
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis You yourself gave all the examples as to why the Earth isn't saltier. But, the clue, that I gave you is, the ocean is measureably (every year) becoming more saline. With this bit of knowledge you can figure out that at the time of noah's flood the ocean wasn't very saline, and the deluge being fresh water, fresh water will stay on top of salt water so it could be that the fresh water fish stayed near the surface. Very logical.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives You are a buffoon. The rate of salt deposition and removal from the oceans is at a rough equilibrium. Diatoms and plankton absorb salt in their bodies. One estimate is 3.24 x 10^9 Kg/yr of sodium removed from the oceans during the Miocene era by diatoms alone. 0.16% of calcium carbonate is sodium by weight. This results in 4.1 x 10^9 kilograms of sodium removed each year. Many other mechanisms remove salt from the oceans. I guess they don't teach them in Sunday School.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 Since I am a buffoon, i'll not explain how easy the answer is. You can just dwell on it.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 You missed the clue completely. The increase of saline in the ocean is measureable! All yer B.S. is nil as to the end result. MEASUREABLE! Now go look at how much it increases every year & do the math! And yes fresh water stays on top of salt water so it is logical for the fresh water fish to have lived close to the surface.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives The salt content of the oceans is not increasing. It is at a rough equilibrium. Geologists have known this for a long time. I stated two processes that take billions of kilograms of salt out of the water each year. There are over a dozen other processes known to scientists. Anyway, bogus creotard moon recession and salt content nonsense. Move on to your next galloping Gish claim. It's good for a laugh. Even for a creotard you are bottom of the barrel.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
Since all humans and supposedly dinosaurs were killed by a biblical flood, how is it that at the Burgess Shales, the largest fossil deposits in N. America, there are no fish? There are no mammals, there are no vertebrates, there are no dinosaurs? And there are no humans? Because there was no flood, moron, and no ark...you are a thimbleminded ignoramus bibliolator---you worship the bible, not any god...your bloody psychopath preachers lie all the time and you are too ignorant to know better...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis U talkng to yerself? Can you tell me for certain the currents at the time of the flood? Do you know what was meant by the deluge coming from below? Not just the heavens? The continents sank! All of them. El is an awesome El. I believe it, you believe what you want. Evolutionism is yer religion who am I to stand in the way of yer delusions? Intelligent Design is every where. ie male & female, symbiotic relationships. The Earth's position in relation to other bodies in our system.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@pontecanis Do you know that Noah had charts that showed Antartica w/ no snow or ice? We have checked the accuracy of the charts and they are dead on. There are some amazing proofs if you only open your mind.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives ~~If you are such an utter moron as to believe THIS nonsensical hoax, and you ignore all the evidence given to you based on actual scientific observation, then you are too deluded to actually have an intelligent conversation with anyone....the continents sank? Outrageous bullshit---the heat produced by such action would vaporize all the water on Earth, and there would still be no flood...you can't rewrite physics! Get yourself some treatment!
pontecanis 1 year ago
And your supposed authority on all of this is the king of the paranoid survivalist maniacs, George Gordon, the one with the phony unaccredited "School of Law", a man with no science background, who has no formal religious training at all...there's a good reason to give you credence! You swallow the swill this loon preaches, you are indeed in need of some serious help...this ignorant backwoods bozo knows nothing of what he speaks except some smattering of common law...btw, winding up in the ...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Supreme Court is not an accolade referring to his legal expertise, it is called "working the system"...appealing decision after decision through the various levels of the Court system...anyone can do it with enough money and time....usually people like Gordon are cunning,devious and well-known for obsessional thinking in often overtly paranoid fashion, conspiracy-theorists ad nauseam...and you think this emotionally-impaired knob is an expert on science??? Get real!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Listen up shat for brains! Gordon is doing book reviews authored by scientists. If you had a brain you might be half dangerous! There are scientists out there that don't believe in the evo fraud either.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis sez, "you think this emotionally-impaired knob is an expert on science?"
NO, I don't believe he is an expert in science& neither does he. Another lesson? Listen to what he says in the audios. He tells U he is a reporter reviewing a book by scientists. He is quite good at it & been doing it for 10 yrs over the airwaves & internet in over 120 countries. PLEASE! Get your ears checked or take a course in comprehension, you desparatly need it!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@pontecanis sez, ".anyone can do it with enough money & time..." Listen up raca! It only cost a 'prose' about $3000 to take a case to the Sup Crt. But, U have to have shown yer competency to be accepted! Not just any dip-squat is accepted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Crt! Gordon & students fight against gov't tyrrany. Listen to "THE STING STORIES" on my channel. An excellent way to get an understanding about Gordon.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@pontecanis Once again a lesson in wisdom. If Gordon is what you say he is, why is his record 84% win of 65 cases? His wife has a 100% win record in 19 cases. Your the shat-for-brains that is so lacking in reason, logic & common sense that I understand why racas like you are called "functional illiterates."
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@pontecanis