Take that creation theory i am thinking of doing a resege( im dislectic and not english so i probably spelled it wrong) on this species of coelacanth for univercity
@1994theron Sure you are a "neanderthaw," lacking sufficient education to form a reasonable analysis of the subject matter, but that's not malignantpoodle's fault. Furthermore, spelling gives a very strong insight into the intelligence of an individual, especially considering that YouTube's comment box provides spelling check. (Notice: I spelled YouTube that way because spell check told me to)
@1994theron And in an argument, age really does not matter, unless you are an adult attempting to gain back YouTube dignity presenting youself as a teenager (and personally I would have stated younger than 17. Looking at your arguments, I would have said you are a prepubescent adolescence from the bible belt region of the South-east United States, maybe Northern Alabama).
Actually, evolution directly contradicts the story of creation, explains the diversity of life without divine intervention, but most of all makes the notion of, "original sin" completely invalid.
If evolution wasn't threatening to Christian beliefs, Christians wouldn't be fighting so hard against it.
The Bible is full of contradictions and untuths. For example, Genesis 1 says Gods created the lesser light to rule the night. The lesser light is not a light at all. God should have known that. The people who wrote Genesis did not. Case closed in chapter 1.
The Bible being proven false? You can't prove it false. It's faith. An evolutionist has faith in evolution, a creationist has faith in God. If you're going to debate this critical topic, might I suggest to not make such rash choices and stating facts without the propper knowledge to back these up.
@malignantpoodle Faith definition is this, "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." You're choosing to believe in evolution like I choose to believe in the bible. Evolution is so inaccurate, it's incomplete on numerous levels, you say the dinosaurs disappeared millions of years ago, when we have still found DNA, blood samples and tissues on some. Do you think it's mere chance our bodies are designed perfectly, no flaws in them.? Was that just an accident?
Go on read down, faith also is defined as, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
If you have proof, there is no need for faith. Think about it.
Our bodies are designed perfectly? What about genetic defects, those are part of our "design". Birth defects, susceptibility to germs, not to mention how fragile we are and how easily we injure or are killed.
@malignantpoodle Yes, everything involves faith. You're choosing to believe in evolution. Faith has multiple meanings. I never said our bodies are perfect, I said they're designed perfectly, 2 lungs, heart, liver and so on. No, due to this sinful world there is bacteria, disease and we suffer through injuries and other illments. I said it's designed perfectly and multiple doctors have been quoted saying the way it's made, it should live forever.
No, zero faith is required to see that the sky is blue, or to know that 1+4=5. There is no faith there at all because we know these things to be true. Things that have been proven do not require any faith whatsoever.
Designed perfectly? What about genetic defects and copies in DNA? That's part of our, "design" yet there are all kinds of defects, errors, and mutations. Our bodies aren't "designed" much less designed intelligently
I'm surprised to see a Christian that doesn't even know what faith is. You're confusing faith with belief. They are not the same thing. You believe that we were designed. Your belief is based on faith. I believe we evolved. My belief is based upon empirical standings.
Yes, we both believe something, but no we're not both believing through faith.
@malignantpoodle None are famous, but my point is made. Your sarcasm is well noted, have you looked at the human anatomy? Is it mere chance it's designed like that?
@EliteWraith Our DNA was a mixture of DNA from ancient apes and Alien DNA. I saw it on History Channel Ancient Alien stuff. We are descendant from aliens who visited earth a long time ago. God is alien from other world.
@conchim99 your not serious are you?, i dont believe in any religions, have faith, god made us bullshit but what you stated is just as far-fetched as the virgin birth...
@EliteWraith The truth doesn't need faith. Mathematicians do not have faith that 2+2=4. The fact that creationist have to get together on Sunday mornings and hold hands just to reaffirm their faith is comical.
We don't find ourselves THREATENED by the theory of evolution, silly. We find ourselves LIED TO (over and over) by atheist liberals frightened to death about the prospect of there actually being a God. In their zeal to hide from that God, the evolutionist demands all traces of a creator be eliminated from the public square.
John 3:20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
Some people choose to pick reason and do their research to build criteria and therefore to believe in science's theories which are supported by strong evidence.
Others prefer to believe entirely in a compilation of ancient mythological books - They choose to have 'faith' which is the same as killing their reasoning.
@Komnenit the bible is a compilation of documents and claimed eye witnesses reports and they are just compiled into book form for convience not actually a book
if not discovered, this Coelacanth fish will become the missing link between fish and reptiles and evolutionist will make an statue of it and display it in museums and declared that evolution is true. now they are back to zero. looking for another missing link and never exist.
Brilliantly put together. You've really done your research. But I would like to point out that the creationist theory includes the concept of micro-evolution. The creation theory simply can't deny it's existence. Micro-evolution represents variation within a kind. For example, horses, zebras, and donkeys are all the same kind of animal, and share compatible chromosomes. Thus your explanation of the coelacanth order works in both theories. Also, kindly disregard the trolls with uncivil fingers.
Problem for creationists however is that you can't have one without the other. The variables that lead to microevolution are exactly the same that lead to macroevolution. There is no difference at all in the phenomenon except to describe the the scale of evolutionary change.
@malignantpoodle Most scientists claim that macro-evolution is the result of beneficial mutations. However science (what we can directly observe) has only showed time and again that all mutations are destructive, and jeopardize the organism's existence. Natural selection then kicks in and the mutant either does not survive long, or is unable to procreate, thus eliminating the mutation from the gene pool.
When I refer to Christians, I mean those that believe in salvation in the sacrifice of the son to avoid damnation. If someone doesn't believe in that, then they haven't been lumped together because they're not Christians are they?
This coelacanth has been known since 1938. Nothing has changed with regard to ToE. The video explains it. You didn't watch. This whole topic is based on Christian ignorance of scientific taxonomy and ToE itself. Like the title says, it's a strawman argument.
@malignantpoodle The bible has not been proven false and evolution does not disprove god at all so go study anthropology or something instead of making statements that are just frustrated lies
The earth is not flat, it is not older than the sun, it actually moves, it is not the center of the universe. Yes, the bible has been proven false time and time again and we aren't even out of Genesis yet...
@malignantpoodle Okay show me flat out where it says the earth is flat and where it didn't move or it is older than the sun there is no text in the bible or quaran that says anything that you state you try to act like you know everything but you don't and don't reply unless you can give me a scripture because i have studied alot of different reiligious "books" and it's said that you go by what someone else says instead of reading it yourself
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor Yeah you right it says the earth is flat LOL
30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved yeah it sure says the Earth moves LOL I believe You are just a phoney But R U MAD
How could you see all the kingdoms of the world if it was round? This is so moronic and simple it's surprising that people don't understand; the only way you can see everything in the world from a high mountain is IF IT'S FLAT.
It does not say that the earth moves tard, it says that it DOES NOT MOVE.
Mad? No. More like delighted in crushing your ignorant remarks.
@malignantpoodle I said don't reply unless you give me a scripture which claims what you said which there isn't so i knew you couldn't answer it but I Like this video i learned a couple of things...............I'M AGNOSTIC btw
@ceaser8999 scripture proves nothing but your beliefs, coelacanth didn't disprove ANYTHING to do with evolution, it never had lungs or hands, therefore it does not threaten evolution theory at all!
Proven to be false? So not only are you dumb enough to believe the lies proposed by atheist liberals, but now you lodge a contention that even the evolutionist liars have never suggested, that the Bible has been proven to be false? Nice try, skippy.
Yes, proven to be false. The earth is not flat. It does move. It is not the center of the universe. It is not older than the sun. The stars are not smaller than the earth and cannot be extinguished by stomping on them.
Yes, the bible is false on many, many accounts. Creation is just one of many failures.
@urbman29 It isnt truth, and no, more and more people are becoming Athiest each year, for good reasons aswell, the bible has been proven false, alll of it is shit.
@itchygonads lmao,the sad thing is,no religion can be proven false.The proof of a god cannot be proven false.Your comeback to that would be(well,you cant prove unicorns dont exist).lolol.Hilarious.Look,muhammed,Jesus,as well as buddha lived.Muhammed was a merchant who had a wife when she was 12,buddha was a great story teller,and Christ was Christ.All of these people existed.Now,Of course an atheist would not believe in a human who was gods son.Christ was even mentioned in the quran,very strange
@urbman29 Yes it can you moron, god cannot be proven false, but statements made in the bible can be proven false, unlucky idiot you get embarrassed again. And no that is not my comeback, although it is true, you base your religion of nothing, thus you are an idiot. And no, there is no proof of jesus's existence. Jesus was never mentioned by any historions, even after all his miricales? How strange...Only the word "christ" is mentioned, and only twice...lol your religion is a joke. you are stupid
@urbman29 Wow, and you said i had a poor comeback. Your religion is a joke, a laughing stock. As are you, thats your best comment? I think you should re-assess who is slithering. You fool.
@itchygonads moooorreee things.Jeaze,its funny,because even almost all historians believe that just the existance is jesus is un-deniable.People who actually have graduated and studied for it.Not some troll who has NO idea what they are talking about.go do your homework.Jeaze.its like denying the fact that caesar existed
@urbman29 That statement is 100% not true. At all. Secondly some believe but have no proof at all, which is what your religion is based on, believing things without evidence. And when you do watch evidence (this video) you leave PATHETIC comments like your first one, whats the matter? dont like being proved wrong? It is you who has no idea about anything, hell you cannot even use your brain! AHAHA dont compare those two you moron.
@itchygonads no,wrong.once again.Historians strongly agree that christ lived.But they do NOT believe that he was the son of god.Almost all of them do not believe he was.This is fact,not your idiotic waste of words
@itchygonads moooorreee things.Jeaze,its funny,because even almost all historians believe that just the existance is jesus is un-deniable.People who actually have graduated and studied for it.Not some troll who has NO idea what they are talking about.go do your homework.Jeaze.its like denying the fact that caesar existed
@urbman29 No, there is no evidence for his existence. Thus people dont think he lived at all. And you are a waste of life. You are an idiot, thats your best responce for my comeback? Enjoy your tribal bronze age myth and wasting your life!
@urbman29 (churchoflogic (dot) com) called "Did Jesus Exist". Written by Marshall J. Gauvin (1881 - 1978). He makes it very clear that Jesus never lived as a real person. There is also a video on YouTube called" “The god who wasn’t there” [ watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU ] There you go idiot.
And you deny facts, proof, evidence, logic, history and common sense, you ACTUALLY believe in jesus and god? hahahahaha
@itchygonads you arent doing research,you are looking for arguements to heal your mind so you dont have to accept that this man lived.Even Richard Dawkins believed that he existed.but he does obviously not believe in miracles or him being the son of god.Im not trying to make u believe,im giving you common sense that he existed
@urbman29 That is research right there you moron, jesus christ you cant rely on your tiny brain for anything :L Richard dawkins says he might have existed, secondly he has not researched into the existence of jesus.
Common sense? just look at your original comment. Plus you do believe in the miracles. so dont talk to me about common sense.
@itchygonads Richard dawkins believes in luck,and miracles.no difference,at all.You have heard his debates im sure,just a little bit of luck.Secondly,It isnt research,all it is is opinion and point of view givin facts that he existed.Thirdly,dont claim to be wise and all mighty,those people are fools.We arent going to get anywhere with this debate,I will go my seperate way instead of us ringing each others necks.
@urbman29 WHAT? haha he does NOT believe in miracles. at all, and he does not believe in luck ,just probability. Stop lying your slithering scumbag. I have heard lots of his debates, he often laughs at miracles. No, its a very well writing article that essentially disproves jesus. You (as all religious idiots do) deny it. And good. good day.
Around 100 million fossils have been unearthed yet nothing showed innumerable finely gradations of intermediate forms between species as mentioned by Dawin. New studies showed humans did not evolve from neanderthals or apes. The Great Ape is nowhere to be found.
"new studies"... what studies? The scientific community stands in overwhelming solidarity with ToE.
News for ya; humans are apes. There is no single "great ape" as that encompasses several different species.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself that disagree with evolution haven't the slightest knowledge of taxonomy, terminology, or what ToE itself states.
@malignantpoodle Yes new studies on mtDNA by evolutionists and molecular paleontologists Krings, Stone, and Schmitz (who, like me, apparently haven't the slightest knowledge of taxonomy) stated that humans did not evolve from apes or neanderthals. The results of their research was not what evolutionists expected because neanderthals used to be the "solid" missing link to humans. So, now they recant their stories and say apes and neanderthals are human cousins.
No. That is a study from 1997 (not new) and the findings then were that humans were not evolved from neanderthals which is the modern scientific consensus. You stated that "new" studies showed that humans didn't evolve, yet you cite a study that's 14 years old that merely points out that humans didn't evolve from neanderthals, NOT that humans did not evolve.
@malignantpoodle There are numerous recent studies that confirmed Krings et al findings. One study by Krause et al. 2010 showed that fossil found at the Denisova Cave in southern Siberia believed to be hominid is now confirmed to belong neither to a Neandertal nor to a modern human. Where is that so called complete and massive evidence of evolution? Provide a list of four legged animals that gradually transform into a giraffe. There should be thousands if ToE is true.
It is accepted that modern humans did not evolve from, and in fact lived alongside neanderthal man. This does not mean that humans did not evolve. As a matter of fact, these findings have pointed towards neanderthal and homo sapien having common ancestry from homo erectus. What you cite as evidence against evolution in fact is reinforcing it.
As far as giraffes go there are fossil records of some 18 previous species which if you look for giraffes, you can easily find.
@malignantpoodle Which four legged animals first? A highly developed antlers of antelopes would somehow undergo a reverse evolution while their necks grow. Most of them had to starve and die for refusing to look down for vegetation on the ground?
Aside from the fact that the validity of evolution does not hinge on whether or not I can explain (or you accept or reject) certain aspects of it, the fact is that any explanation given to you will be ignored or rejected due to the fact that you have only one thing in mind; to believe otherwise regardless of any evidence.
You did after all, cite a study that underscored and advanced the theory of evolution and claimed that it disproved evolution in humans :)
@malignantpoodle The studies that I cited actually disproved what evolutionists claimed prior to the result of those studies. So, evolutionists were forced to revised the evolutionary tree many times in the last decade. Your evidence of 18 previous species prior to giraffe is baseless according to paleontologist and biologist Gould who stated that a neck stretched during life cannot alter the genes that influence neck length and offspring cannot reap any genetic reward from parental striving
See, that's the thing about science. If something is wrong; it gets corrected. It is falsifiable, it is testable, demonstrable. Religion and creationism are not. They remain unchanged despite contrary evidence. What you cite is a problem with science is actually a merit, and ToE still stands today regardless.
I hope you realize that Gould not only believed in evolution, but taught it at university until his death :)
Thing to consider about Gould is that he believed in rapid changes in evolution, outlined by his work on punctuated equilibrium. This does NOT mean that Gould proposed evidence contrary to ToE, just as the 1997 study you cited did NOT show evidence contrary to ToE as you claimed.
As such, you still have not provided ANY evidence other than your word that ToE is inaccurate, and not only that, the claims you've made since have been patently false.
@malignantpoodle Why ask for evidence? Just to let people know that the complete and massive evidence as claimed by evolutionists is false because scientific studies after studies just contradicted what evolutionists assumed to be true. There is really no need to use philosophy, religion or intelligent design to understand that the theory of evolution is flawed.
You've yet to produce a single scientific study that proved evolution to be false. The only thing you've produced are works by evolutionists that proved the exact opposite of what you were trying to say.
As such, your argument is nothing more than others that come here and just say, "nuh uh!"
@malignantpoodle Evolutionists kept on recanting their stories and revising assumed evolutionary tree to support flawed theory of evolution. How can people believe a witness that continually recant his story everytime someone produced new evidence to the contrary? There are millions of textbooks written by evolutionists with drawings showing series of images vs timeline of chimps-neandertals-humans as evidence of evolution yet we know now that is not the case.
Evolutionists do not, "recant". The theory has gone to new levels and has been enhanced though. For example; Darwin had no knowledge of genes or genetic mutation and drift, yet these things didn't invalidate evolution. Same with the examples you give; equilibrium and common ancestry with neanderthal do not invalidate evolution.
Just as Copernicus stated the sun is the center of the universe (which was wrong), it was movement in the right direction; the Earth was not the center.
Discovering galaxies and other star systems did not invalidate Copernicus' claim that the Earth went around the sun did it? Discovering that the sun was not the center of the universe did not prove that after all, the Earth was the center, did it?
Show me a scientific claim that debunks evolution (you still haven't), or just shut up.
@malignantpoodle Despite some evolutionist biologists and paleontologists saying that the evolution of giraffe is baseless due to genetic evidence, let us examine your 18 previous species that gradually transform into giraffe one by one. Provide a list here.
They do not say it's "baseless". They propose that the giraffe wen through rapid changes as opposed to naturally selective processes (which would be rooted in genetic mutations, something perfectly compatible and required for evolution). You are quoting an individual that not only believed in evolution but taught it at NY university! LOL
@itchygonads Read research by evolutionists biologists Krings et al on mtDNA humans, chimps, neanderthal comparision so that you will know at least humans did not evolve from neanderthals or chimps. There is no mtDNA evidence that humans evolved from so called great ape-like common ancestor, meaning, it is possible that humans did not evolved at all.
see this guy commentating fucked up and just leaned toward creationism. 1. ok u said "the creationist arguement falls apart because that coelacanth was a new species" this is where i get confused with evolution... who the fuck named it a new species. 2. if there is no fossil history how can someone call it a new species??? makes no sense to me just like the modern evolutionist tells the modern christian that if there is no prove of god he isnt real. evoultionist are hypocritical.
You make no sense. "if there is no fossil history how can someone call it a new species"
You just answered your own question. If it's not around to be in the fossil record, that's because it didn't exist during a time when fossilization takes place. Hence it is here now, but not in the past. New species.
@malignantpoodle yeah your right i just reread my comment and it didnt make any sense, what i was trying to say was that if there is know "fossil history" for this new species how do we know that it evolved from the prehistoric coelcanth. doesent make any sense to me.
Because, if we see it alongside others it reasons that it did not come from them. No history in the fossil record means that it's newer. Since we know that all forms of life follow evolutionary paths, the lack of existence in the fossil record means that evolutionary changes have taken place since.
@malignantpoodle so tell me genious are we realted to neanderthaws? we alot alike, we supposedly used to walk in the same fashion, but according to you guys the human race was never related to the neanderthaws? so if there is no fossil records who can prove there not amphibions?
You should really endeavor to learn English first.
The modern coelacanth of which there is no fossil record doesn't fit taxonomy to be classified as amphibian. Yes, homo sapien shares common ancestry with Neanderthal man (not neaderthaw).
It's obvious you haven't even read about the subject if you're forced to spell everything with redneck phonetics.
@malignantpoodle Number one i was being a smart ass and if you cant comprehend that I'm sorry your the ignorant redneck and number two why bring something up as peripheral as my spelling in an arguement because you obviously new what i mean? number three you didn't even argue with me besides telling me that the coelacanth isn't amphibian
@1994theron The fact that you can't spell the subject matter which you're debating means that you haven't done any research. You've obviously read nothing on the subject if you can't even spell it. That's the purpose of pointing out your spelling.
Argue that coelacanth isn't amphibian? Haha... what's next, prove the world is actually round or that chickens lay eggs? Good grief man, if you struggle with basic taxonomy how will you discuss evolution?
@malignantpoodle your a fuckin moron your arguing with a 17 year old about spelling and grammer your a grown man get real dude. Just because i cant spell "wader" doesent mean i dont know that it's a natural liquid that fills up 70% of the world and you must drink about 64 ounces of water a day. get real man get a job and stop argueing a with more mature teenager.
oh yeah and since you cant tell i was being a smart about coelacanths there not really amphibians there fish.
@malignantpoodle wanna know why you lost this fuckin arguement you so could genious? it went from coelacanth to insulting my intelligence. Your far from an above average IQ your just a 30 year old single guy with no life calling someone retarded with a colorful vocabulary. please man if your gonna call me retarded at least tell me why i am and keep to the damn subject where debating and stop pointing out perpheral things like my intelligence.
Peripheral things are talking about amphibian taxonomy when talking about a coelacanth.
Talking about your intelligence is not peripheral because the lack of it on you part is impeding your ability to communicate, evident by the fact that you have to spell everything phonetically because you've never picked up a book in your life.
You can go on and on about this or that irrelevant subject, and I can tell you what a vagina feels like.
@malignantpoodle thanks to the offer about the vagina but its ok bro I get a hell of alot more of it then you. I can tell just by your fucking argument, But back to the fuckin subject at hand that you cant wrap your fuckin head around. Let me teach you how to argue with someone properly. When you argue and I understand this is a problem for you, stay on the subject and not on vaginas and flying unicorns. If you obviously lost stfu and dont send anything back.
@malignantpoodle the last thing you sent to me that was relevant to coelacnaths was two months ago. Need me to slow down or type in CAPS for you to finally understand this I know your brain is slower then the average man but... T H E LAST THING RELEVANT TO COELACANTH YOU SENT TO ME WAS 2 MONTHS AGO!! I really do hope you get this by now because if you dont the future is looking bleak for atheist there getting dumber and dumber by the day
"T H E LAST THING RELEVANT TO COELACANTH YOU SENT TO ME WAS 2 MONTHS AGO!"
That was the last time you posted here.
The fact that you come back 2 months later, still all mad with your hands shaking at the keyboard shows just how badly you got smacked in the debate. You come back two months later to bitch and moan about how I argue?
@malignantpoodle Obviously you because you ran out of valid arguements so you resort to things not even relevant to the video, this is my last message hopefully you read it and absorb this knowledge im trying so desperatly to stuff in that pea size brain of yours. Next time you get into a arrguement with a "dumbass" like me make sure you stay on topic and not resort to insulting intelligence (which you seem to lack anyway) because while this might suprise you it makes you sound stupid.
@malignantpoodle thank you guys. My favorite part was "Let me teach you how to argue with someone properly." Such irony. If you believe in god and think that evolution - and probably all of science - is fictional work of the devil, that is fine. But hey, at least be civil! Just blindly follow the 84 year old infallible pope and malignantpoodle will follow progressive and groundbreaking scientific education.
ive heard from somewere that the coelacanth was the fish that evolved out of the water into the apes that became us. i highly doubt thats true, but i assumed they said that because its neck bends like our and it has limbs
Important thing to remember is that coelacanth is an order of fish, not one specific fish. There are something like more than 50 different species which fall under coelacanth taxonomy. The modern coelacanth is L. Chalumnae and is not found in the fossil record.
Not sure quite honestly. I mean, I understand evolutionary theory and all but I'm unfamiliar with the mapping of transitional evolutionary milestones in humans.
@pokemaster4555 Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. Paleontologists suggest that it is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") such as Panderichthys, known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega
-wikipedia
You should watch ''walking with monsters'' if your interested or haven't already
Creationists are uneducated scientific illiterates who still live on a world of myth and superstition. I used to try and educate these people about modern science and I found it to be a futile and frustrating exercise - like arguing with a JW who has knocked on your door.
@mydas1 um, that's mean. You, in my mind, are just like them, because you are somebody who is trying to convert someone. We all have our own beliefs, I myself believe in evolution, but I also believe in god. Science and religion are completely two different things, and you shouldn't compare them like most people do.
I can't wait until the older generation dies out and stops poisoning the minds of our youth with Christian propaganda. Its actually disguising that someone would tell their children or grandchildren that a proven fact is wrong just because they can't accept it.
there is greater differences between living animals within the same species than between the coelacanth and some of its older cousins. By the way your fossil record fails to show any gradual changes to any species let alone the coelacanth.
What are the differences which are greater between members of the same species than that of animals in different species? Other than just making this up, what can you show that establishes these "greater differences"?
If you buried all the worlds chihuahuas in soft mineral rich mud (something i wouldnt mind doing) a few years later they would fossilize. Yes, and in lab conditions fossilization can happen even faster but thats not my point. My point is that if you then eliminated every other dog breed close to chihuahuas(i.e. poodles) you would have someone out there saying all modern dogs evolved from them. but the truth of the matter is that all dog species are interfertile.
Nope, fossils do not form that quickly, nevermind the fact that the layer of rock they're in plays a bigger part with age than simply the bones being fossilized.
This is precisely why there are no rabbits in the precambrian. They came after. There is a reason we find certain animals only within certain layers.
@malignantpoodle Nope doesn't count as a rebuttal. There are several conditions that have to be met to form a fossil at all. Animals live and die by the millions each day and practically none of them will become fossils. 1,-The animal has to be buried in soft permeable material (i.e. mud, silt etc) . 2,-it has to be rapid burial. animals that die in bodies of water today don't get to be fossils, they get scavenged or rot, partial burial wont work. 3,-The fossilizing matrix has to be moist, and
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm a 16 year old Creationist and i'm noticing more and more everyday that evolution is sounding way more founy everyday.this guy's only argument is that the macropoma look's a lot alike the Coelacanth but at the same time us human's look a lot alike the neanderthal's and we walked with the neanderthal's and they proved that wrong. Evolution has way to many flaws in it and like i said it's starting to sound more and more bullshit everydaywhy is evolution a fact and big bang is a theory? Bullshit
Big bang and evolution are both facts and theories.
A theory is comprised of facts; many facts, and is an explanation for a particular piece of phenomenon. As a matter of fact, a theory is the highest level of scientific proof there is outside of mathematics. Seems to me that you'd want to go back and understand what a theory is before trying to say this is one or that isn't.
Evolution: a wishful thinking of the evolutionists. A bone fragment here and a fragment there, by imagination a complete creature is conjured as if by magic. Evolution is not science, but just opinion/suggestion.
@husler59 Science is fact and theory, science is testable and the best way we have of understanding the world around us. Religion is magic, close mindedness, circular, opinion, imagination, desperation and brainwashing. I know which I prefer.
Microevolution (more or less variations in species) is a real, observable phenomenon and can be repeated again and again, ie: dog/horse breeding. According to evolutionist after a sufficiently long period of time, this will lead to macroevolution (more or less formation of new species). This is a myth.
@McLovinMcFlurry And you propose a better way to understand the natural world is through what? The bible come on how can you be serious a load of stories and fairytales. Come on open you eyes, open your mind its scary but the world is a bright, amazing and beautiful without the blinkers of religion on.
one thing i would like to add, science has a number that says if the possibility of something goes beyond that number, it means it's impossible in happening. And guess what the odds of evolution happening is even larger than this scientific number of impossibility. So if you're are a scientific person, why do you believe in something that is scientifically and mathematically impossible?
Coelacanth is only one of many "living fossils" which disprove the logical soundness of evolution. So in 400 million years fish turned into humans with incredibly powerful minds used (Sometimes..) for reason and art and science, but yet some fish stay relatively unchanged. Yep, you believe we evolved from rocks and single cells yet we are the crazy ones, by the way radiometric dating is seriously flawed, how can you put such strong faith in these areas of bad science? You don't value life?
If you're going to tell me what I believe, at least be accurate.
Let me guess; you're a Christian that worships Satan. You pray to Satan every day inside a circle drawn from chicken blood. He'll tell you to go out and have sex with children, which you'll do.
Afterwards, you pray to Jesus for forgiveness, and he forgives you. But you still aren't going to heaven because you said "goddamn" when you were 5 years old once.
Do you not believe that we evolved from single cells and one of the theories about the single cells is that it rained on rocks for years on an otherwise lifeless earth billions of years ago? Well if you don't believe that, certain evolutionists do, and trust me whether you will admit it or not, whatever you believe is just as unlikely as the former mentioned imaginative scenario as long as it is evolution derived. Test me?
Don't be an idiot. Evolution does not account for the origin of life. It accounts for its diversity. You don't even know what the theory of evolution describes, and what it doesn't, yet you have all of this judgment and "knowledge" about it when you understand zero about it.
Test you? You're an insecure Christian with moving goal posts that will oppose things they don't understand to feel better about faith. I did it as a Christian for 20 years. Not interested.
Evolution is fake. Darwin pulled out phrases from the bible and re aranged then to make his theory evolution.
mrhappy8Dk 3 days ago
@mrhappy8Dk
LOL! So fake evolution comes from the bible? Nice.
malignantpoodle 3 days ago
God created Life. Life evolves.
vaderconstantine 3 days ago
great explanation! i can accept this.
MsHades78 3 days ago
POKEMON!
tehmightymo 5 days ago
Take that creation theory i am thinking of doing a resege( im dislectic and not english so i probably spelled it wrong) on this species of coelacanth for univercity
martijnhofman95 5 days ago
@1994theron Sure you are a "neanderthaw," lacking sufficient education to form a reasonable analysis of the subject matter, but that's not malignantpoodle's fault. Furthermore, spelling gives a very strong insight into the intelligence of an individual, especially considering that YouTube's comment box provides spelling check. (Notice: I spelled YouTube that way because spell check told me to)
Cehrola 5 days ago
@1994theron And in an argument, age really does not matter, unless you are an adult attempting to gain back YouTube dignity presenting youself as a teenager (and personally I would have stated younger than 17. Looking at your arguments, I would have said you are a prepubescent adolescence from the bible belt region of the South-east United States, maybe Northern Alabama).
Cehrola 5 days ago
Evolutionism doesn't prove or disprove the Bible..what's with the flaming.
truthinsuffering 3 weeks ago
@truthinsuffering
Actually, evolution directly contradicts the story of creation, explains the diversity of life without divine intervention, but most of all makes the notion of, "original sin" completely invalid.
If evolution wasn't threatening to Christian beliefs, Christians wouldn't be fighting so hard against it.
malignantpoodle 5 days ago
who is this amatuer?..
maxbify 1 month ago
"Ext-EENCT?
You Latino?
LisaSpringfield 1 month ago
The Bible is full of contradictions and untuths. For example, Genesis 1 says Gods created the lesser light to rule the night. The lesser light is not a light at all. God should have known that. The people who wrote Genesis did not. Case closed in chapter 1.
realistichope 2 months ago
The Bible being proven false? You can't prove it false. It's faith. An evolutionist has faith in evolution, a creationist has faith in God. If you're going to debate this critical topic, might I suggest to not make such rash choices and stating facts without the propper knowledge to back these up.
EliteWraith 2 months ago
@EliteWraith
No, faith is belief without evidence. Evolution has supporting evidence. The bible does not.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Faith definition is this, "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." You're choosing to believe in evolution like I choose to believe in the bible. Evolution is so inaccurate, it's incomplete on numerous levels, you say the dinosaurs disappeared millions of years ago, when we have still found DNA, blood samples and tissues on some. Do you think it's mere chance our bodies are designed perfectly, no flaws in them.? Was that just an accident?
EliteWraith 2 months ago
@EliteWraith
Go on read down, faith also is defined as, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
If you have proof, there is no need for faith. Think about it.
Our bodies are designed perfectly? What about genetic defects, those are part of our "design". Birth defects, susceptibility to germs, not to mention how fragile we are and how easily we injure or are killed.
Our bodies are far from "perfect".
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Yes, everything involves faith. You're choosing to believe in evolution. Faith has multiple meanings. I never said our bodies are perfect, I said they're designed perfectly, 2 lungs, heart, liver and so on. No, due to this sinful world there is bacteria, disease and we suffer through injuries and other illments. I said it's designed perfectly and multiple doctors have been quoted saying the way it's made, it should live forever.
EliteWraith 2 months ago
@EliteWraith
No, zero faith is required to see that the sky is blue, or to know that 1+4=5. There is no faith there at all because we know these things to be true. Things that have been proven do not require any faith whatsoever.
Designed perfectly? What about genetic defects and copies in DNA? That's part of our, "design" yet there are all kinds of defects, errors, and mutations. Our bodies aren't "designed" much less designed intelligently
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@EliteWraith
I'm surprised to see a Christian that doesn't even know what faith is. You're confusing faith with belief. They are not the same thing. You believe that we were designed. Your belief is based on faith. I believe we evolved. My belief is based upon empirical standings.
Yes, we both believe something, but no we're not both believing through faith.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago 2
@EliteWraith
"multiple doctors have been quoted saying the way it's made, it should live forever."
Which doctors? None that I've ever heard of.
You realize we don't even live as long as turtles or trees right? Are they designed perfectly too?
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle None are famous, but my point is made. Your sarcasm is well noted, have you looked at the human anatomy? Is it mere chance it's designed like that?
EliteWraith 2 months ago
@EliteWraith
It's neither mere chance or design.
"None are famous"
So yeah, you just made that up. Point made indeed.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@EliteWraith Our DNA was a mixture of DNA from ancient apes and Alien DNA. I saw it on History Channel Ancient Alien stuff. We are descendant from aliens who visited earth a long time ago. God is alien from other world.
conchim99 2 months ago in playlist More videos from malignantpoodle
@conchim99 your not serious are you?, i dont believe in any religions, have faith, god made us bullshit but what you stated is just as far-fetched as the virgin birth...
89Silhouette 2 months ago
@EliteWraith The truth doesn't need faith. Mathematicians do not have faith that 2+2=4. The fact that creationist have to get together on Sunday mornings and hold hands just to reaffirm their faith is comical.
TheMassdistortion 2 months ago
We don't find ourselves THREATENED by the theory of evolution, silly. We find ourselves LIED TO (over and over) by atheist liberals frightened to death about the prospect of there actually being a God. In their zeal to hide from that God, the evolutionist demands all traces of a creator be eliminated from the public square.
John 3:20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
randalusa 3 months ago
@ceaser8999 @malignantpoodle excuss me but what is this long conversation you are having cause i want in and i cba reading it all
greendip1 3 months ago
Some people choose to pick reason and do their research to build criteria and therefore to believe in science's theories which are supported by strong evidence.
Others prefer to believe entirely in a compilation of ancient mythological books - They choose to have 'faith' which is the same as killing their reasoning.
Komnenit 4 months ago
@Komnenit the bible is a compilation of documents and claimed eye witnesses reports and they are just compiled into book form for convience not actually a book
ceaser8999 3 months ago
if not discovered, this Coelacanth fish will become the missing link between fish and reptiles and evolutionist will make an statue of it and display it in museums and declared that evolution is true. now they are back to zero. looking for another missing link and never exist.
roniepao 4 months ago
The problem is, you can't win against Jesus Freaks, They just pull all of these fairy tails out of there ass.
This is a fantastic video, and you pretty much disproved everything they said. Easily one of the best educational videos up on youtube.
MrIvanKite 4 months ago
Brilliantly put together. You've really done your research. But I would like to point out that the creationist theory includes the concept of micro-evolution. The creation theory simply can't deny it's existence. Micro-evolution represents variation within a kind. For example, horses, zebras, and donkeys are all the same kind of animal, and share compatible chromosomes. Thus your explanation of the coelacanth order works in both theories. Also, kindly disregard the trolls with uncivil fingers.
xArcticGx 5 months ago
@xArcticGx
Problem for creationists however is that you can't have one without the other. The variables that lead to microevolution are exactly the same that lead to macroevolution. There is no difference at all in the phenomenon except to describe the the scale of evolutionary change.
malignantpoodle 5 months ago
@malignantpoodle Most scientists claim that macro-evolution is the result of beneficial mutations. However science (what we can directly observe) has only showed time and again that all mutations are destructive, and jeopardize the organism's existence. Natural selection then kicks in and the mutant either does not survive long, or is unable to procreate, thus eliminating the mutation from the gene pool.
xArcticGx 5 months ago
Why lump all Christians together?
LoveoneAn 5 months ago
@LoveoneAn
Why not?
When I refer to Christians, I mean those that believe in salvation in the sacrifice of the son to avoid damnation. If someone doesn't believe in that, then they haven't been lumped together because they're not Christians are they?
malignantpoodle 5 months ago
@malignantpoodle Yes because all Christians believe the exact same thing, right?
LoveoneAn 5 months ago
Since fossils cannot talk, we may never ever know in details how life was like millions of years ago, but it is thrilling just thinking about it..
I`m glad coelacanth was rediscovered despite the fact that it only brings more questions about evolution.
pistonpkm 5 months ago
and yet there are tons of Coelacanth around...and yet evolutionists find MORE ways to slither their way out
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29
and yet you didn't watch the video, and yet Christians will continue to believe despite the bible being proven to be false.
malignantpoodle 5 months ago
@malignantpoodle it was clear
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29
This coelacanth has been known since 1938. Nothing has changed with regard to ToE. The video explains it. You didn't watch. This whole topic is based on Christian ignorance of scientific taxonomy and ToE itself. Like the title says, it's a strawman argument.
malignantpoodle 5 months ago
@malignantpoodle The bible has not been proven false and evolution does not disprove god at all so go study anthropology or something instead of making statements that are just frustrated lies
ceaser8999 3 months ago
@ceaser8999
The earth is not flat, it is not older than the sun, it actually moves, it is not the center of the universe. Yes, the bible has been proven false time and time again and we aren't even out of Genesis yet...
malignantpoodle 3 months ago
@malignantpoodle Okay show me flat out where it says the earth is flat and where it didn't move or it is older than the sun there is no text in the bible or quaran that says anything that you state you try to act like you know everything but you don't and don't reply unless you can give me a scripture because i have studied alot of different reiligious "books" and it's said that you go by what someone else says instead of reading it yourself
ceaser8999 3 months ago
@ceaser8999
Bitch, I can respond or not respond with whatever I like. This is my fucking channel.
Earth is flat
Matthew 4:8
Earth doesn't move
I Chronicles 16:30
Earth older than the sun;
created on day one, sun was created on day 4.
Genesis 1 14-18
malignantpoodle 3 months ago
@malignantpoodle
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor Yeah you right it says the earth is flat LOL
30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved yeah it sure says the Earth moves LOL I believe You are just a phoney But R U MAD
ceaser8999 3 months ago
@ceaser8999
How could you see all the kingdoms of the world if it was round? This is so moronic and simple it's surprising that people don't understand; the only way you can see everything in the world from a high mountain is IF IT'S FLAT.
It does not say that the earth moves tard, it says that it DOES NOT MOVE.
Mad? No. More like delighted in crushing your ignorant remarks.
malignantpoodle 3 months ago
@malignantpoodle hahahah
Stepstoneau 3 months ago
@ceaser8999
"and it's said that you go by what someone else says instead of reading it yourself"
I was a Christian for over 20 years. You sure do assume an awful lot, and obviously have a complete lack of discernment don't you?
Know what discernment is?
I know more about the bible than most Christians, and that's precisely why I'm not a Christian.
malignantpoodle 3 months ago
@malignantpoodle I said don't reply unless you give me a scripture which claims what you said which there isn't so i knew you couldn't answer it but I Like this video i learned a couple of things...............I'M AGNOSTIC btw
ceaser8999 3 months ago
@ceaser8999
I gave precise scriptures. Your response is basically, "nuh uh".
Idiot.
malignantpoodle 3 months ago
@ceaser8999 scripture proves nothing but your beliefs, coelacanth didn't disprove ANYTHING to do with evolution, it never had lungs or hands, therefore it does not threaten evolution theory at all!
Get it?
Stepstoneau 3 months ago
@malignantpoodle
Proven to be false? So not only are you dumb enough to believe the lies proposed by atheist liberals, but now you lodge a contention that even the evolutionist liars have never suggested, that the Bible has been proven to be false? Nice try, skippy.
randalusa 3 months ago
@randalusa
Yes, proven to be false. The earth is not flat. It does move. It is not the center of the universe. It is not older than the sun. The stars are not smaller than the earth and cannot be extinguished by stomping on them.
Yes, the bible is false on many, many accounts. Creation is just one of many failures.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@randalusa "Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?"
TheMassdistortion 2 months ago 2
@urbman29 Wow you are stupid.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@urbman29 you are a moron.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads great comeback bro
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 There was no comeback needed, you showed how stupid you are by that pathetic comment.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads its actually truth,more and more loop holes will persuade people
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 It isnt truth, and no, more and more people are becoming Athiest each year, for good reasons aswell, the bible has been proven false, alll of it is shit.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads lmao,the sad thing is,no religion can be proven false.The proof of a god cannot be proven false.Your comeback to that would be(well,you cant prove unicorns dont exist).lolol.Hilarious.Look,muhammed,Jesus,as well as buddha lived.Muhammed was a merchant who had a wife when she was 12,buddha was a great story teller,and Christ was Christ.All of these people existed.Now,Of course an atheist would not believe in a human who was gods son.Christ was even mentioned in the quran,very strange
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 Yes it can you moron, god cannot be proven false, but statements made in the bible can be proven false, unlucky idiot you get embarrassed again. And no that is not my comeback, although it is true, you base your religion of nothing, thus you are an idiot. And no, there is no proof of jesus's existence. Jesus was never mentioned by any historions, even after all his miricales? How strange...Only the word "christ" is mentioned, and only twice...lol your religion is a joke. you are stupid
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads keep slithering and name calling
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 Wow, and you said i had a poor comeback. Your religion is a joke, a laughing stock. As are you, thats your best comment? I think you should re-assess who is slithering. You fool.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads moooorreee things.Jeaze,its funny,because even almost all historians believe that just the existance is jesus is un-deniable.People who actually have graduated and studied for it.Not some troll who has NO idea what they are talking about.go do your homework.Jeaze.its like denying the fact that caesar existed
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 That statement is 100% not true. At all. Secondly some believe but have no proof at all, which is what your religion is based on, believing things without evidence. And when you do watch evidence (this video) you leave PATHETIC comments like your first one, whats the matter? dont like being proved wrong? It is you who has no idea about anything, hell you cannot even use your brain! AHAHA dont compare those two you moron.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads no,wrong.once again.Historians strongly agree that christ lived.But they do NOT believe that he was the son of god.Almost all of them do not believe he was.This is fact,not your idiotic waste of words
urbman29 5 months ago
@itchygonads moooorreee things.Jeaze,its funny,because even almost all historians believe that just the existance is jesus is un-deniable.People who actually have graduated and studied for it.Not some troll who has NO idea what they are talking about.go do your homework.Jeaze.its like denying the fact that caesar existed
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 No, there is no evidence for his existence. Thus people dont think he lived at all. And you are a waste of life. You are an idiot, thats your best responce for my comeback? Enjoy your tribal bronze age myth and wasting your life!
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads i can see that you deny documents.If that is the person you are,then i understand.Keep dreaming that he didnt live.Seeya Mr.itchy
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 (churchoflogic (dot) com) called "Did Jesus Exist". Written by Marshall J. Gauvin (1881 - 1978). He makes it very clear that Jesus never lived as a real person. There is also a video on YouTube called" “The god who wasn’t there” [ watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU ] There you go idiot.
And you deny facts, proof, evidence, logic, history and common sense, you ACTUALLY believe in jesus and god? hahahahaha
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads you arent doing research,you are looking for arguements to heal your mind so you dont have to accept that this man lived.Even Richard Dawkins believed that he existed.but he does obviously not believe in miracles or him being the son of god.Im not trying to make u believe,im giving you common sense that he existed
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 That is research right there you moron, jesus christ you cant rely on your tiny brain for anything :L Richard dawkins says he might have existed, secondly he has not researched into the existence of jesus.
Common sense? just look at your original comment. Plus you do believe in the miracles. so dont talk to me about common sense.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads Richard dawkins believes in luck,and miracles.no difference,at all.You have heard his debates im sure,just a little bit of luck.Secondly,It isnt research,all it is is opinion and point of view givin facts that he existed.Thirdly,dont claim to be wise and all mighty,those people are fools.We arent going to get anywhere with this debate,I will go my seperate way instead of us ringing each others necks.
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 WHAT? haha he does NOT believe in miracles. at all, and he does not believe in luck ,just probability. Stop lying your slithering scumbag. I have heard lots of his debates, he often laughs at miracles. No, its a very well writing article that essentially disproves jesus. You (as all religious idiots do) deny it. And good. good day.
itchygonads 5 months ago
how much you want to bet this fish is on some menu in China?
drinny26 6 months ago 5
maybe it hasnt evolved cuz it's level isnt high enough, or maybe it needs an evolution stone lol
Kirunei666 6 months ago
@Kirunei666 What?
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads pokemon reference
Kirunei666 5 months ago
NEWER species? HAHAHA WHAT a deluded fool man.Who made this video needs to be shot.Blinded fool.
sesshoumaru3st 6 months ago
@sesshoumaru3st
suck Jesus' cock, son
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@sesshoumaru3st Um yea a newer species... what's so hard to understand about that?
Blodslav 6 months ago
Dulce María
Komnenit 6 months ago
Around 100 million fossils have been unearthed yet nothing showed innumerable finely gradations of intermediate forms between species as mentioned by Dawin. New studies showed humans did not evolve from neanderthals or apes. The Great Ape is nowhere to be found.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
"new studies"... what studies? The scientific community stands in overwhelming solidarity with ToE.
News for ya; humans are apes. There is no single "great ape" as that encompasses several different species.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself that disagree with evolution haven't the slightest knowledge of taxonomy, terminology, or what ToE itself states.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle Yes new studies on mtDNA by evolutionists and molecular paleontologists Krings, Stone, and Schmitz (who, like me, apparently haven't the slightest knowledge of taxonomy) stated that humans did not evolve from apes or neanderthals. The results of their research was not what evolutionists expected because neanderthals used to be the "solid" missing link to humans. So, now they recant their stories and say apes and neanderthals are human cousins.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
No. That is a study from 1997 (not new) and the findings then were that humans were not evolved from neanderthals which is the modern scientific consensus. You stated that "new" studies showed that humans didn't evolve, yet you cite a study that's 14 years old that merely points out that humans didn't evolve from neanderthals, NOT that humans did not evolve.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle
from apes.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle There are numerous recent studies that confirmed Krings et al findings. One study by Krause et al. 2010 showed that fossil found at the Denisova Cave in southern Siberia believed to be hominid is now confirmed to belong neither to a Neandertal nor to a modern human. Where is that so called complete and massive evidence of evolution? Provide a list of four legged animals that gradually transform into a giraffe. There should be thousands if ToE is true.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
It is accepted that modern humans did not evolve from, and in fact lived alongside neanderthal man. This does not mean that humans did not evolve. As a matter of fact, these findings have pointed towards neanderthal and homo sapien having common ancestry from homo erectus. What you cite as evidence against evolution in fact is reinforcing it.
As far as giraffes go there are fossil records of some 18 previous species which if you look for giraffes, you can easily find.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle Which four legged animals first? A highly developed antlers of antelopes would somehow undergo a reverse evolution while their necks grow. Most of them had to starve and die for refusing to look down for vegetation on the ground?
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
Aside from the fact that the validity of evolution does not hinge on whether or not I can explain (or you accept or reject) certain aspects of it, the fact is that any explanation given to you will be ignored or rejected due to the fact that you have only one thing in mind; to believe otherwise regardless of any evidence.
You did after all, cite a study that underscored and advanced the theory of evolution and claimed that it disproved evolution in humans :)
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle The studies that I cited actually disproved what evolutionists claimed prior to the result of those studies. So, evolutionists were forced to revised the evolutionary tree many times in the last decade. Your evidence of 18 previous species prior to giraffe is baseless according to paleontologist and biologist Gould who stated that a neck stretched during life cannot alter the genes that influence neck length and offspring cannot reap any genetic reward from parental striving
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
See, that's the thing about science. If something is wrong; it gets corrected. It is falsifiable, it is testable, demonstrable. Religion and creationism are not. They remain unchanged despite contrary evidence. What you cite is a problem with science is actually a merit, and ToE still stands today regardless.
I hope you realize that Gould not only believed in evolution, but taught it at university until his death :)
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle
Thing to consider about Gould is that he believed in rapid changes in evolution, outlined by his work on punctuated equilibrium. This does NOT mean that Gould proposed evidence contrary to ToE, just as the 1997 study you cited did NOT show evidence contrary to ToE as you claimed.
As such, you still have not provided ANY evidence other than your word that ToE is inaccurate, and not only that, the claims you've made since have been patently false.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@daogdaog
"Provide a list of four legged animals that gradually transform into a giraffe."
"Your evidence of 18 previous species prior to giraffe is baseless according to"
So uh, why are you asking for evidence that you've already decided to reject?
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle Why ask for evidence? Just to let people know that the complete and massive evidence as claimed by evolutionists is false because scientific studies after studies just contradicted what evolutionists assumed to be true. There is really no need to use philosophy, religion or intelligent design to understand that the theory of evolution is flawed.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
You've yet to produce a single scientific study that proved evolution to be false. The only thing you've produced are works by evolutionists that proved the exact opposite of what you were trying to say.
As such, your argument is nothing more than others that come here and just say, "nuh uh!"
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle Evolutionists kept on recanting their stories and revising assumed evolutionary tree to support flawed theory of evolution. How can people believe a witness that continually recant his story everytime someone produced new evidence to the contrary? There are millions of textbooks written by evolutionists with drawings showing series of images vs timeline of chimps-neandertals-humans as evidence of evolution yet we know now that is not the case.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
Evolutionists do not, "recant". The theory has gone to new levels and has been enhanced though. For example; Darwin had no knowledge of genes or genetic mutation and drift, yet these things didn't invalidate evolution. Same with the examples you give; equilibrium and common ancestry with neanderthal do not invalidate evolution.
Just as Copernicus stated the sun is the center of the universe (which was wrong), it was movement in the right direction; the Earth was not the center.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle
Discovering galaxies and other star systems did not invalidate Copernicus' claim that the Earth went around the sun did it? Discovering that the sun was not the center of the universe did not prove that after all, the Earth was the center, did it?
Show me a scientific claim that debunks evolution (you still haven't), or just shut up.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle Despite some evolutionist biologists and paleontologists saying that the evolution of giraffe is baseless due to genetic evidence, let us examine your 18 previous species that gradually transform into giraffe one by one. Provide a list here.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
They do not say it's "baseless". They propose that the giraffe wen through rapid changes as opposed to naturally selective processes (which would be rooted in genetic mutations, something perfectly compatible and required for evolution). You are quoting an individual that not only believed in evolution but taught it at NY university! LOL
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@malignantpoodle Again let us examine your 18 previous species you mentioned that gradually transform into giraffe one by one. Provide a list here.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog not ONE thing in that statement is true you ifiot.
itchygonads 5 months ago
@itchygonads Read research by evolutionists biologists Krings et al on mtDNA humans, chimps, neanderthal comparision so that you will know at least humans did not evolve from neanderthals or chimps. There is no mtDNA evidence that humans evolved from so called great ape-like common ancestor, meaning, it is possible that humans did not evolved at all.
daogdaog 5 months ago
see this guy commentating fucked up and just leaned toward creationism. 1. ok u said "the creationist arguement falls apart because that coelacanth was a new species" this is where i get confused with evolution... who the fuck named it a new species. 2. if there is no fossil history how can someone call it a new species??? makes no sense to me just like the modern evolutionist tells the modern christian that if there is no prove of god he isnt real. evoultionist are hypocritical.
1994theron 6 months ago
@1994theron
You make no sense. "if there is no fossil history how can someone call it a new species"
You just answered your own question. If it's not around to be in the fossil record, that's because it didn't exist during a time when fossilization takes place. Hence it is here now, but not in the past. New species.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle yeah your right i just reread my comment and it didnt make any sense, what i was trying to say was that if there is know "fossil history" for this new species how do we know that it evolved from the prehistoric coelcanth. doesent make any sense to me.
1994theron 6 months ago
@1994theron
Because, if we see it alongside others it reasons that it did not come from them. No history in the fossil record means that it's newer. Since we know that all forms of life follow evolutionary paths, the lack of existence in the fossil record means that evolutionary changes have taken place since.
malignantpoodle 6 months ago
@malignantpoodle so tell me genious are we realted to neanderthaws? we alot alike, we supposedly used to walk in the same fashion, but according to you guys the human race was never related to the neanderthaws? so if there is no fossil records who can prove there not amphibions?
1994theron 4 months ago
@1994theron
You should really endeavor to learn English first.
The modern coelacanth of which there is no fossil record doesn't fit taxonomy to be classified as amphibian. Yes, homo sapien shares common ancestry with Neanderthal man (not neaderthaw).
It's obvious you haven't even read about the subject if you're forced to spell everything with redneck phonetics.
malignantpoodle 4 months ago
@malignantpoodle Number one i was being a smart ass and if you cant comprehend that I'm sorry your the ignorant redneck and number two why bring something up as peripheral as my spelling in an arguement because you obviously new what i mean? number three you didn't even argue with me besides telling me that the coelacanth isn't amphibian
1994theron 4 months ago
@1994theron The fact that you can't spell the subject matter which you're debating means that you haven't done any research. You've obviously read nothing on the subject if you can't even spell it. That's the purpose of pointing out your spelling.
Argue that coelacanth isn't amphibian? Haha... what's next, prove the world is actually round or that chickens lay eggs? Good grief man, if you struggle with basic taxonomy how will you discuss evolution?
*chuckle*
malignantpoodle 4 months ago
@malignantpoodle your a fuckin moron your arguing with a 17 year old about spelling and grammer your a grown man get real dude. Just because i cant spell "wader" doesent mean i dont know that it's a natural liquid that fills up 70% of the world and you must drink about 64 ounces of water a day. get real man get a job and stop argueing a with more mature teenager.
oh yeah and since you cant tell i was being a smart about coelacanths there not really amphibians there fish.
there you go bud
1994theron 4 months ago
@1994theron
You're 17? That'd be my best kept secret bud because you are one dumb motherfucker for 17.
And you came here to me, I didn't go to you. If you can't hack, gtfo. Bitch.
malignantpoodle 4 months ago
@malignantpoodle wanna know why you lost this fuckin arguement you so could genious? it went from coelacanth to insulting my intelligence. Your far from an above average IQ your just a 30 year old single guy with no life calling someone retarded with a colorful vocabulary. please man if your gonna call me retarded at least tell me why i am and keep to the damn subject where debating and stop pointing out perpheral things like my intelligence.
"chuckle"
1994theron 4 months ago
@1994theron
Peripheral things are talking about amphibian taxonomy when talking about a coelacanth.
Talking about your intelligence is not peripheral because the lack of it on you part is impeding your ability to communicate, evident by the fact that you have to spell everything phonetically because you've never picked up a book in your life.
You can go on and on about this or that irrelevant subject, and I can tell you what a vagina feels like.
Have a nice day, tard :)
malignantpoodle 4 months ago
@malignantpoodle thanks to the offer about the vagina but its ok bro I get a hell of alot more of it then you. I can tell just by your fucking argument, But back to the fuckin subject at hand that you cant wrap your fuckin head around. Let me teach you how to argue with someone properly. When you argue and I understand this is a problem for you, stay on the subject and not on vaginas and flying unicorns. If you obviously lost stfu and dont send anything back.
1994theron 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle the last thing you sent to me that was relevant to coelacnaths was two months ago. Need me to slow down or type in CAPS for you to finally understand this I know your brain is slower then the average man but... T H E LAST THING RELEVANT TO COELACANTH YOU SENT TO ME WAS 2 MONTHS AGO!! I really do hope you get this by now because if you dont the future is looking bleak for atheist there getting dumber and dumber by the day
1994theron 2 months ago
@1994theron
"T H E LAST THING RELEVANT TO COELACANTH YOU SENT TO ME WAS 2 MONTHS AGO!"
That was the last time you posted here.
The fact that you come back 2 months later, still all mad with your hands shaking at the keyboard shows just how badly you got smacked in the debate. You come back two months later to bitch and moan about how I argue?
ROFL
Might be the funniest fucking post ever :)
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@1994theron
"there getting dumber and dumber by the day"
I always view it with a bit of mirth how the most ignorant of the human species proclaim to be the superior.
"They're" getting dumber and dumber :)
You can't even speak your own fucking language, your native language. Who's dumb now little cocksuckin' newb?
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Obviously you because you ran out of valid arguements so you resort to things not even relevant to the video, this is my last message hopefully you read it and absorb this knowledge im trying so desperatly to stuff in that pea size brain of yours. Next time you get into a arrguement with a "dumbass" like me make sure you stay on topic and not resort to insulting intelligence (which you seem to lack anyway) because while this might suprise you it makes you sound stupid.
1994theron 1 week ago
@1994theron
I ran out of valid arguments? hahaha I hope you realize this statement means that I have valid arguments. Think about it, if you're capable.
malignantpoodle 1 week ago
Comment removed
Cehrola 5 days ago
Comment removed
Cehrola 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@malignantpoodle thank you guys. My favorite part was "Let me teach you how to argue with someone properly." Such irony. If you believe in god and think that evolution - and probably all of science - is fictional work of the devil, that is fine. But hey, at least be civil! Just blindly follow the 84 year old infallible pope and malignantpoodle will follow progressive and groundbreaking scientific education.
Cehrola 5 days ago
that mean a lot.........evolution doesn't exist!!!!
rsyvdlinde 7 months ago
then thus, relicanth the pokemon was created
buzzler745555 7 months ago
ive heard from somewere that the coelacanth was the fish that evolved out of the water into the apes that became us. i highly doubt thats true, but i assumed they said that because its neck bends like our and it has limbs
pokemaster4555 7 months ago
@pokemaster4555
Important thing to remember is that coelacanth is an order of fish, not one specific fish. There are something like more than 50 different species which fall under coelacanth taxonomy. The modern coelacanth is L. Chalumnae and is not found in the fossil record.
malignantpoodle 7 months ago
@malignantpoodle
ok, i got confused for a sec, but witch sea/aquatic creature do scientist suspect to have evolved past the need for gills?
pokemaster4555 7 months ago
@pokemaster4555
Not sure quite honestly. I mean, I understand evolutionary theory and all but I'm unfamiliar with the mapping of transitional evolutionary milestones in humans.
malignantpoodle 7 months ago
@pokemaster4555 Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. Paleontologists suggest that it is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") such as Panderichthys, known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega
-wikipedia
You should watch ''walking with monsters'' if your interested or haven't already
SuperDanksta 7 months ago
Creationists are uneducated scientific illiterates who still live on a world of myth and superstition. I used to try and educate these people about modern science and I found it to be a futile and frustrating exercise - like arguing with a JW who has knocked on your door.
mydas1 7 months ago
@mydas1 um, that's mean. You, in my mind, are just like them, because you are somebody who is trying to convert someone. We all have our own beliefs, I myself believe in evolution, but I also believe in god. Science and religion are completely two different things, and you shouldn't compare them like most people do.
1nerdykid 7 months ago
great job man, thank you :)
Subfightr 7 months ago
I can't wait until the older generation dies out and stops poisoning the minds of our youth with Christian propaganda. Its actually disguising that someone would tell their children or grandchildren that a proven fact is wrong just because they can't accept it.
pageerror404 8 months ago
@pageerror404 I wish you were right, but I fear the opposite. This creeping religious ignorance seems to have gotten bolder.
cochranexyz 7 months ago
there is greater differences between living animals within the same species than between the coelacanth and some of its older cousins. By the way your fossil record fails to show any gradual changes to any species let alone the coelacanth.
quistan2 8 months ago
@quistan2
What are the differences which are greater between members of the same species than that of animals in different species? Other than just making this up, what can you show that establishes these "greater differences"?
malignantpoodle 8 months ago
If you buried all the worlds chihuahuas in soft mineral rich mud (something i wouldnt mind doing) a few years later they would fossilize. Yes, and in lab conditions fossilization can happen even faster but thats not my point. My point is that if you then eliminated every other dog breed close to chihuahuas(i.e. poodles) you would have someone out there saying all modern dogs evolved from them. but the truth of the matter is that all dog species are interfertile.
quistan2 8 months ago
@quistan2
Nope, fossils do not form that quickly, nevermind the fact that the layer of rock they're in plays a bigger part with age than simply the bones being fossilized.
This is precisely why there are no rabbits in the precambrian. They came after. There is a reason we find certain animals only within certain layers.
malignantpoodle 8 months ago
@malignantpoodle Nope doesn't count as a rebuttal. There are several conditions that have to be met to form a fossil at all. Animals live and die by the millions each day and practically none of them will become fossils. 1,-The animal has to be buried in soft permeable material (i.e. mud, silt etc) . 2,-it has to be rapid burial. animals that die in bodies of water today don't get to be fossils, they get scavenged or rot, partial burial wont work. 3,-The fossilizing matrix has to be moist, and
quistan2 8 months ago
@quistan2
I didn't just say, "nope" I actually outlined several points that you failed to respond to.
malignantpoodle 8 months ago
so thats where the relicath in Pokemon Emerald got its look/name X)
knoxianpanda 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm a 16 year old Creationist and i'm noticing more and more everyday that evolution is sounding way more founy everyday.this guy's only argument is that the macropoma look's a lot alike the Coelacanth but at the same time us human's look a lot alike the neanderthal's and we walked with the neanderthal's and they proved that wrong. Evolution has way to many flaws in it and like i said it's starting to sound more and more bullshit everydaywhy is evolution a fact and big bang is a theory? Bullshit
McLovinMcFlurry 9 months ago
@McLovinMcFlurry
Big bang and evolution are both facts and theories.
A theory is comprised of facts; many facts, and is an explanation for a particular piece of phenomenon. As a matter of fact, a theory is the highest level of scientific proof there is outside of mathematics. Seems to me that you'd want to go back and understand what a theory is before trying to say this is one or that isn't.
malignantpoodle 9 months ago 6
@McLovinMcFlurry
Evolution: a wishful thinking of the evolutionists. A bone fragment here and a fragment there, by imagination a complete creature is conjured as if by magic. Evolution is not science, but just opinion/suggestion.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 Science is fact and theory, science is testable and the best way we have of understanding the world around us. Religion is magic, close mindedness, circular, opinion, imagination, desperation and brainwashing. I know which I prefer.
lukehi 8 months ago
@McLovinMcFlurry
Microevolution (more or less variations in species) is a real, observable phenomenon and can be repeated again and again, ie: dog/horse breeding. According to evolutionist after a sufficiently long period of time, this will lead to macroevolution (more or less formation of new species). This is a myth.
husler59 8 months ago
@McLovinMcFlurry "I'm a 16 year old Creationist"
I'm seriously worried for you then
AquaRing 8 months ago
@McLovinMcFlurry And you propose a better way to understand the natural world is through what? The bible come on how can you be serious a load of stories and fairytales. Come on open you eyes, open your mind its scary but the world is a bright, amazing and beautiful without the blinkers of religion on.
lukehi 8 months ago
one thing i would like to add, science has a number that says if the possibility of something goes beyond that number, it means it's impossible in happening. And guess what the odds of evolution happening is even larger than this scientific number of impossibility. So if you're are a scientific person, why do you believe in something that is scientifically and mathematically impossible?
BaronBoar 9 months ago
@BaronBoar
" science has a number that says if the possibility of something goes beyond that number, it means it's impossible in happening. "
First, where does the scientific community state this? I want a reference to this information.
Second, what is the number that's exceeded that you're talking about? I'd like a reference to this too.
Let me guess; you pulled it out of your ass.
malignantpoodle 9 months ago 12
@malignantpoodle oh someone found yer dildo??????????
thoostorm4 7 months ago
Coelacanth is only one of many "living fossils" which disprove the logical soundness of evolution. So in 400 million years fish turned into humans with incredibly powerful minds used (Sometimes..) for reason and art and science, but yet some fish stay relatively unchanged. Yep, you believe we evolved from rocks and single cells yet we are the crazy ones, by the way radiometric dating is seriously flawed, how can you put such strong faith in these areas of bad science? You don't value life?
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne
If you're going to tell me what I believe, at least be accurate.
Let me guess; you're a Christian that worships Satan. You pray to Satan every day inside a circle drawn from chicken blood. He'll tell you to go out and have sex with children, which you'll do.
Afterwards, you pray to Jesus for forgiveness, and he forgives you. But you still aren't going to heaven because you said "goddamn" when you were 5 years old once.
Why continue on?
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
@malignantpoodle I didn't make any strawman, you just did.
Do you not believe that we evolved from single cells and one of the theories about the single cells is that it rained on rocks for years on an otherwise lifeless earth billions of years ago? Well if you don't believe that, certain evolutionists do, and trust me whether you will admit it or not, whatever you believe is just as unlikely as the former mentioned imaginative scenario as long as it is evolution derived. Test me?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Don't be an idiot. Evolution does not account for the origin of life. It accounts for its diversity. You don't even know what the theory of evolution describes, and what it doesn't, yet you have all of this judgment and "knowledge" about it when you understand zero about it.
Test you? You're an insecure Christian with moving goal posts that will oppose things they don't understand to feel better about faith. I did it as a Christian for 20 years. Not interested.
malignantpoodle 9