Creation Versus Evolution - Out With Doubt (lesson 7)

[ztztzyzy]

@MrLittletomdj "Has he got a single peer reviewed paper to his name?" that's just plain stubborness/stupididty. a peer reviewed paper makes it official? weren't you paying attention? Nebraska Man & Piltdown Man had PLENTY of "peer reviewed papers" and were accepted into the scientific community. how did those turn out? how is it possible to know what someone looked like just by one tooth? disrespectful rubbish? because it doesn't agree with your beliefs? btw, darwin had a degree in....THEOLOGY

[MrLittletomdj]

@ztztzyzy "stubborness/stupididty"< Learn how to spell before you call somesone stupid!

"Nebraska Man & Piltdown Man"

Geuss what... The frauds got weeded out by the scientific method.

Full stop, capital letter! Did you go to school?

"because it doesn't agree with your beliefs?"< No, dickhead. It's because it conflicts with all of the repeated, testable evidence.

Newton was a theologian too, Darwin rejected his faith in his later years because it conflicted with the... EVIDENCE!

[Gordontrek]

@TheMrgoku1985 God doesn't need a cause. He exists OUTSIDE the realm of time and physics, therefore he needs no source.

Abiogenesis= life from non-life, which is clearly impossible. Simply mixing the chemicals necessary for DNA will not get DNA. Even if you were to mix all the chemicals just right, you'll get no living DNA. It is an undeniable fact that life came from a living source- God.

[Gordontrek]

@TheMrGoku1985 They claim that human DNA and ape DNA is 97% similar, including chromosome #2. But even if that were true, since DNA is at such a complex level, just a 3% difference would make differential barriers that even simple mutations could never cross.

[TheMrgoku1985]

Abiogenesis= a naturally occurring energy sorce CAUSES form DNA protein molecules to

form FROM the need chemicals(we do know what chemical are needed) over millions of years.

Spontaneous generation= DNA is sprouted instantly from chemicals and a natural energy sorce

Creation=A god with NO CAUSE to its existence created every thing FROM NOTHING

[TheMrgoku1985]

Human chromosome 2, Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans, recessive genes, tail muscle in humans, Progressive patterns in comparative genes, Junk DNA, Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and Ring species nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).

[TheMrgoku1985]

watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens

[MrLittletomdj]

I would like to suggest to YOU! That you get an education, a PHD & submit a paper for peer review before you open your fucking mouth.

[paden981]

@MrLittletomdj Go to this channel, focuspress1. Watch the video on the age of the earth which is done by a man with a Ph.D.

[spottywolf]

Dogs are descended from wolves, as we all know. However, that means that a wolf must have given birth to a dog, which according to you is impossible. So, your saying that dogs can't be descended from wolves? I say this purely to demonstrate how flawed your logic is, though I doubt you'll accept that.

[paden981]

@spottywolf Tell me what the differnce is between a dog and a wolf. They are both in the same family. This is micro-evolution. Now let me see you get a cat from a dog. Then you will have something to talk about. Until then please try to think through your reasoning because you have only referenced micro evolution and nothing more.

[spottywolf]

@paden981 Evolution never says that you can get a cat from a dog. Either you are ignorant of the subject or you have to hide behind cowardly straw-man arguments. For evidence of true "macro-evolution", see potholer54's video on ring species.

[glasshammer52]

I understand you're going to have a public discussion with Blair Scott at UNA this Fall.  I suggest you repeat what you've said here.

[Superwolf1337]

Morality can be explained in evolutionary terms.

[paden981]

@TheGentlemanWolf Your right. What about morality? What has it been doing in this same time period as athiesm increases and creationism decreases?

I have a video for you to watch that is unlisted.

[paden981]

@TheGentlemanWolf The scientific method is ment for things physical which apeal to one of the 5 senses. God being spiritual does not fit the scientific method. This does not mean He cant be proven.

The thing is though, the more research that is done and the more discoveries that are made the more flaws we find in evolution. I encourage you to message me for further indepth discussion or take a look at my videos. I will upload some more int he future that are more extenisive.

[paden981]

@TheGentlemanWolf Darwin said in one of his books that if something extremly complex was discovered as the basic building block of life then his theroy would completly break down. This was before the invention of the microscope and cells had not been discovered. The complex design in cells is why Darwin would not be an evolution according to his words.

The reason that bothers you is because you have been trained by the scientific method.

[paden981]

@TheGentlemanWolf I will always be amazed at the great deal of stress athiest and evolutionist put themselves through to try to prove something they cant. I will cease to be amazed at how many flaws there are in evolution and yet they continue to overlook them. The very fact that the person given credit for discovering evolution Charles Darwin wouldnt even be an evolutionist today if he were alive.

[JesuismyKing]

"tons and tons of transitional fossils"? ....there is absolutely no evidence of one single transitional fossil!!!!

Tiktaalik was a FISH that used its fins for "walking" on the sea bed, just like the coelocanth. It could breathe air outside through lungs as well as gills. It was not transitional. Archaeopteryx was a true bird. How could a non flying dinosaur "evolve" to become a bird....think about it carefully,

[wearestarstuffsagan]

"out with doubt" says it all, you dont want people to think, you want then to be dumbass goddamn sheep

[paden981]

@wearestarstuffsagan Well I just want people to know the truth so they will live a better happier life with an even better life to look forward to. I dont see any point in supporting the lie of evolution so I expose it. It saddens me when this idea effects people like you and causes you to dumb down your vocabulary to such a low level.

Let me help you out here a second bud. You will catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Cussing will never change a situation but can only make it worse.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@paden981 fossils: tiktaalik, archeaoptyrx, darwinius masilae etc. chromosome 2 fusion in humans. ERV,s in many plants and animals. phylogenetic trees which ALL point toward the same tree of life lining up with ALL fossils, ALL geographic distribution of plants and animals etc, ALL ERV,s..........

[paden981]

@wearestarstuffsagan What are you trying to get at here? Are you saying all of these show missing links and are transitional fossils or what? Be more specific at what you are trying to get at so I can answere you.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@paden981 tiktaalik and archeaoptyrx and darwinius masilae are transitional fossils. ERV,s, geographic distribution and phylogenetic trees always make the same tree of life supporting the theory of common decent through natural selection

[paden981]

@wearestarstuffsagan Well the only one of those that I have studied is archaeoptyrx. I have not heard of the others before. I will have to go look into them to see exactly what they are and what there origins are. From my observations of archapoptryx and other alleged missing links they all seem to have a common theme. They are all disproven sooner or later and none of them can ever be tested. My bigger problem is that if evolution were true we should be finding tons of these transistional fosil

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@paden981 yes, there are LITERALLY tons and tons of transitional fossils found on every continent in the world with not a single one being out of place, tiktaalik happened to be one which was predicted and then found and no, archeaoptyrx has no been disproven and even if it has(it has not), this doesnt go against the theory, however if you find evidence against it like even ONE fossil being out of place, the whole theory collapses yet this has NEVER happened since the theory was proposed

[JesuismyKing]

@wearestarstuffsagan

"tons and tons of transitional fossils"? ....there is absolutely no evidence of one single transitional fossil!!!!

You have been duped like every other evolutionist. Tiktaalik was a FISH that used its fins for "walking" on the sea bed, just like the coelocanth. It could breathe air outside through lungs as well as gills. It was not transitional. Archaeopteryx was a true bird. How could a non flying dinosaur "evolve" to become a bird....think about it carefully,

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@JesuismyKing you obviously dont know what a transitional fossil is. yes, tiktaalik was still considered more of a fish then an amphibian but it WAS transitional because it had both fish AND anphibian traits and was found (actually predicted) EXACTLY where it should have been. archeaoptyrx had both avian and non-avian dinosaur traits and was again found in the strata where it was supposed to be. archeaoptyrx was NOT a complete bird.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@JesuismyKing please, go get a bird skeleton and the archeaoptyrx fossil and compare them, they are similar but NOT the same, now get a dinosaur from before the archeaoptyrx and compare all three based on traits they have, this is very simple. imagine a squirell, a flying squirell and a bat (bats didnt evolve from squirells but this is just an example) those are in a way similar to the steps that a dinosaur has to take to become a full-out bird, which archeaoptyrx is not

[fastestfashion]

lol