I get a kick out of Evillusionists speaking of the inefficient human eye It's so stupid! If children weren't forced to wear glasses at an early age, due to their inability to read a blackboard they are forced to read in public school, their eyes would get better as they got older. Glasses arrest their development. Also, before glasses were made, people would find their own natural 'vocational niche' due to their eye's predilection. i.e. Nearsighted watch makers & farsighted scouts, etc.
@missinglink1999 You spout tired dogma, and you have no idea. What on earth would make you think your simplistic explanation hasn't been done a thousand times? Do you actually think every time I get that, I should respond? Why should I explain how miniscule the E. coli changes are? Can't you figure that out for yourself? E. coli has been around for 100 million years. Probably billions. It's still E. Coli. Need help with this concept?
@missinglink1999 Just think, 50,000 generations.......actually trillions of generations from their beginnings. And they are still E Coli. You evos just can't do anything right, now can you.
@missinglink1999 "Hey, he could be god?" lol, thinking about it he might be, since he is aggressive, presumptuous and ignorant, and that's what the Abrahamic God is according to the scriptures.
@missinglink1999 true, i've took a look at his site. Supposedly this person is not only a dentist, but he's also a biologist, physicist, astronomer, astrophysics, philosopher and geologist. lol, he's a genius!
But creationists like this guy always get in a dead end when someone asks them who is this "Intelligent Designer"? They will dodge this question because everyone knows they are referring to their monotheistic God and that clearly proves that Creationism/I.D is not a scientific field.
The creationist dishonesty is only creating more atheists. Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of biology but of course you wouldn't know about that since your field is merely religious apologetics. Lying for Jesus right?
@stevebee92653 lol sorry for the sarcasm mr Stephen. But lets see here if i'm wrong..
Who is this mysterious 'Inteligent Designer' if not God? And doesn't I.D. sound so similar to Creationism mr. Stephen? I mean, both of them believe in the creation(design) of everything right? So lets be honest, you are trying to 'destroy' evolution so you can teach good old Christian scripture to the kids on the schools.
@ZZzzzzzWhat Me: not religious. You: hugely assumptive and devoid of intelligent discussion. You overlook the points on the ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS BIO_SYSTEMS and defer to a discussion of my religious stance, which there isn't one. I would say ORIGINS has just a bit more weight that the religious stance of any person on the planet. Wouldn't you? Evolution needs to be eliminated because it's scientific bullshit taught to many, accepted by the gullible, like you, just like religions.
@stevebee92653 now now mr. Stephen, you dodge my question: Who is the "Inteligent Designer" if not God? And how did he created everything from nothing if not with magic?
You see now, these are questions you clearly avoid because you know they are fundamentally associated with your monotheistic doctrine. So mr. Stephen, your effort if futile, Creationism aka I.D. will never be more than a pseudo science :)
@ZZzzzzzWhat I didn't answer this, so as a farewell, here is my BYE present: You ask how God created everything if not with magic. The magic is supposedly because it was done quickly. Your stance is that the EXACT SAME CREATION occurred as the Creationists claim. Your religion is better ONLY because this exact same creation happened slowly. That is the only difference between religion and you. Speed of creation. You are both creationists. They know they are, you pretend you are not.
@stevebee92653 lol that's a nice joke mr. Stephen. I suppose you're calling evolutionary theory a religion. Well evolution does not refer any creation at all, its just the explanation of a reproductive mechanics. Furthermore, the intelligent design refers a creation of everything from nothing at all, like a magic trick and as for your Intelligent Designer, it necessarily has to be a Deity, and we all know you're referring to the christian God. Can't dodge from that mr Stephen.
@ZZzzzzzWhat You think ID refers a creation of everything from nothing. A sterile Earth to an Earth full of life. And Evolution? A sterile Earth to an Earth full of life. The end is exactly the same either way. Your slow version, religion's fast. The end result is exactly the same. Neither of you know how all of living nature came to be. This race is an exact tie between two losers. You are one.
You think my belief is important enough to modify this argument, but it isn't.Nice try.
- Creationism involves the creation of -everithing- and not just the our planet.
- Evolution =/= Abiogenesis
- the "Inteligent Designer" = God, therefore its refers to religious doctrine, therefore it can not be can't be taught at schools therefore your belief system is fundemental to the argument, therefore you lose mr. Stephen
You can not teatch religious doctrine at schools, its is unconstitutional :)
@ZZzzzzzWhat My exact point! Evolution and Genesis should not be taught in biology classes. BTW, religious doctrine CAN be taught in philosophy or religion classes. Which is where evolution and religion should be taught. But not as science.
I love the notion of you evolutionauts that say Dumb Luck created everything right up to the first living cells. THEN evolution took over and formed all species and bio-systems. That really makes sense.
@stevebee92653 Evolution can , an it is taught in biology classes. The evolutionary process is a fundamental part of the Biology discipline.
lol, if you support I.D. then you have to support the Genesis.
Religious doctrine -can not- be taught at schools. What it can be taught is religious literature, not the doctrine. Search for the difference of -literature- and -doctrine-.
"Dumb Luck created everything" evolution has nothing to do with 'creating things', that's what you creationists believe
@ZZzzzzzWhat If I think there is intelligence in nature,I HAVE TO SUPPORT GENESIS? :-D Please take a course in logic.You're showing yourself to be too eager an evolutionaut to discuss anything.I would recommend getting rid of the lol.So trite. Evolution, if true, created all of living nature, its species, and bio-systems. I know the word scares you. Out of a sterile Earth came dogs, humans, trees, brains, consciousness, alligators....all due to evolution. Your creator.Say hallelujah
@stevebee92653 "Evolution, if true, created all of living nature" now, now, mr. Stephen, once again: evolution has created nothing, creation is for the creationists.
"Out of a sterile Earth came dogs.." The origin of life from non biological matter has nothing to do with evolution either.
You now mr. Stephen, i'm starting to doubt you are a Biologist-Physicist-Astronomer-Paleontologist-Philosopher.
@ZZzzzzzWhat Ah,so if God forms all of living nature it's a creation.But if evolution forms all of living nature with the exact same result as what God supposedly did,it isn't a creation? :-D
Push a button, out comes the "abio isn't evo" dogma.Of course evolution had to be involved with the formation of the first cells.The only reason it was dumped by evolution is it can't be explained.Ergo, the dump.And you have fallen for that one.
@stevebee92653 lol it's funny who you've change the word "creates" to "forms" but either way the evolutionary process is not an "agency that forms" but a natural process of adaptationof the organic form to the environment. And this process isn't spontaneous, it takes more than hundreds of years at least.
Now, now mr. Stephen Evolution and Abiogenisis are two completelly different subjects, and you should know that since you are a PhD on Biology-Physics-Astrology..
@missinglink1999 Cult??? Not sure what you mean. I've never really been a member of anything except maybe my previous volleyball and basketball teams and I doubt they were considered cults. Steve has some awfully good points in his vids to my way of thinking. Its obvious you don't feel that way. There should be good constructive debate and not the constant name calling which gets old and tiresome.
@stevebee92653 Come on, you're using misleading arguments from the very start of the video. "natural selection couldn't form all of nature". Hell no, but he never say it did, and no scientist says that. "We had just discovered that the Earth was trillion of years old." It's wrong by orders of magnitude, no scientist says that either. Should I go on and post 10 comments to expose your BS piece by piece ? Refutations are well known and you know you're full of it.
@synsei1 Turn up your hearing aid. I said billions of years old. Want to argue that? Since no Earthling who ever lived knows how all of living nature formed, I assume you are some sort of alien? I am sure you have some great information that you gleaned from your indoctrination that will certainly show me to be wrong. So have at it if you like.
Though there was no earthling alive, the mountain of evidence for the current cosmological theory and the evolution of species is so big, and mostly so consistent that you have to resort to argument of ignorance about things that are actually known, explained and proven. If you dismiss the decades of work by thousands of scientists out of hand, you can as well deny that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun, or atomic theory.
@synsei1 You have been fooled. And you cannot get unfooled. You are stuck. The stuff you come up with is argument from gullibility. Talk is cheap and easy. Instead of having mountains of evidence you SAY you have mountains.
@stevebee92653 Yeah, I'm stuck with facts and science, yes talk is cheap and easy *sigh*. What about learning about actual paleontology, biochemistry, genetics, embriology, zoology, botanics, geology, physics, evolutionary biology; what about the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of flight, that you say don't exist but have been found ? What's your evidence foe an alternate explaination ? The Bible ? the Quran ? Ancient alien astronauts ?
@synsei1 As I said, you have been fooled. Throwing a list of science's at me like they support evolution is typical. Biochem kills evolution Try it sometime. So does genetics. No evolution of flight exists. Birds appeared as fliers. So did insects. Sorry. You can keep on throwing stuff at me that your trainers taught you. I have heard them all before. There is no "alternate" explanation. Humans are not close to an answer. THAT is the alternate.
an amazingly pathetic show of ignorance... it is an embarrassing fact that the US has a consider number of idiots that actually deny the soundness and utility of scientific method..
@stevebee92653 aren't you the articulate one.. "kills evolution" (?).. well there is practically nothing of substance (supported by peer reviewed research) which disproves evolutionary theory.. and further.. you are a beneficiary of evolutionary theory..every day. Only fable based beliefs have issues with evolution (read science). They answer scientific questions through a watchmaker/designer (and anthropologic) deity (btw, which flavor of abrahamic fruitcake are you?)
@daNDayati Me: not religious; not gullible either. You: hugely gullible,assumptive, repetitive, and boring. Lots of dogma, unable to question. That's just the way it is.
@stevebee92653 (repetitive?) really? now how could you determine such a thing? and you are not religious? right... taking pot shots at science is the exclusive domain of the religious.. no others have axes to grind.. (are you hiding something?)
@daNDayati Taking "pot shots" at the greatest scientific hoax in history IS good science. Repeating what every evolutionaut says is repetitive. You are a DVD recording. That's it. Same stuff, over and over. No thought. Copy/paste thinking, A sample:
supported by peer reviewed research
you are a beneficiary of evolutionary theory..every day
pathetic show of ignorance
number of idiots that actually deny the soundness and utility of scientific method
@stevebee92653 pentecostal? mormon? (muslim?) you have one hell (excuse the expression) of an issue with facts, research and an enormous body of knowledge... youtube is not a scientific forum.. but I am game.. support for the theory is easy to pick up.. one I like is how evolution and paleontology is used to successfully predict where hydrocarbon deposits can be found.. (you know... oil..).. capitalism at its best... baptist? remember that its is a sin to lie...
@daNDayati If there was any good evidence, here it is. New scientific stuff I have NEVER HEARD BEFORE!! Evolution is responsible for FINDING OIL! You guys are so brilliant. Everytime I get in my car, I will thank evolution for finding the oil! Thanks for straightening me out.
Re: religion. You cannot be this dumb, can you? I certainly hope not.
But again, I can't wait to tell my friends about the oil, and how thankful we should be for those evolution biologists who made the finds!
@yoxgevo All I can say to any of your stuff is you are sure a good evo-believer and completely indoctrinated. Maybe Dawkins will give you a merit badge if you keep all this good stuff up!
@stevebee92653 hey.. or just maybe we all live in a world that has benefited tremendously by science and scientific method.. and (quite possibly) you are a jerk...
@daNDayati I am a jerk. In your world. Anyone who can so thoroughly put a groupthinker's belief system down so easily would be considered a jerk in that groupthinker's group. But I may have to rethink this whole thing. I found out that evolution FINDS OUR OIL! The jury is certainly still out on this one. Evolution may be great after all!
@stevebee92653 ok (we agree on some things!) Jury came back and the money has been spent (someone believes, enough to spend money.. paleontologists are being hired)... instead of being a crank... propose a different mechanism.. I don't think that reliance on scientific method is "group think" (-?- not sure that that means..but I will take a guess).. btw being a jerk can and should be temporary...
@daNDayati Groupthink is a symptom of group psychology. Evolutionauts all comment alike, have similar personalities, are humorless. angry....as a group. You may have some hope. I am a crank?That's the nicest compliment I've had from an evolutionaut. There is no known mechanism which was the causative agent for the invention, origination, assembly of all of living nature.It may be findable, but today's bad choices stops any rational objective scientific search.I'm sure you won't agree.
@stevebee92653 We "Evolutionauts" (did you actually coin this?).. and others with some esteem for honest research consider anyone who takes cheap unfounded shots at a good theory (in use,, a point you like to ignore) as cranks.. if you consider this a complement then .. well.. you are not honest enough to engage in any discourse.. humor on this side is abundant.. and anger is reserved the dishonest.. cheers!
@daNDayati Doing "honest research" when there is none to be done isn't "honest research".Honest research would be displaying the formation of a biological system from nothing.Like a new kind of heart/lung system.That would be "honest research". But alas and alack,there isn't any that can be done.So these evo-scientists just keep on testing nonsense and getting government grants for doing so. THAT is the humor on your side. Laughing at the suckers that pay. You keep believing. Oh well.
@yoxgevo Gee, I thought time, random mutations, and natural selection were the main driving "forces" of evolution. I bet you could educate me and tell me where I went wrong. I can't wait to hear!
30 seconds and absolute FAIL. Natural selection is simply a term for the reproductive success of organisms that have some beneficial trait, whatever it is.
@SqueakerAlpha Oh, my gawd, NOOOOO. Not another evo-clone. You guys have an endless army of indoctrinates. All say the same goddam thing, all have the same irritating personalities. Not one of you questions your dogma. Well good for you. I hope you didn't go farther than 00:30. It might screw up your recording.
@stevebee92653 perhaps it because we can see the truckloads of evidence and that for over 100 years every discovery in biology fits into the patterns found for evolution in biology, geology and now dna studies.
@SqueakerAlpha "We"? You and the other clones? When you "see the truckloads of evidence" do you all stand in a group and watch the truckloads? When you are together, do you talk in unison? You think in unison, so I assume you must talk in unison as well. None of you are skeptical. Non can think on your own. Must be HORRIBLE! Have you ever watched "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? Are you clones kind of like those people? Just wondering.
@stevebee92653 "we" as in educated people who have studied what evidence exists. If you ask any group of people which way something falls you will hopefully get everyone pointing down. Ots that simple. Every sciency person is sceptical, you dont prove someones hypothesis is right , you prove them wrong. Find the errors !
Perhaps its because you're uneducated and MISunderstand all aspects of biological science (referring to the limitations of mutations, gene depletion, and the DNA code of separate organisms.)
Evolution is consistently DISPROVEN by both the fossil record and DNA. Not sure where you get your pseudo-scientific NONSENSE. But I suggest you listen to the numerous BIOLOGISTS (unlike Darwin who had no degree) that say traditional evolution is inaccurate and full of fallacies.
@evoTARDSareINSANE 1. seems unlikely 2. wrong 3. like Dr J Szostak, Dr Lenski , The entire biology department of Lehi University. Who told you Darwin had no degree ?
Its a well known FACT that Darwin had no Biology degree. Research it for yourself on Google or Wikipedia.
As for actual BIOLOGISTS (unlike you and Darwin) that say evolution is a MYTH.....
Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, Dr. Ann Gauger, Dr. David Mention, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Michael Behe, and geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun Dr. John Sanford. All of them have degrees in Biology and Genetics.
@9pt9 no one who understands biology says it does. That would be the mutation, copy errors, frame shifts, horizontal gene transfer and all the mechanisms of a change to dna occuring. Those create the difference in traits, and selection is a statement that traits that promote reproductive success are maintained in the population.
@SqueakerAlpha Again great, but "mutation, copy errors, frame shifts, horizontal gene transfer and all the mechanisms of a change to dan occurring" cant invent brains and hearts etc.
This video is one of your best, it makes it so obvious, so sad that these people commenting are blinded by their faith and will not let it go.
If evolution were possible at all, it would have to be guided by something, as far as we can tell cells can't be intelligent THEMSELVES so if they are guiding all these processes alone, then that would suggest they do have some form of intelligence. I'll stick with God.
THE BIBLE, THE FLOOD AND CREATION 1. More than any document, the Bible was assailed as a collection of fanciful myths. Yet, to the embarrassment of the critics, archaeological discoveries proved time and again that the fabled cities, mythical persons and impossible events were true and reliable reporting in every detail. Indeed, the Bible can now be regarded as the most accurate and trustworthy source of history we possess.
2. Thanks to archaeological discoveries, much of what was classed as myth in the biblical account of the rise of nations is now being found true. It is becoming increasingly tenable to regard its “stories” as not religious fantasy but rather apt reporting of phenomena that actually occurred. The story of a former global unity which was broken into factions is now seen as real.
3. Traditions and biblical writings speak of a mass dispersion of peoples from the early Babel civilization about a thousand years after the Deluge. It is significant that a number of archaeologists take the Tower of Babel record seriously and conjecture it to be in the period somewhat before 2000 B.C. And sure enough, a surprising number of “new” civilizations that suddenly appear are dated to approximately 2000 B.C.
4. Biblical statements as to the destiny of man throughout history appear to have more relevance than they have been given credit for. For example: the Genesis assertion that God ‘finished” creating and “rested” (i.e., ceased) from all His work of creation, 11 is a simple statement that the processes of creation no longer operate, a fact which is thoroughly verified by the two universal laws of thermodynamics.
5. And when the Bible claims that since man’s severance of communication with the Infinite, this earth has become “subjected” to the “bondage of decay” for the present age, it is telling us that creative processes have been replaced by deteriorative processes implicit in the second law of thermodynamics.
I'm convinced. Evolution is wrong! so I'll go for the only other explanation. That everything was created by an invisible guy, based on an old book written by primitive desert folk 2000 years ago & with no evidence to support it whatsoever. I know it sounds stupid & supremely gullible of me but as evolution is wrong (because life & the universe is complex and "looks" designed) I suppose I have to go for the creator option! Now to find me the nearest Christian Church so that I don't cook in Hell!
@uncleboring, you've picked the correct name for yourself. You are indeed boring. Your view of the Bible is about as boring as anyone can get. It proves you're an illiterate dunce with little or no education. Your hypothesis that atheism comes before belief in God fails as well. The creator option was already well established before the evolution hoax was perpetrated against it. It's not really a contest between the two. It's a matter of God against ignorance and lack of proper education.
Its funny to see how childish you try to go about attacking evolution, it makes me wonder if ill really change your mind with those pms Im sending you....doesn't seem likely.
@fruitytuttiluigi You better think about changing YOUR mind. I was just as avid a believer as you for many years, up until only a few years ago. Then I actually thought. And reasoned. Then I regained my skepticism AGAIN. Because I had lost mine as well, just like you did.
@fruitytuttiluigi Funny, I was a Creationist as a kid. I dumped that when I went to college and was thoroughly indoctrinated with evolution. Then I escaped that. You didn't. You are still stuck with your second religion. Congrats.
It might be considered unfortunate that the Theory of Evolution seems to contradict certain interpretations of Genesis, but this doesn't excuse deliberate ignorance and obfuscation.
For example, no one is claiming that the liver sat around partially-formed for millions of generations as you suggest (and to say that they do is dishonest). Instead, there were only simple organs at first, then ones more highly specialized, and then pre-liver organs, etc.
Well, look at your description starting at 1:27. Here you clearly claim that a single mutation formed enough "liver tissue" to make a new organ. Of course, this is not how evolution works (and no biologist is suggesting this). I think you are aware of this too, and are simply being obtuse.
In my description, the liver started off as a different organ, which was altered and improved over time, with each stage contributing to the digestive process.
@FiverBeyond " the liver started off as a different organ" You or someone else completely made this up Completely. Why? Why would this absurd belief of yours require so much made up material? Because it's nothing but bullshit given credence because so many people make stuff up. and so many others go Amen.
Well... made it up in the sense that it's what the Theory of Evolution would propose.
You, on the other hand, are very clearly arguing strawman that no biologist is proposing anywhere. You're just pretending that they do, to make the idea seem ludicrous. I challenge you to name a single scientist who proposes that the liver formed as you suggest.
@FiverBeyond First you find one biologist that has any idea how livers evolved. There isn't one on the planet earth. So your challenge is laughable.
The liver had to build up one way or another to reach it's current size. A few cells to a full sized liver. Make up anything you want to challenge me. Doesn't matter. It would all be fake.
That is precisely my point: there are no biologists that either you or I know of that have a proposed model for how the liver evolved. And yet you presented your silliness as if that is what biologists suggest. I'll say it again: You deliberately made that up, knowing full well that there was not one biologist anywhere who suggested your idea. You're just building a strawman, claiming that the one side proposes something, when in fact you know that they don't. That's dishonest.
@FiverBeyond 100% of evolution biologists say livers evolved in microsteps, due to selected mutations. Or else they don't follow the dogma of the party which is rare. I say they don't know. They DO think they know. You are way off as always.
@FiverBeyond (1) Like you, they think they know. (2) Reality: No person who ever lived or lives knows. Including you and all biologists. "has any idea" should have been "knows". Another irrelevant point by you. Like checking for a misspell, and when you find one, cite that as huge evo-evidence, or evidence that I am wrong. Keep on cherry picking.
On the contrary, this is not a trivial point: I am stating flatly that you are making up the opinion that you here present: deliberately presenting a false description of evolution, and knowing full well that there is not a single biologist anywhere who believes in the formation of the liver as you describe it (and for you to say that they do is dishonest and misleading).
I'll offer it to you again: name the biologist who describes the evolution of the liver as you suggest.
I noticed you like to ask how evolution does things that don't seem to have any direct genetic or fossil evidence. Then you start the ad hominem attacks when someone attempts an answer. You failed big time with the "first bird nest" question on AronRa's video. Fossil evidence of nesting behavior preceding birds have been found. That makes your bird nest "problem" a moot point. Birds make nests because they work. If people don't know all the details that doesn't disprove evolution.
@foxlake02 Someday I am going to run into an intelligent evo that can carry on a conversation. One gives an absurd answer, and you all join in and support the absurdity. Why? I wish I could understand. Why didn't natural selection give you the intelligence to see how absurd the answers were at ArRona? I really wish I could help you somehow.
The question was: How does evolution account for arboreal bird nests? Your answer: "nesting behavior". "Birds make nests because they work?" Astounding
@stevebee92653 That is a lie. The answer is nesting behavior preceded birds and evidence for it is in the fossil record. Wow, when you have to make things up to defend your position, maybe your position isn't worth defending!
@foxlake02 Would you be willing to allow others to borrow your time machine? I concur, "when you have to make things up to defend your position, maybe your position isnt worth defending! Does this mean you surrender?
@foxlake02 Get your head out of your ass and see that fossils for each species don't change over tens of millions of years. Quit playing pretend. Deal with what is there instead of seeing what "they" want you to see.
@stevebee92653 Ahhh yes, it all a big conspiracy hey? It is not a requirement that species change. If they are successful like some species of sharks, noting requires them to change. To say that is does is just distorting what the theory says. I have dealt with you and your half wit group before. All you are good at is distorting information.
@foxlake02 Ah, the guy that knows how birds initiated arboreal nests is back. That's enough for me. You are fooling yourself, and you think you know-it-all. It's impossible to discuss with people who do.
@foxlake02 aka 1ProudFremaleAtheist? Distorting what the theory says? That would be you. Not one of you evos knows what it says. You all have your own different idea of what it says. It's a failed 19th century hoax hypothesis concocted by a practitioner of witchcraft while he danced naked around the campfires in the South American jungle.
@MaximusArurealius Wow it only took you a month to come up with that witty response. Getting better! You will buy any silly story people like Hovind make up won't you? Danced naked in South America hey? You just made my day! lol
@foxlake02 aka 1ProudFemaleAtheist and NOW aka transtlantic, HAR HAR HAR Thanks for giving yourself away. You're quite the team of sockpuppets. HAR HAR HAR And all you are is an old disgruntled lesbian with nothing else but hatred in your heart.
@foxlake02 aka transtlantic aka 1ProudFemaleAtheist, the "hehehehehehe" gives you away as female. Men don't say hehe. Now we know trantlantic isn't a guy at all.
LISTEN: "All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94
@SamdeSquirell Your analogy for malaria using it in a "what if" hypothetical but tailored to fit evo scenario isn't true. In fact most people not having sickle cell would survive the malaria just fine.
1) "Sickle cell blood cells also protect against malaria" - Kind of like saying that if you cut out your intestines, you can't get dysentery. ;)
2) "Mutations are 99% non-beneficial" - Nice contradiction. Sounds like you're saying evolution is a top-down process, NOT bottom-up. This would show that genetic diversity decreases the more the environment acts upon a selected species. Ex: bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. This would mean evolution happens more rapidly. ;)
Try and work out a reasonable scenario for chlorophyll evolution. A susbstance designed modify sunlight that would require the suns energy to evolve it in the first place!
"...'natural selection' which is nothing more than 'selective procreating, dying, and killing'."
Other than the fact that the latter term is longer, I see nothing wrong with either term, to be honest. I doubt that either term is intended to be a sugar-coated nor pejorative.
@NeverDieAgain79 Is the Big Bang, a universe out of a singularity smaller than an atom a creation? We are all creationists, only some think they aren't. Non-occurring isn't the least bit bold. It has NEVER been observed by any person. It's truth.
Science's answer should be "we just don't know". (Yet.) THAT is scientific. Posing a fantasy as science isn't science. It blocks true science.
"Natural selection did not and could not form all of nature."
Natural selection has only been used in the context of evolution, which only accounts for the diversity of life and speciation. Neither evolution nor even abiogenesis are intended to explain how all began; we are to look to physical cosmology and cosmogeny to explain that.
Have you seen Dawkins short winged version of flight? HAR HAR HAR HAR Hilarious!! And they wonder why we laugh at evolutionists. The wing assisted incline running is another lame assed idea. Has anyone ever seen an animal dumb enough to jump from a 100 foot cliff to the water for fun? Only humans are dumb enough to do that and none of us have started growing wings.
One day evolutionists will be laughed at just like the flat earth dummies. HAR HAR HAR HAR
Natural Selection == death by natural causes and whatever is left over struggles for existence and then goes extinct. Have you read the hypotheses for the evolution of flight? 1. From the trees down 2. From the ground up 3. Wing-assisted incline running 4. Pouncing Proavis model. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Can you believe such concocted bullshit?
The pouncing model is the funniest. Natural enemies pouncing on their prey developed wings. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
ok lets say man never dicovered DNA, never learned to dig fossils, and we were back in the middle ages, now give me your theory on how we got here please, im curious, you must have proof right? anybody?
I never raised creationism, airhead did, airhead said nothing is created, obviously he does not what he is talking about, whether something is man made or biological it is created, if you believe that evolution brought things into being then you believe the creative process was evolution, the word create means bring into being, i am not gonna repeat a point that you can verify by looking it up in online dictionaries, if that logical point is over your head then tough shit.
@ProudToBLoud I'm not disputing the meaning of words with you.
aARIESsSs question was directly posed towards evidence for your position. The word creationism wasn't used by either of you, but it is the topic of discussion. So that's why I used the term.
Neither was claimed in the original question that nothing is created. aARIESsSs asked what you use as proof for your position.
So to restate the question, what do you see as evidence for creationism?
Creationism was not the topic of discussion not how aairies defines the word, the topic of discussion is evolutionary claims and always has been, aairies was beating that strawman because he cannot challenge the claims in this video.
@ProudToBLoud In the context of the video it is indeed about the evidence for evolution. However aARIESsSs did indeed raise an interesting question of what you then you as evidence for creationism (stated differently, but I think it is what (s)he meant).
And for someone not that familiar with your position and your evidence for it, I'm also curious to the answer for that question.
@ProudToBLoud I'm not trying to mislead you or divert attention from the current topic.
It's just that I see it as a valid question, and the question aARIESsSs posed triggered me in asking it. I asked it several times even on videos discussing creationism, but never got a real answer out of anyone.
But if you don't want to answer it, then you don't have to (I wont repeat a question if I don't get an answer or some sort of response to it).
AssIramus said, "and we were back in the middle ages" Well moron, in the middle ages we would have probably gotten here by boat dummass. And then we would have walked the rest of the way. How the hell do YOU think we got here hole?
@bigusdikus0 okay smart guy, hahaha, how did the new species that didn't exist in their current form arrive here if they didn't evolve? evolution explains it, can you? if you fail to answere like proud did your a know nothing coward.
@bigusdikus0 so how did the new species that didnt exist 100 000 years ago get here smart guy? a failure to answere means you have no idea what your talking about, and evolution not only can explain it, it has all the proof for it! so where did they come from, did JEHOVA drop by again, like when he started civilization! HAHAHAHAHA!
So you have a better answer:"God did it using his magic stick".Sorry but you should stop messing with science.Go read your Biblican fairy tales
LOL5443219898 3 weeks ago
@LOL5443219898 Ya know what's really nice for you? You have no idea how stupid this comment is. Do you? I hope you aren't as stupid.
stevebee92653 3 weeks ago
I get a kick out of Evillusionists speaking of the inefficient human eye It's so stupid! If children weren't forced to wear glasses at an early age, due to their inability to read a blackboard they are forced to read in public school, their eyes would get better as they got older. Glasses arrest their development. Also, before glasses were made, people would find their own natural 'vocational niche' due to their eye's predilection. i.e. Nearsighted watch makers & farsighted scouts, etc.
TroddinSod 1 month ago
@missinglink1999 You spout tired dogma, and you have no idea. What on earth would make you think your simplistic explanation hasn't been done a thousand times? Do you actually think every time I get that, I should respond? Why should I explain how miniscule the E. coli changes are? Can't you figure that out for yourself? E. coli has been around for 100 million years. Probably billions. It's still E. Coli. Need help with this concept?
stevebee92653 1 month ago
@missinglink1999 Just think, 50,000 generations.......actually trillions of generations from their beginnings. And they are still E Coli. You evos just can't do anything right, now can you.
stevebee92653 1 month ago
@missinglink1999 "Hey, he could be god?" lol, thinking about it he might be, since he is aggressive, presumptuous and ignorant, and that's what the Abrahamic God is according to the scriptures.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat What are you talking about? I AM God. So watchout!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 lol at least you have a sense of humor. take care mr Stephen
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@missinglink1999 true, i've took a look at his site. Supposedly this person is not only a dentist, but he's also a biologist, physicist, astronomer, astrophysics, philosopher and geologist. lol, he's a genius!
But creationists like this guy always get in a dead end when someone asks them who is this "Intelligent Designer"? They will dodge this question because everyone knows they are referring to their monotheistic God and that clearly proves that Creationism/I.D is not a scientific field.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
The creationist dishonesty is only creating more atheists. Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of biology but of course you wouldn't know about that since your field is merely religious apologetics. Lying for Jesus right?
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Wrong. Do you think on autopilot? Do you think?
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 you should't think, you just have to open your heart to Jesus, right?
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Ah, you don't think. Oh well.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 lol sorry for the sarcasm mr Stephen. But lets see here if i'm wrong..
Who is this mysterious 'Inteligent Designer' if not God? And doesn't I.D. sound so similar to Creationism mr. Stephen? I mean, both of them believe in the creation(design) of everything right? So lets be honest, you are trying to 'destroy' evolution so you can teach good old Christian scripture to the kids on the schools.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Me: not religious. You: hugely assumptive and devoid of intelligent discussion. You overlook the points on the ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS BIO_SYSTEMS and defer to a discussion of my religious stance, which there isn't one. I would say ORIGINS has just a bit more weight that the religious stance of any person on the planet. Wouldn't you? Evolution needs to be eliminated because it's scientific bullshit taught to many, accepted by the gullible, like you, just like religions.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 now now mr. Stephen, you dodge my question: Who is the "Inteligent Designer" if not God? And how did he created everything from nothing if not with magic?
You see now, these are questions you clearly avoid because you know they are fundamentally associated with your monotheistic doctrine. So mr. Stephen, your effort if futile, Creationism aka I.D. will never be more than a pseudo science :)
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat I didn't answer this, so as a farewell, here is my BYE present: You ask how God created everything if not with magic. The magic is supposedly because it was done quickly. Your stance is that the EXACT SAME CREATION occurred as the Creationists claim. Your religion is better ONLY because this exact same creation happened slowly. That is the only difference between religion and you. Speed of creation. You are both creationists. They know they are, you pretend you are not.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 lol that's a nice joke mr. Stephen. I suppose you're calling evolutionary theory a religion. Well evolution does not refer any creation at all, its just the explanation of a reproductive mechanics. Furthermore, the intelligent design refers a creation of everything from nothing at all, like a magic trick and as for your Intelligent Designer, it necessarily has to be a Deity, and we all know you're referring to the christian God. Can't dodge from that mr Stephen.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat You think ID refers a creation of everything from nothing. A sterile Earth to an Earth full of life. And Evolution? A sterile Earth to an Earth full of life. The end is exactly the same either way. Your slow version, religion's fast. The end result is exactly the same. Neither of you know how all of living nature came to be. This race is an exact tie between two losers. You are one.
You think my belief is important enough to modify this argument, but it isn't.Nice try.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653
- Creationism involves the creation of -everithing- and not just the our planet.
- Evolution =/= Abiogenesis
- the "Inteligent Designer" = God, therefore its refers to religious doctrine, therefore it can not be can't be taught at schools therefore your belief system is fundemental to the argument, therefore you lose mr. Stephen
You can not teatch religious doctrine at schools, its is unconstitutional :)
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat My exact point! Evolution and Genesis should not be taught in biology classes. BTW, religious doctrine CAN be taught in philosophy or religion classes. Which is where evolution and religion should be taught. But not as science.
I love the notion of you evolutionauts that say Dumb Luck created everything right up to the first living cells. THEN evolution took over and formed all species and bio-systems. That really makes sense.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 Evolution can , an it is taught in biology classes. The evolutionary process is a fundamental part of the Biology discipline.
lol, if you support I.D. then you have to support the Genesis.
Religious doctrine -can not- be taught at schools. What it can be taught is religious literature, not the doctrine. Search for the difference of -literature- and -doctrine-.
"Dumb Luck created everything" evolution has nothing to do with 'creating things', that's what you creationists believe
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat If I think there is intelligence in nature,I HAVE TO SUPPORT GENESIS? :-D Please take a course in logic.You're showing yourself to be too eager an evolutionaut to discuss anything.I would recommend getting rid of the lol.So trite. Evolution, if true, created all of living nature, its species, and bio-systems. I know the word scares you. Out of a sterile Earth came dogs, humans, trees, brains, consciousness, alligators....all due to evolution. Your creator.Say hallelujah
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 "Evolution, if true, created all of living nature" now, now, mr. Stephen, once again: evolution has created nothing, creation is for the creationists.
"Out of a sterile Earth came dogs.." The origin of life from non biological matter has nothing to do with evolution either.
You now mr. Stephen, i'm starting to doubt you are a Biologist-Physicist-Astronomer-Paleontologist-Philosopher.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Ah,so if God forms all of living nature it's a creation.But if evolution forms all of living nature with the exact same result as what God supposedly did,it isn't a creation? :-D
Push a button, out comes the "abio isn't evo" dogma.Of course evolution had to be involved with the formation of the first cells.The only reason it was dumped by evolution is it can't be explained.Ergo, the dump.And you have fallen for that one.
Don't doubt it. I AM all those things.And more!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 lol it's funny who you've change the word "creates" to "forms" but either way the evolutionary process is not an "agency that forms" but a natural process of adaptationof the organic form to the environment. And this process isn't spontaneous, it takes more than hundreds of years at least.
Now, now mr. Stephen Evolution and Abiogenisis are two completelly different subjects, and you should know that since you are a PhD on Biology-Physics-Astrology..
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
@missinglink1999 Cult??? Not sure what you mean. I've never really been a member of anything except maybe my previous volleyball and basketball teams and I doubt they were considered cults. Steve has some awfully good points in his vids to my way of thinking. Its obvious you don't feel that way. There should be good constructive debate and not the constant name calling which gets old and tiresome.
cheaterfive100 2 months ago
@missinglink1999 If I were you, I'd learn how to spell "know", especially if you are ragging on someone's education.
cheaterfive100 2 months ago
Attacking a strawman as usual...
synsei1 2 months ago
@synsei1 Fascinating comment. And your only possible strategy. Use of trite words and phrases. Good choice!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 Come on, you're using misleading arguments from the very start of the video. "natural selection couldn't form all of nature". Hell no, but he never say it did, and no scientist says that. "We had just discovered that the Earth was trillion of years old." It's wrong by orders of magnitude, no scientist says that either. Should I go on and post 10 comments to expose your BS piece by piece ? Refutations are well known and you know you're full of it.
synsei1 2 months ago
@synsei1 Turn up your hearing aid. I said billions of years old. Want to argue that? Since no Earthling who ever lived knows how all of living nature formed, I assume you are some sort of alien? I am sure you have some great information that you gleaned from your indoctrination that will certainly show me to be wrong. So have at it if you like.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 Ok, I hard trillions...
Though there was no earthling alive, the mountain of evidence for the current cosmological theory and the evolution of species is so big, and mostly so consistent that you have to resort to argument of ignorance about things that are actually known, explained and proven. If you dismiss the decades of work by thousands of scientists out of hand, you can as well deny that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun, or atomic theory.
synsei1 2 months ago
@synsei1 *heard
synsei1 2 months ago
@synsei1 You have been fooled. And you cannot get unfooled. You are stuck. The stuff you come up with is argument from gullibility. Talk is cheap and easy. Instead of having mountains of evidence you SAY you have mountains.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 Yeah, I'm stuck with facts and science, yes talk is cheap and easy *sigh*. What about learning about actual paleontology, biochemistry, genetics, embriology, zoology, botanics, geology, physics, evolutionary biology; what about the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of flight, that you say don't exist but have been found ? What's your evidence foe an alternate explaination ? The Bible ? the Quran ? Ancient alien astronauts ?
synsei1 2 months ago
@synsei1 As I said, you have been fooled. Throwing a list of science's at me like they support evolution is typical. Biochem kills evolution Try it sometime. So does genetics. No evolution of flight exists. Birds appeared as fliers. So did insects. Sorry. You can keep on throwing stuff at me that your trainers taught you. I have heard them all before. There is no "alternate" explanation. Humans are not close to an answer. THAT is the alternate.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
an amazingly pathetic show of ignorance... it is an embarrassing fact that the US has a consider number of idiots that actually deny the soundness and utility of scientific method..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati No, I thoroughly back the scientific method. Which kills evolution. Me: science You: believer in fables.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 aren't you the articulate one.. "kills evolution" (?).. well there is practically nothing of substance (supported by peer reviewed research) which disproves evolutionary theory.. and further.. you are a beneficiary of evolutionary theory..every day. Only fable based beliefs have issues with evolution (read science). They answer scientific questions through a watchmaker/designer (and anthropologic) deity (btw, which flavor of abrahamic fruitcake are you?)
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati Me: not religious; not gullible either. You: hugely gullible,assumptive, repetitive, and boring. Lots of dogma, unable to question. That's just the way it is.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 (repetitive?) really? now how could you determine such a thing? and you are not religious? right... taking pot shots at science is the exclusive domain of the religious.. no others have axes to grind.. (are you hiding something?)
been fun..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati Taking "pot shots" at the greatest scientific hoax in history IS good science. Repeating what every evolutionaut says is repetitive. You are a DVD recording. That's it. Same stuff, over and over. No thought. Copy/paste thinking, A sample:
supported by peer reviewed research
you are a beneficiary of evolutionary theory..every day
pathetic show of ignorance
number of idiots that actually deny the soundness and utility of scientific method
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 pentecostal? mormon? (muslim?) you have one hell (excuse the expression) of an issue with facts, research and an enormous body of knowledge... youtube is not a scientific forum.. but I am game.. support for the theory is easy to pick up.. one I like is how evolution and paleontology is used to successfully predict where hydrocarbon deposits can be found.. (you know... oil..).. capitalism at its best... baptist? remember that its is a sin to lie...
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati If there was any good evidence, here it is. New scientific stuff I have NEVER HEARD BEFORE!! Evolution is responsible for FINDING OIL! You guys are so brilliant. Everytime I get in my car, I will thank evolution for finding the oil! Thanks for straightening me out.
Re: religion. You cannot be this dumb, can you? I certainly hope not.
But again, I can't wait to tell my friends about the oil, and how thankful we should be for those evolution biologists who made the finds!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@yoxgevo
evillusion d n pg. 37
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@yoxgevo All I can say to any of your stuff is you are sure a good evo-believer and completely indoctrinated. Maybe Dawkins will give you a merit badge if you keep all this good stuff up!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 hey.. or just maybe we all live in a world that has benefited tremendously by science and scientific method.. and (quite possibly) you are a jerk...
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati I am a jerk. In your world. Anyone who can so thoroughly put a groupthinker's belief system down so easily would be considered a jerk in that groupthinker's group. But I may have to rethink this whole thing. I found out that evolution FINDS OUR OIL! The jury is certainly still out on this one. Evolution may be great after all!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 ok (we agree on some things!) Jury came back and the money has been spent (someone believes, enough to spend money.. paleontologists are being hired)... instead of being a crank... propose a different mechanism.. I don't think that reliance on scientific method is "group think" (-?- not sure that that means..but I will take a guess).. btw being a jerk can and should be temporary...
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati Groupthink is a symptom of group psychology. Evolutionauts all comment alike, have similar personalities, are humorless. angry....as a group. You may have some hope. I am a crank?That's the nicest compliment I've had from an evolutionaut. There is no known mechanism which was the causative agent for the invention, origination, assembly of all of living nature.It may be findable, but today's bad choices stops any rational objective scientific search.I'm sure you won't agree.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 We "Evolutionauts" (did you actually coin this?).. and others with some esteem for honest research consider anyone who takes cheap unfounded shots at a good theory (in use,, a point you like to ignore) as cranks.. if you consider this a complement then .. well.. you are not honest enough to engage in any discourse.. humor on this side is abundant.. and anger is reserved the dishonest.. cheers!
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati Doing "honest research" when there is none to be done isn't "honest research".Honest research would be displaying the formation of a biological system from nothing.Like a new kind of heart/lung system.That would be "honest research". But alas and alack,there isn't any that can be done.So these evo-scientists just keep on testing nonsense and getting government grants for doing so. THAT is the humor on your side. Laughing at the suckers that pay. You keep believing. Oh well.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 you poor liar...
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati More middle upper class liar. I worked pretty hard. So lucky me, I'm not poor. No food stamps or anything.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 no, your poverty is other..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@yoxgevo Gee, I thought time, random mutations, and natural selection were the main driving "forces" of evolution. I bet you could educate me and tell me where I went wrong. I can't wait to hear!
stevebee92653 2 months ago
30 seconds and absolute FAIL. Natural selection is simply a term for the reproductive success of organisms that have some beneficial trait, whatever it is.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Oh, my gawd, NOOOOO. Not another evo-clone. You guys have an endless army of indoctrinates. All say the same goddam thing, all have the same irritating personalities. Not one of you questions your dogma. Well good for you. I hope you didn't go farther than 00:30. It might screw up your recording.
stevebee92653 4 months ago
@stevebee92653 perhaps it because we can see the truckloads of evidence and that for over 100 years every discovery in biology fits into the patterns found for evolution in biology, geology and now dna studies.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha "We"? You and the other clones? When you "see the truckloads of evidence" do you all stand in a group and watch the truckloads? When you are together, do you talk in unison? You think in unison, so I assume you must talk in unison as well. None of you are skeptical. Non can think on your own. Must be HORRIBLE! Have you ever watched "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? Are you clones kind of like those people? Just wondering.
stevebee92653 4 months ago
@stevebee92653 "we" as in educated people who have studied what evidence exists. If you ask any group of people which way something falls you will hopefully get everyone pointing down. Ots that simple. Every sciency person is sceptical, you dont prove someones hypothesis is right , you prove them wrong. Find the errors !
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha I found truckloads.Watch the vids. Matters not. You're so indoctrinated you're blinded. Sorry.
stevebee92653 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha
Perhaps its because you're uneducated and MISunderstand all aspects of biological science (referring to the limitations of mutations, gene depletion, and the DNA code of separate organisms.)
Evolution is consistently DISPROVEN by both the fossil record and DNA. Not sure where you get your pseudo-scientific NONSENSE. But I suggest you listen to the numerous BIOLOGISTS (unlike Darwin who had no degree) that say traditional evolution is inaccurate and full of fallacies.
evoTARDSareINSANE 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE 1. seems unlikely 2. wrong 3. like Dr J Szostak, Dr Lenski , The entire biology department of Lehi University. Who told you Darwin had no degree ?
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha
Its a well known FACT that Darwin had no Biology degree. Research it for yourself on Google or Wikipedia.
As for actual BIOLOGISTS (unlike you and Darwin) that say evolution is a MYTH.....
Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, Dr. Ann Gauger, Dr. David Mention, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Michael Behe, and geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun Dr. John Sanford. All of them have degrees in Biology and Genetics.
You got OWNED evo-troll.
evoTARDSareINSANE 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE so 9 out of how many biologists in the us alone ?
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Great but NS cant invent brains and hearts etc.
9pt9 3 months ago
@9pt9 no one who understands biology says it does. That would be the mutation, copy errors, frame shifts, horizontal gene transfer and all the mechanisms of a change to dna occuring. Those create the difference in traits, and selection is a statement that traits that promote reproductive success are maintained in the population.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Again great, but "mutation, copy errors, frame shifts, horizontal gene transfer and all the mechanisms of a change to dan occurring" cant invent brains and hearts etc.
9pt9 3 months ago
Do you really not understand evolution, or are you just trolling?
godisuncouth 11 months ago
This video is one of your best, it makes it so obvious, so sad that these people commenting are blinded by their faith and will not let it go.
If evolution were possible at all, it would have to be guided by something, as far as we can tell cells can't be intelligent THEMSELVES so if they are guiding all these processes alone, then that would suggest they do have some form of intelligence. I'll stick with God.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Thanks! This was a fun one to make.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Ratings disabled!!!!!!!!
uncleboring 1 year ago
Comment removed
uncleboring 1 year ago
THE BIBLE, THE FLOOD AND CREATION 1. More than any document, the Bible was assailed as a collection of fanciful myths. Yet, to the embarrassment of the critics, archaeological discoveries proved time and again that the fabled cities, mythical persons and impossible events were true and reliable reporting in every detail. Indeed, the Bible can now be regarded as the most accurate and trustworthy source of history we possess.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
2. Thanks to archaeological discoveries, much of what was classed as myth in the biblical account of the rise of nations is now being found true. It is becoming increasingly tenable to regard its “stories” as not religious fantasy but rather apt reporting of phenomena that actually occurred. The story of a former global unity which was broken into factions is now seen as real.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
3. Traditions and biblical writings speak of a mass dispersion of peoples from the early Babel civilization about a thousand years after the Deluge. It is significant that a number of archaeologists take the Tower of Babel record seriously and conjecture it to be in the period somewhat before 2000 B.C. And sure enough, a surprising number of “new” civilizations that suddenly appear are dated to approximately 2000 B.C.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
4. Biblical statements as to the destiny of man throughout history appear to have more relevance than they have been given credit for. For example: the Genesis assertion that God ‘finished” creating and “rested” (i.e., ceased) from all His work of creation, 11 is a simple statement that the processes of creation no longer operate, a fact which is thoroughly verified by the two universal laws of thermodynamics.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
5. And when the Bible claims that since man’s severance of communication with the Infinite, this earth has become “subjected” to the “bondage of decay” for the present age, it is telling us that creative processes have been replaced by deteriorative processes implicit in the second law of thermodynamics.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
I'm convinced. Evolution is wrong! so I'll go for the only other explanation. That everything was created by an invisible guy, based on an old book written by primitive desert folk 2000 years ago & with no evidence to support it whatsoever. I know it sounds stupid & supremely gullible of me but as evolution is wrong (because life & the universe is complex and "looks" designed) I suppose I have to go for the creator option! Now to find me the nearest Christian Church so that I don't cook in Hell!
uncleboring 1 year ago
@uncleboring, you've picked the correct name for yourself. You are indeed boring. Your view of the Bible is about as boring as anyone can get. It proves you're an illiterate dunce with little or no education. Your hypothesis that atheism comes before belief in God fails as well. The creator option was already well established before the evolution hoax was perpetrated against it. It's not really a contest between the two. It's a matter of God against ignorance and lack of proper education.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
If not evolution, then what?
coolronification 1 year ago
So then with a creator imperfections are abound
AkuZod 1 year ago
@AkuZod Good point!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Its funny to see how childish you try to go about attacking evolution, it makes me wonder if ill really change your mind with those pms Im sending you....doesn't seem likely.
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi You better think about changing YOUR mind. I was just as avid a believer as you for many years, up until only a few years ago. Then I actually thought. And reasoned. Then I regained my skepticism AGAIN. Because I had lost mine as well, just like you did.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Funny, I used to be a creationist then thought and reasoned to.
I wonder who's the more honest one here....;)
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi Funny, I was a Creationist as a kid. I dumped that when I went to college and was thoroughly indoctrinated with evolution. Then I escaped that. You didn't. You are still stuck with your second religion. Congrats.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Good to see you learned how to question things...but you over stepped that it seems.
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi No, you stopped questioning too soon. You traded one religion for another. As did I.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Nice too see this has degenerated into a pissing contest
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi Nice to see what has degenerated into a pissing contest?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
-_-
You're a damn good troll, i give you props
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi You shouldnt be trying to evangelize people over to your religion.
bethaddjkp 1 year ago
@bethaddjkp Technically its a deconversion, but either way.....
atheism
religion
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Troll detected, you didnt even read what i actually said did you?
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
Thanks for posting stevebee
agnostaxian 1 year ago
It might be considered unfortunate that the Theory of Evolution seems to contradict certain interpretations of Genesis, but this doesn't excuse deliberate ignorance and obfuscation.
For example, no one is claiming that the liver sat around partially-formed for millions of generations as you suggest (and to say that they do is dishonest). Instead, there were only simple organs at first, then ones more highly specialized, and then pre-liver organs, etc.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Instead, there were only simple organs at first, then ones more highly specialized, and then pre-liver organs, etc
Let me guess. Next LIVERS? Wow. Evolution is so wonderful.
What the hell is the difference between my liver description and yours? NADA
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
What's the difference?
Well, look at your description starting at 1:27. Here you clearly claim that a single mutation formed enough "liver tissue" to make a new organ. Of course, this is not how evolution works (and no biologist is suggesting this). I think you are aware of this too, and are simply being obtuse.
In my description, the liver started off as a different organ, which was altered and improved over time, with each stage contributing to the digestive process.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond " the liver started off as a different organ" You or someone else completely made this up Completely. Why? Why would this absurd belief of yours require so much made up material? Because it's nothing but bullshit given credence because so many people make stuff up. and so many others go Amen.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
"You or someone else completely made this up."
Well... made it up in the sense that it's what the Theory of Evolution would propose.
You, on the other hand, are very clearly arguing strawman that no biologist is proposing anywhere. You're just pretending that they do, to make the idea seem ludicrous. I challenge you to name a single scientist who proposes that the liver formed as you suggest.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond First you find one biologist that has any idea how livers evolved. There isn't one on the planet earth. So your challenge is laughable.
The liver had to build up one way or another to reach it's current size. A few cells to a full sized liver. Make up anything you want to challenge me. Doesn't matter. It would all be fake.
The "idea" is ludicrous.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
That is precisely my point: there are no biologists that either you or I know of that have a proposed model for how the liver evolved. And yet you presented your silliness as if that is what biologists suggest. I'll say it again: You deliberately made that up, knowing full well that there was not one biologist anywhere who suggested your idea. You're just building a strawman, claiming that the one side proposes something, when in fact you know that they don't. That's dishonest.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond 100% of evolution biologists say livers evolved in microsteps, due to selected mutations. Or else they don't follow the dogma of the party which is rare. I say they don't know. They DO think they know. You are way off as always.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
But you said... "Find one biologist that has any idea how livers evolved. There isn't one on the planet earth."
Then you said "100% of evolution biologists say livers evolved in microsteps."
Which statement do you stand by?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond (1) Like you, they think they know. (2) Reality: No person who ever lived or lives knows. Including you and all biologists. "has any idea" should have been "knows". Another irrelevant point by you. Like checking for a misspell, and when you find one, cite that as huge evo-evidence, or evidence that I am wrong. Keep on cherry picking.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
On the contrary, this is not a trivial point: I am stating flatly that you are making up the opinion that you here present: deliberately presenting a false description of evolution, and knowing full well that there is not a single biologist anywhere who believes in the formation of the liver as you describe it (and for you to say that they do is dishonest and misleading).
I'll offer it to you again: name the biologist who describes the evolution of the liver as you suggest.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond "On the contrary, this is not a trivial point: I am stating flatly that you are making up the opinion that you here present:"
stating flatly? well that's impressive.
try stating it roundly... maybe you can save the T.O.E...
bullviii 1 year ago
@bullviii
As your comment clearly shows, both options are an improvement on stating stupidly.
;-)
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
This video is full of fail.
ChoujiMan 1 year ago 4
@ChoujiMan Did you write that all yourself? You must have had help. It's such good writing.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@ChoujiMan THAT is HIGHLY intelligent. Thanks! Did you make it up yourself? Or did your mother help you? Just wondering.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
I noticed you like to ask how evolution does things that don't seem to have any direct genetic or fossil evidence. Then you start the ad hominem attacks when someone attempts an answer. You failed big time with the "first bird nest" question on AronRa's video. Fossil evidence of nesting behavior preceding birds have been found. That makes your bird nest "problem" a moot point. Birds make nests because they work. If people don't know all the details that doesn't disprove evolution.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
@foxlake02 Someday I am going to run into an intelligent evo that can carry on a conversation. One gives an absurd answer, and you all join in and support the absurdity. Why? I wish I could understand. Why didn't natural selection give you the intelligence to see how absurd the answers were at ArRona? I really wish I could help you somehow.
The question was: How does evolution account for arboreal bird nests? Your answer: "nesting behavior". "Birds make nests because they work?" Astounding
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 That is a lie. The answer is nesting behavior preceded birds and evidence for it is in the fossil record. Wow, when you have to make things up to defend your position, maybe your position isn't worth defending!
foxlake02 1 year ago 5
@foxlake02 Would you be willing to allow others to borrow your time machine? I concur, "when you have to make things up to defend your position, maybe your position isnt worth defending! Does this mean you surrender?
bethaddjkp 1 year ago
@bethaddjkp "borrow your time machine?"
Evidence for it is in the fossil record. Problem is, you hav to get your head out of your ass and look.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Get your head out of your ass and see that fossils for each species don't change over tens of millions of years. Quit playing pretend. Deal with what is there instead of seeing what "they" want you to see.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Ahhh yes, it all a big conspiracy hey? It is not a requirement that species change. If they are successful like some species of sharks, noting requires them to change. To say that is does is just distorting what the theory says. I have dealt with you and your half wit group before. All you are good at is distorting information.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Ah, the guy that knows how birds initiated arboreal nests is back. That's enough for me. You are fooling yourself, and you think you know-it-all. It's impossible to discuss with people who do.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Yes we are all conspiring against you...but you ignore my correction of your misinformation. Why am I not surprised?
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 aka 1ProudFremaleAtheist? Distorting what the theory says? That would be you. Not one of you evos knows what it says. You all have your own different idea of what it says. It's a failed 19th century hoax hypothesis concocted by a practitioner of witchcraft while he danced naked around the campfires in the South American jungle.
HAR HAR HAR FAIL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Wow it only took you a month to come up with that witty response. Getting better! You will buy any silly story people like Hovind make up won't you? Danced naked in South America hey? You just made my day! lol
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Great comeback moron. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Did you tell that story about Darwin to transtlantic? I'll bet he pissed himself that time! hehehehehe :O
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 aka 1ProudFemaleAtheist and NOW aka transtlantic, HAR HAR HAR Thanks for giving yourself away. You're quite the team of sockpuppets. HAR HAR HAR And all you are is an old disgruntled lesbian with nothing else but hatred in your heart.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@foxlake02 aka transtlantic aka 1ProudFemaleAtheist, the "hehehehehehe" gives you away as female. Men don't say hehe. Now we know trantlantic isn't a guy at all.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius "Now we know trantlantic isn't a guy at all" Maybe by your distorted logic...
but you are a borderline retard.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 borderline?!!
uncleboring 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 "Evidence is in the fossil record?" HAR HAR HAR you idiot. The fossil proves creation.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
LISTEN: "All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94
YOU LOSE AGAIN
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
I'm stopping you at 1:43
you don't understand evolution at all, AT ALL.
Mutations are 99% non-beneficial. Sickle cell blood cells are a perfect example of this.
However, incidentally, Sickle cell blood cells also protect against malaria, despite being non-beneficial in almost all other cases.
So it's a BAD mutation, UNLESS the population of mosquitos sky rockets and Malaria becomes a big problem.
People with sickle cells will be immune, and live, and reproduce.
THEN it's beneficial.
SamdeSquirell 1 year ago 8
@SamdeSquirell Your analogy for malaria using it in a "what if" hypothetical but tailored to fit evo scenario isn't true. In fact most people not having sickle cell would survive the malaria just fine.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@SamdeSquirell
1) "Sickle cell blood cells also protect against malaria" - Kind of like saying that if you cut out your intestines, you can't get dysentery. ;)
2) "Mutations are 99% non-beneficial" - Nice contradiction. Sounds like you're saying evolution is a top-down process, NOT bottom-up. This would show that genetic diversity decreases the more the environment acts upon a selected species. Ex: bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. This would mean evolution happens more rapidly. ;)
BassP86 1 year ago
Try and work out a reasonable scenario for chlorophyll evolution. A susbstance designed modify sunlight that would require the suns energy to evolve it in the first place!
9pt9 1 year ago
"Natural selection invented" LOL!!!
9pt9 1 year ago
@9pt9 The evos NEVER consider the invention part. Sterile earth to liver ! A miracle!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
02:29
"...'natural selection' which is nothing more than 'selective procreating, dying, and killing'."
Other than the fact that the latter term is longer, I see nothing wrong with either term, to be honest. I doubt that either term is intended to be a sugar-coated nor pejorative.
NeverDieAgain79 1 year ago
We don't use the the term "non-occurring miraculous mutations" for 2+ reasons:
1. It's a longer term than "random mutation".
2. The "non-occurring" part is a bold assertion regarding changes in DNA.
3. The "miraculous" part has creationist connotations.
To suggest that the universe is created is a positive claim, and positive claims need to be proven before we can take creationism/design for granted.
NeverDieAgain79 1 year ago
@NeverDieAgain79 Is the Big Bang, a universe out of a singularity smaller than an atom a creation? We are all creationists, only some think they aren't. Non-occurring isn't the least bit bold. It has NEVER been observed by any person. It's truth.
Science's answer should be "we just don't know". (Yet.) THAT is scientific. Posing a fantasy as science isn't science. It blocks true science.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
00:18
"Natural selection did not and could not form all of nature."
Natural selection has only been used in the context of evolution, which only accounts for the diversity of life and speciation. Neither evolution nor even abiogenesis are intended to explain how all began; we are to look to physical cosmology and cosmogeny to explain that.
NeverDieAgain79 1 year ago
Have you seen Dawkins short winged version of flight? HAR HAR HAR HAR Hilarious!! And they wonder why we laugh at evolutionists. The wing assisted incline running is another lame assed idea. Has anyone ever seen an animal dumb enough to jump from a 100 foot cliff to the water for fun? Only humans are dumb enough to do that and none of us have started growing wings.
One day evolutionists will be laughed at just like the flat earth dummies. HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Natural Selection == death by natural causes and whatever is left over struggles for existence and then goes extinct. Have you read the hypotheses for the evolution of flight? 1. From the trees down 2. From the ground up 3. Wing-assisted incline running 4. Pouncing Proavis model. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Can you believe such concocted bullshit?
The pouncing model is the funniest. Natural enemies pouncing on their prey developed wings. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Evolution from start to finish is, "we don't know how it happened so evolution dun it."
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
ok lets say man never dicovered DNA, never learned to dig fossils, and we were back in the middle ages, now give me your theory on how we got here please, im curious, you must have proof right? anybody?
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs
tell me something was the place that you are in now not created?
You are funny airhead, did it evolve by rm+ns
hahahhahahahhaha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ProudToBLoud How does that answer aARIESsSs question on what you use as proof for creationism?
You just point (I presume) at the current man made structure (s)he is in. At least elaborate how this would make your point.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
I never raised creationism, airhead did, airhead said nothing is created, obviously he does not what he is talking about, whether something is man made or biological it is created, if you believe that evolution brought things into being then you believe the creative process was evolution, the word create means bring into being, i am not gonna repeat a point that you can verify by looking it up in online dictionaries, if that logical point is over your head then tough shit.
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ProudToBLoud I'm not disputing the meaning of words with you.
aARIESsSs question was directly posed towards evidence for your position. The word creationism wasn't used by either of you, but it is the topic of discussion. So that's why I used the term.
Neither was claimed in the original question that nothing is created. aARIESsSs asked what you use as proof for your position.
So to restate the question, what do you see as evidence for creationism?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
Creationism was not the topic of discussion not how aairies defines the word, the topic of discussion is evolutionary claims and always has been, aairies was beating that strawman because he cannot challenge the claims in this video.
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ProudToBLoud In the context of the video it is indeed about the evidence for evolution. However aARIESsSs did indeed raise an interesting question of what you then you as evidence for creationism (stated differently, but I think it is what (s)he meant).
And for someone not that familiar with your position and your evidence for it, I'm also curious to the answer for that question.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
I never argued for creationism therefore it is a red herring, if you want to discuss creationism then go to a video that discusses it.
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ProudToBLoud I'm not trying to mislead you or divert attention from the current topic.
It's just that I see it as a valid question, and the question aARIESsSs posed triggered me in asking it. I asked it several times even on videos discussing creationism, but never got a real answer out of anyone.
But if you don't want to answer it, then you don't have to (I wont repeat a question if I don't get an answer or some sort of response to it).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@ProudToBLoud: If neither creationism nor evolution are valid, then what is?
NeverDieAgain79 1 year ago
AssIramus said, "and we were back in the middle ages" Well moron, in the middle ages we would have probably gotten here by boat dummass. And then we would have walked the rest of the way. How the hell do YOU think we got here hole?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
How many times does the phrase "random mutations" occur in the Origin of Species?
None. Zero.
Why should Darwin replace the phrase he didn't use with your gibberish?
mistergarth 1 year ago
@mistergarth do you know anything about this subject? how can NS work without mutations?
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
@bigusdikus0 NS are you refering to the protein?
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs youre too stupid to debate this. you dont know anything. you just copy arguments you heard and dont even understand just give up and STFU
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
@bigusdikus0 okay smart guy, hahaha, how did the new species that didn't exist in their current form arrive here if they didn't evolve? evolution explains it, can you? if you fail to answere like proud did your a know nothing coward.
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs haha what a stupid fucking question.
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
@bigusdikus0 so how did the new species that didnt exist 100 000 years ago get here smart guy? a failure to answere means you have no idea what your talking about, and evolution not only can explain it, it has all the proof for it! so where did they come from, did JEHOVA drop by again, like when he started civilization! HAHAHAHAHA!
aARIESsSs 1 year ago