To be honest; this is one of the lamest attempts at pwning I've seen yet. To me, it just looks like you have made a choice to believe a magic thingy created everything and will dismiss all else. There is no reasoning with someone like you because you can't reason. What answer would work for you - a Leprechaun did it? That should work, right? Okay fine - you believe a leprechaun did it. You DO know that God is a leprechaun, right?
It's a common claim among creationists (Discovery Institute) that complexity requires a designer. I'm sure you're familiar with 'Irriducible Complexity' and the 'Look at the flowers and trees!' argument.
We have a firm understanding of how this can arise, Just not the whole sequence of events.
Much like the fossil record, there are gaps.
This much we do know.
1. All the amino acids found in life on Earth can be formed though natural processes, from simple inorganic compounds found throughout the cosmos. And well understood principles such as evaporation, condensation, and static discharge.
(cont.) Think about it- most cultures from different areas of the world believe they were visited by the gods. What does that interpret to now? Beings. Descending from the skies. What would YOU call em? The point is- something may of happened, but obviously the different people from different parts of the world interpreted it differently, such as the egyptians, sumerians, mayans, etc. Therefore- It's completely a matter of interpretation and no one will ever know what really happened. Period.
The problem with videos like these- is that disproving one theory... does not prove another. Why can't people accept the fact that NO ONE knows the truth? That IS the truth: nobody knows the truth. Religious ppl believe in Angels, but refuse to believe in aliens- what if the angels ARE aliens. It's all a matter of interpretation. Religious ppl refuse to re-interpret the same ideas that have been practiced before science even existed. We've learned new things- it's time to apply them.
evolution is a proven theory, and to say that it can not be proven becuase "you were´nt their to see it happen" is false. All microbiologist know that micoorganisms many of which can and do produce human illness and infections, are constantly evolving and changing becoming quickly inmune to antibiotics, this is proof of evolution. Not only this but the extensive fossill record also proves a common ancestor for all life, and anatomy, biochemistry....all life forms have similar metabolisms
evolution is not a theory about were life came from but how life evolved once that the very first lifeform that indeed was a very complex biomolecule or strand of DNA, was able to duplicate itself, forming an exact copy. Evolution only explains how this first inteligent molecule (DNA), evolved through billions of years of natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc.. into the diferant plant and animal species that existed and live today. Evolution does not explain how the first DNA formed
With all due respect, it doesn't matter how many questions you can pose that someone can't answer. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. It is one of the best established theories in all of science, and there's plenty of that to go around.
The war is over. Science won and religion lost, yet, yet again.
This message is not to convince you, just to let you know. It's a lost cause; evolution is a fact already. You're arguing about a fact.
@SentientRaven Ah yes and you or any evolutionist can say its a fact all you want. Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact. Science has never been a help to evolution. Theory has and the two are black and white. Science = what we can test, observe and repeat. Evolution fails all of these. Theory = what we hope to find to be true using the scientific method. Again Evolution is an epic fail. Macro evolution has never been observed
@3gdosrsfs "Science = what we can test, observe and repeat. Evolution fails all of these. Theory = what we hope to find to be true using the scientific method." A scientific theory is exactly what you defined as science.Fool.
"Macro evolution has never been observed" Macro evolution if you really want to use it is any change on species level and above.So that means speciation is macro evolution.This has been observed multiple times.Do you deny that?
@3gdosrsfs "Ah yes and you or any evolutionist can say its a fact all you want. Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact." Have you ever educated yourself onb the topic other then watching youtube vids that say how EVIL evo is or from creation minisitries or whatever?DOesn't seems like.Otherwise you would know what evidence areout there.I feel sorry for you.
"Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact"
That's right. Besides the terabytes of research data being published yearly, the thousands of experiments, genetic assays and observation in the wild, the hundreds of papers and letters, the dozens of significant fossils being found, each year - besides all that, there's almost none at all. Good call, kid!
@3gdosrsfs: Not only does it pass those tests, but it passes them all and has been passing them for 150 years. That's why there is as absolute a consensus in the relevant scientific fields as there could possibly be.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just warning you, that you're going to lose this battle like you always do, because it's religion against science, and science has already won this battle.
Go spend some time on the Big Bang or something, more options there.
The problem with Creationists is they are too proud to say, "I don't know," so they make up something that they're comfortable with. "God did it. There... I'm easily pleased. It'll do."
"Evolutionists think they have reasonable answers!
REALLY!??!?"
Have you checked if all of those questions are 1) not already answered?2) Do even make sense?3)Don't answer themselves with the next supposed question?4)For the last 2 if I remember correctly, what does this actually have to do with knowledge of biology?
@gastarbeiter1 There is a disturbing trend among creationists in which they do just enough research on a topic to collect a series of questions, but stop far short of getting the answers that are, many times, readily available.
And they wonder why creationist papers never pass peer review ...
@foxhole8063 "And they wonder why creationist papers never pass peer review ..." I sometimes wonder how they even manage to write something down.With all this new age written language stuff I thought they were more feared by that "new" invention^^
Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The former is a fact which has been observed both in nature and in controlled laboratory settings. The theory axplaining it is overwhelmingly supported by objective physical evidence from genetics, the fossil record, morphology, etc.
Abiogenesis involves the ORIGIN of life, not how it evolves. These are two different things. Just because we don't know how life started doesn't mean we can't explain its diversity.
You are guilty of equivocation here. The 'evolution' that is observed both in nature and in controlled lab settings is the change in gene frequency over time. No one denies this.
The evolution definition that all living things come from a single cell is NOT empirically supported nor supported by genetics, fossil record, morphology, etc. It is ASSUMED.
@greatgulffixed Wrong. Common ancestry is empirically supported through phylogenetics. And yes, it's the result of a change in allelle frequency over time, resulting in speciation, greater complexity, etc.:
Theobald, Douglas L. (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222.
Steel, Mike; Penny, David (2010). "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9.
A followup of Theobald's statistical analysis by Yoneazwa and Hasegawa (Nature, Dec. 10) questions his conclusions.
I find it interesting the Steel states, "Despite the widespread acceptance in biology, there has been comparatively little attention to formally testing this hypothesis of common ancestry."
It appears that evos had no trouble accepting it before it was tested! :)
I would like to see Haldane's dilemma (best kept secret of evolutionists) solved first.
@greatgulffixed "I would like to see Haldane's dilemma (best kept secret of evolutionists) solved first."
It has been, and it's no secret. His original model was based on invalid assumptions that have since been corrected, showing that this "cost" of natural selection disappears.
Yoneazwa and Hasegawa did question Theobald's work, to which he responded (Theobald. 2010. Theobald reply. Nature 468:E10.).
@greatgulffixed Haldane's calculated "speed limit" for evolution was refuted by observations that showed some organisms broke that limit and still survived. Even he admitted his model was a preliminary shot at simulating selection processes, and that improvements were needed. The problem, uncovered in later years, is that the majority of variations are neutral and the number fixed by selection is far less. (more)
@greatgulffixed ReMine (incorrectly) calculated that only 1667 fixed beneficial mutations were allowable during human evolution. Geneticists determined we've accumulated 240 since our last common ancestor with chimps. There's plenty of time for that to occur, and that assumes he was right. (more)
@greatgulffixed While that's usually the case, at least in primates, I never said brain size was the only factor. If you really had an argument, you wouldn't have to lie and put words in my mouth. Besides, Neandertals probably were just as smart as us, not the dumb barbarians you seem to think they were. You seem to be getting your information from Hollywood. That might explain your ignorance of the subject.
@greatgulffixed When you display ignorance of psychology, it casts doubt on your "credentials." When you deliberately misrepresent your opponent, that's a lie. Those aren't "ad hominems," they're legitimate accusations.
You cited Neandertals having larger brains than us as a refutation of "brain size=intelligence," implying that they were dumber. Evidently, that's not the case. Hollywood portrays them as dumb brutes, which you seemed to think they were.
@greatgulffixed While I use logic and analyze your arguments to determine how you think, you simply project your own thought process (e.g. jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions like "God did it" to avoid having to think and using ad hominems and other fallacies against your opponents) onto me. Overall, you've proven to be completely ignorant of science and unable to think or argue properly. Continuing this "debate" would be pointless.
@greatgulffixed Most of it is in the fossil record and the DNA of every organism on the planet. If you're really looking for the extraordinary evidence of evolution, just open a biology book sometime.
Of course, the extraordinary claim that an invisible man in the sky created everything by magic then transmuted dirt into humans who were tricked by a talking snake into eating an enchanted apple still has no evidence. Nor does the Jewish zombie carpenter who walked on water and healed the blind.
@greatgulffixed I suppose you could look at the various hominid and primate fossils, particularly the skulls. It's pretty easy to understand that things like intelligence and morality would've been extremely beneficial to our species during our evolution, and would of course be selected for. If you want a more in-depth answer, I'd recommend studying psychology or anthropology. It's unrealistic to ask for an explanation of all that in less than 500 characters.
I simply want you to think. A skull tells you NOTHING about these things - not even about intelligence for that matter.
It's one thing to say that 'mind' would be selected for (though that is doubtful in itself) and another thing to give the mechanism by which it is derived from 'non' mind.
@greatgulffixed A skull can tell you plenty. Aside from the size, you can also figure out the structure of the brain by examining the braincase. Learn paleontology.
I think someone with an MSc. in psychology would know that a mind is the product of the brain, and a brain is composed of neurons. All you need to get started on a brain is a few neurons, then it can improve through natural selection. You do understand how natural selection works, right? If not, you're too uninformed to be arguing.
You have quite an impressive faith in the evolutionary paradigm.
There's a lot more to 'mind' that a few billion neurons. So, your thinking at the moment is merely and totally the result of the firing of neurosynapses? How can you claim any rationality at all?
Re: "all you need to get started on a brain is a few neurons" You say this so glibly. Don't you understand how complicated and specialized these cells are?
@greatgulffixed You claim to understand psychology; you tell me. What more is there than firing neurons? That's how all brain activity works. I doubt you really have a MSc.
The first neurons appeared in cnidarians in the Precambrian, and evolved because they gave the creatures primitive nervous systems.
And finally, projecting faith onto me is just a desperate ad hominem. While your belief in talking snakes and zombie carpenters is pure faith, my position is entirely fact-based. No faith for me.
@greatgulffixed What came before neurons, cells specialized for transmitting signals to other cells? Well, that would probably be the fact that cells already have a way of communicating with neighboring cells, which would naturally lead to cells specialized for the task.
I stick to evolution because that's what we observe in nature. Progression over time is a fact. You believe a magical man in the sky poofed everything into existence by magic. What evidence do you have for that?
It actually *is* a common creationist mantra that order cannot come about on its own. I've seen it over and over. BestbiblescienceDOTorg, drdinoDOTcom, TruthnetDOTorg and lots of creationist speakers say this. It's not a strawman. Also explaining natures tendency to order itself is the first step in explaining the concept of the of the Abiogenesis hypothesis: Basic proteins can come about on their own.
Dancing around declaring it a strawman has caused them to miss their needed chemistry lesson.
HAHA! they admited they don't know something! God made everything, problem solved! Lets move on to the next question: How did God create things from nothing? How is it that he is able to simply think something and then it happens just as he wanted? Why is this ability 100% effective? Why does God have the character traits and abilities he has as opposed to others. We can't say we don't know or we'll be just as bad as the Evolutionologists!
Terrible, just terrible, the original video was over an hour long and you think a few minutes of refutation is sufficient? I'm always amazed at this level of ignorance.
Yeah, the evil scientists are in a world wide conspiracy to deny god's existence! They know that god really used magic to poof everything into existence but are working feverishly to cover it up. I would stop going to the doctor immediately since many medications are made with "evil" evolution and the sum of our medical knowledge was obtained with evil science. I think praying would be a much smarter course of action for you than relying on evil science. Put your money where your mouth is.
You are really bad at this. I would have thought that since your point in this video is to expose a straw man argument that you would have tried very hard to avoid logical fallacies yourself. But your use of ad hominems completely destroys your credibility when it comes to logical fallacies.
You are absolutely right! As an "Evolutionist" I have no satisfactory answer for the origin of life on this planet. This might pose a problem if evolution attempted to provide one. The theory of evolution has no more to say on the origin of life than the theory of gravity does. Evolution only describes how lifeforms change via the process of random variation with non random selection; not how life originated. It is equally valid to state that a helio centrist cannot answer this question either.
You are absolutely right! As an "Evolutionist" I have no satisfactory answer for the origin of life on this planet. This might pose a problem if evolution attempted to provide one. The theory of evolution has no more to say on the origin of life than the theory of gravity does. Evolution only describes how lifeforms change via the process of random variation with non random selection; not how life originated. It is equally valid to state that a helio centrist cannot answer this question either.
Evolution, like all science has been extensively tested and found to be true. Ask any scientist. If there really were any flaws in it, you can bet some fundamentalist would have found it by now.
200 years ago (before Charles Darwin) there were millions of unanswered questions about the origin of life, or worse, we didn't even know that the questions existed. 15 questions only for which science does not yet have an answers for? Is that it, is that the best you can do? You are desperately defending the goal line against science but it is only a matter of time. In 100 years which is not much time, that big "15" of yours may only be 1, 2 or 3. The god of the gap is shrinking every year.
Actually, the more we learn about science, the bigger problems Evolution has. We are only starting to understand the complexity of even a so-called "simple" cell, and it is a complete engineering feat beyond our comprehension. Back in Darwin's day, people thought life could come from non-life in some warm little pond. But not today! With today's technology, we KNOW that that is not possible. Advancements in science have created more problems for Darwinists!
@onceforgivennowfree It hasn't created more problems. We have learned more, realized previous assumptions were incorrect, and have more questions to answer. Science doesn't claim to know everything. But just because we have no answer today doesn't mean we won't tomorrow. We have proven Einstein was wrong in his theory. Vaccines have virtually wiped smallpox off the planet. And what has religion done today?
@onceforgivennowfree In Darwin's day we didn't know what DNA was.You may see unknowing as a flaw, because in religion, a lack of unknowing represents a failure. Like a house of cards. In science, not knowing inspires people to question and seek answers. Data is collected, analyzed, verified.In religion, a mythical book of hatred from just out of the stone age says the earth is flat on a pedestal in the center of the universe, and that is the unquestionable word of god.
You seem to be having trouble here. Science is simply an established methology to collect and analyze data. It's use is (or should be) completely objective in the search for knowledge.
Both 'relgious' AND 'nonreligious' scientists are presented with the same data.
The difference is in the interpretation.
It isn't science against religion. God's science and God's world do not contradict.
@greatgulffixed That is true.Gods word, the earth is a flat quadrilateral in the center of the Universe. Scientific community it is a sphere orbiting a sun.Creationism believes in a deity, but you cant prove one.Its like arguing Santa.You can argue till you turn blue, but at the end of the day you're left with pseudoscience and faith.Provide evidence,verifiable evidence,and it can become theory instead of hypothesis.God contradicts himself.cant even get his own words right.
@greatgulffixed I'd accept the same level of proof that has been given for science's current origin timeline. Cosmological,geological,biological,and physical data all consistent within reasonable relative means of the theory, that disproves what the scientific community states.Needs to be credible sources, at least names and degrees.
What kind of cosmological proof? The universe is there for us to explore and we've done that to a degree. How would you find God by examining the cosmos?
@greatgulffixed Evidence which supports God creatin life 6k years ago, as ID states. Then prove the sun is that old perhaps?Maybe answer how a galaxy 250Mly away is visible when it shouldn't be if the earth is 6k yr old. etc.. Unless you're an old earth creationist, in which case, perhaps evidence refuting vestigial organs/muscles like the appendix, plantaris. etc.. To scientifically prove something, just follow the scientific process.Write your hypothesis first, and then go.
The number of 'vestigial' organs are shrinking as we discover their functions. Hint: don't cite appendixes They've been off the list for some time now.
@greatgulffixed And 2 Timothy 3:15 (I think.. its been awhile) I'd compile a list of chapters, but I can't link to them here, so I will message you. Anyone else interested let me know. That guy has better credentials than I do on the subject.I basically assume if you believe in young earth creation that you believe the bible is the word of god. If you don't, then well, you'd be the 3rd person I've met who believes creationism just because.
Just because you don't know how to answer a question, don't say that GOD is the answer because that makes you look so bad.
Also, read a biology book. Our only problem right now is how the cells are generated, and we are already very close to find it, there are thousands of valid theories about it. We can't say we've found it yet because unlike you christians, we like to make sure we give the correct answer.
Hey buddy, we may not have answers, but we are looking. And we've pretty much proven evolution to be factual... but even if evolution is wrong, creationism has already been tested, and disproved. So no sane scientist will venture to start spreading the word of god, sorry, They will try and find another theory, and will. Creationism was never the answer, and even though we don't know some things, you don't either,l in fact you know less about it than because you rely on a 2,000 year old storybook
First answer to the first question: "we don't know yet".
Hey, it's a better answer than "God did it". It really is! It means we're working on it, and have some good ideas, and we'll figure out the rest soon enough. God did it has no explanatory power, so we'll get back to you when we have an answer that FUCKING DOES.
Why does God creating life have no explanatory power? Is it not even POSSIBLE in your mind that there is a Creator? What if he DID create life? You seem to rule out that possibility a-priori.
@onceforgivennowfree It's possible that we just have not found any good evidence for a creator that is actually out there, just really, really unlikely. Like almost 100% unlikely. I only rule it out because there isn't any good evidence. Only bad evidence.
And "God did it" lacks explanatory power because it's unfalsifiable, cannot be used to make predictions, cannot be tested, etc. It's as useful as if I said I created life when you weren't looking. (end of pt.1)
@onceforgivennowfree (pt.2) Now if he DID create life, then first of all, he has a lot of things to account for. First and foremost, why did he write the Bible the way he did if he knew we were going to figure out how life works on our own, and it's completely different from what he wrote? Doesn't help us at all. What we've discovered DOES have explanatory power, we CAN apply our knowledge of it, etc. So, our best means for discovery is now useless because God messed up.
@onceforgivennowfree Science as such doesn't rule out the possibility of there being a creator. But anything that science accepts must be measurable, and the results need to be consistent and repeatable for potentially anyone. No such evidence has been provided for any creator, since personal experiences cannot be measured and are not repeatable. The Bible (or any other book) is also no proof, but circular reasoning.
Of course there's a possibility that there was a creator. There's just no reason to assume that there is. Actually, let me rephrase that, there is no reason to believe that the god of the modern major religions is real.
@onceforgivennowfree Of course, you preclude evolution and abiogenesis from the outset and only want to believe in a fairy tale involving a magic apple and a talking snake. Quite hypocritical of you to ask us to be open-minded when you won't even consider anything other than "God did it." Doesn't your imaginary friend Jesus dislike hypocrites? Besides, what if that creator was Brahma or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do those possibilities exist in your mind?
Because you can't explain how he did it or by what mechanism. Do you seriously want to posit that he "spoke" things into existence? This is your "science"? In the past 150 years, the evidence for naturalism has only grown by leaps and bounds while in the past 4000 years, the evidence for supernaturalism remains at a big glaring zero. Lay off science and stick to preaching. Unless you're incompetent at that too.
@onceforgivennowfree It has no explanatory power because you have no basis on which to make such an arguement.
Heck, even if I granted you that life was originally created by a sentient being, you'd still have nothing that disproves evolution. Not to mention, that being would most certainly not be the 'God' you subscribe to.
@alphaenemy I agree. Although I can't honestly say that I rule out the possibility of a god-like entity, because I subscribe to the "many worlds" theory of the universe. But the fact is that the original conditions of creation and evolution cannot be replicated or observed, at least not in our lifetime, and will most likely remain theories. No matter what people believe, it's important to live your life to the fullest and stop wasting time arguing over something we can't control.
@ClayDuMaw Now don't go mistaking theory for hypothesis. Evolution and at least the Big Bang have enough evidence to make the certainty pretty high. The Big Bang has its issues, as near around Planck Time, we need more info to fully understand what really happened, but with evolution, we're talking about 99.99999% or so certainty, which IS 100%. The Big Bang expansion is pretty close to undeniable, though, too, and cosmic background radiation proves it. Before it? Hard to say.
@alphaenemy Believe me, I'm not denying evolution. I personally believe it's far more probable than creation. My point is that it's silly to put so much energy toward arguing about it.
@ClayDuMaw To each his own, for sure. I find arguing this has good reason. These people are ultimately anti-science and discovery, period, and they're voters. No good can come from them unchecked.
@ClayDuMaw Admittedly, it's the current scope of my influence, but it can shut people up that might influence others. I'm starting school for Biology in the fall. I'll have more resources then. Anyway, what's the difference between my arguing with people over the internet about evolution and you arguing with me on the internet over arguing over the internet?
@ClayDuMaw One more thing, just so you don't think I'm some shut in...I'm a shut in! I broke my knee in November and there is a very long healing time involved, and since it's my right knee, I can't drive, so my only transportation is through rides from friends. I'm laid up at home and bored as hell and I like evolution videos, and evolutionary dissenters agitate me in my current state. It's something to do, and maybe I actually have changed a mind or two. I've shut many up, I know that.
@alphaenemy You're implying that I'm calling you a shut in. I don't mind if you are, and you don't have to be so insecure, buddy. I just get the feeling you enjoy antagonizing people.
@ClayDuMaw I get the feeling you enjoy antagonizing people, too, as you just implied my insecurity. Nobody does that without expecting retaliation. I should know! Two peas in a pod, you and I, buddy.
@alphaenemy I didn't imply your insecurity. You made it very apparent, and I stated the obvious. I was just making conversation with someone who I thought had a similar belief system.
@ClayDuMaw Then we're getting nowhere. I already explained why I like to argue this, and I don't deny that I like to antagonize, especially when people are so wrong about this issue, but I think it goes deeper, and if I can change a mind, I will at least try, even if it is just on the internet. Sitting idly by and watching people be belligerently wrong about things and pushing to make laws that harm science doesn't work for me. That's it.
@ClayDuMaw Ultimately, though, I feel as living my life to the fullest includes arguing with those who choose to pervert and distort science to support their religion. It's one of the things I live for and take joy in. There is certainly a lot more, but it's something I like, and choose not to refrain from.
I like how the first part of that video is a Church telling you to question all things, which is exactly what science is about. When you try to question the Church however... "Oh noes they're insulting our faith."
This video is brilliant! Had copious amounts of laughther!
You're really offensive though with your pointing out these nasty truths! Looke how you made the poor evolutionsts swear like anything :o) Must've hurt....
Religion has has more than 2000 years to prove their beliefs and they still can't. Evolution is getting better at providing satsifactory answers after only a few hundred years, and still improving.
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
This video is another pathetic, dishonest, desperate, disgusting attempt to indicate that legitimate scientists using logic, reason, evidence, experimentation, intelligence and observation are somehow bungling hacks with nothing to back their claims. The science is legitimate, the evidence is overwhelming, reality is opening to us more everyday. The way this video is edited is evidence that creationists know they have nothing; obvious hatchet job propaganda is their only hope. Atrocious.
@dfdooling This video is another fabulous,honest,confident,solide argument to indicate that illegitimate pseudo-scientists lacking logic,reason,evidence,experimentation, intelligence and observation are bungling hacks with nothing to back their claims.The science is legitimate,the evidence is overwhelming,reality is opening to us more everyday.The way this video is edited is evidence that creationists know what they're doing;obvious hatchet job propaganda is the only hope to stop them.Marvelous
In a somewhat neutral stance on stuff like this, may I just say it isn't really "fair" for religious people to attack the evolution theory so harshly? I mean, the theory isn't even 200 years old (I'm using the basic Darwinian beginning as the starting point), and it's constantly getting new information as technology improves (like finding DNA). So it isn't necessarily fair to say that just because they may not be able to answer one or more questions, it automatically disproves their theory...
@Serina9234 That's like saying because I toddler doesn't know/grasp the concept of gravity, force, etc., and therefore they can't answer questions involving it, it must not exist. Give Evolutionists enough time to be as old as religion, and THEN, only THEN, if they still can't answer these questions should we doubt them so much! Give them time to "grow up", so to speak. I mean, so much of what is scientifically true now was not accepted when it was first theorized, you know...
I laugh everytime I hear someone compare Jesus to the Pagan Gods..it shows how ignorant and gulible people really are..they will believe anything..LOL
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults and people who believe in it have nothing to base that belief on except no transitional forms at all in the fossil record. Evolution is as much a fairytale as Wolverine is to Marvel comics, thats why the comics use Evolution as a source of thier powers becasue it is a fantasy world that People actually believe in..Hilarious how gulible people are..Haahahaa..humans came from a monkey..hahaa so hilarious that people actually believe in this fairytale !! LOL
@doobersmanster Obviously you don't understand evolution at all if you think it says humans came from monkeys, equate it to X-men, or say it's untestable, unobservable, or lacks evidence. Debating the facts of evolution will be pointless, since you're too ignorant of science to have an opinion on it. Take a biology class before coming back.
Evolution is so stupid..haha I can't believe any thinking person even believes in this made up theory made by a man that was mad at God for his daughter dying. Stupidest theory ever devised. “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin
@doobersmanster You believe in talking snakes, magic apple trees, rib-women and magic carpenters but not that allele frequencies change over time, despite it being repeatedly proven beyond all reasonable doubt? That's pretty hypocritical of you, and I think that magic carpenter of yours dislikes hypocrites.
He also doesn't like liars; quote-mining Darwin like that is pretty dishonest. If evolution really is false, why do you have to lie? Can't you present any real refutation?
@MrMaster90 I am not lieing. Talking snakes.? Oh you mean Sataan in the form of a snake..I do know of a talking Donkey:) Yes I believe that,No on majic apple trees..the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil and the tree of Life I believe in that,Rib women..oh yes I believe Eve was made from the Rib of Adam yes, Majic Carpenters..Uhh? Oh Jesus? He is God and Majic is from Satan and his Demons unless it is harmless tricks and illusions. No proof for evolution ever. You are the Liar .
@doobersmanster Transmuting water into wine and dirt into humans seems like magic to me. Of course, those are just fairy tales. None of it really happened. And of course, evolution has mountains of evidence to back it up; only someone completely ignorant of reality would say there's none. The real reason you deny evolution is the Bible's fairy tales. But the Bible also says Earth is flat, immobile and on pillars. Why do you agree with science on the shape of the Earth but not evolution?
@MrMaster90 Miricles of God is not magic, study the Occult and know the difference. The Bible does not say that it is on pillars, it states that it is hung on nothing, learn to differintiate between The earth(ground ) and the earth as in the globe. The bible does not say the earth is flat that was the Catholic church and Greek Philosphers. Because evolution has no evidence, only theories that are not observable and not testable and not Science.All of The Bible really happened and God Created U.
@doobersmanster Miracles, supernatural, magic, call it what you want, but it's all the same thing. And by the way, Job 9:6 and 1 Samuel 2:8 say Earth is on pillars, and multiple verses refer to the corners, edges and ends of the Earth, and say it's shaped like "clay under a seal." And then there's Matthew 4:8, where Jesus sees the entire Earth from a mountaintop. If Earth were a sphere, that would be impossible, but not on a flat plane. The Bible says it, and you believe it: Earth is flat.
@MrMaster90 “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page. Don't fall for the Con. It will only lead to you accepting the abominations of God:)Act 4:12 Jesus is the way to peace.:)
@doobersmanster Do you really think that a quote from some creatard holds any weight? It doesn't. Neither does the Bible; it's just an old book.
Jesus isn't a way to peace, either. Aside from the fact that he never existed (he's just a composite of Mithra, Horus, Krishna and some other savior myths), Christianity is responsible for most of the greatest tragedies of history. Plus, Christian countries have much higher crime rates than secular ones. Look at America versus Japan or Sweden or Norway.
@MrMaster90 Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.L.C. Birch,P. Ehrlich, Nature
@MrMaster90 Japan is a Shinto culture (religious) I should know I lived there and Sweden and noraway are existing off of the carcass of Christian Morality. Jesus is not a combination of any of those false Gods.youtu.be / duufMN7KV94 I refer you to this video on Osiris. There is no evidence that Jesus the Person was in anyway untrue and also he was never made up from Pagan Gods. That is just a lie and has no corraborating evidence.You have fallen for another lie..Hahaahha.so funny:)
@doobersmanster Recent polls show that Japan is mostly nonreligious. Less than 2% are still Shinto. You also clearly don't know anything about the deities I mentioned. Like how Mithra was born on December 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, etc. Or how Dionysus turned water into wine and how Horus walked on water and healed the sick and blind. Plus, all those gods were born to virgins and were resurrected after 3 days. Jesus is a composite of them and others; he never really existed.
@doobersmanster Plus, Sweden and Norway don't follow "Christian morality." Nobody does, not even Christians. Nobody follows any of the rules of the Bible or holds any of it's values these days. Freedom, equality, democracy, progress, these are all secular values. The Bible promotes slavery, oppression, bigotry and ignorance. You're also supposed to kill people if they work on Friday, make "graven images," eat pork, or aren't Christian. Why aren't you?
@MrMaster90 You are totally mis-representing The Bible and its teachings. The only reason I can see for this is that you are totally indoctrinated with lies and are completly ignorant of the Love of God for his creation and the Bible. You don't even know what you are talking about but sound like a programmed robot saying the same things that I have heard for years from the Communist/Marxist groups. Your hatred for God and Christians will only lead you to more hatred and bitterness.
@doobersmanster Nope, I'm just telling you what the Bible says. And for the record, I used to be Christian until I found out that it was a load of crap. If you can read the Bible and think that God is loving and that it makes any sense, then I can safely say religion has destroyed your ability to think. Since I now know you're to stupid, dogmatic, and bigoted to argue with, I'll have to call this "debate" off. For humanity's sake, don't ever have children.
@MrMaster90 Wow what a cruel thing to say. Thank you and I will pray that you come to the Lord Jesus Christ before you die. Godbless you and have a great day.:)Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
the narrator's commentary is really pissing me off. why don't you try studying evolution? ignorance is not a substitute for knowledge, dumbass. oh yeah, and learn argumentation too. base mockery of argument isn't a valid counter argument.
Sure, question 1 concerns the origin of life, not evolution.
And when the guy in the video shows you a couple hundred studies done on the origin of life, you dismiss them all as "not being evidence". Are you fucking serious?
I'm terribly sorry that science is progressing towards an answer as to how life originated, while superstitionists like you keep shouting "goddidit", but show not even ONE study.
Of for the love of ... Are you really that unwilling to think for yourself? Are you so willfully ignorant that you believe that evolution is not the way the world works despite mountains of evidence? Step away from the computer, you clearly don't deserve access.
Narrator answer his damn question, I see no critical analysis of the evolutionist argument and you really go to town on that straw man argument. You are aware you're using a couple logical fallacies yourself right?
EvCforum (wwwdotevcforumdotnet) has emailed to CMI.
here is part of that email -
I repeat this claim on behalf of interested members of EvC forum
that the 15 questions for evolutionists put forward by Creation Ministries International in their 'Question Evolution!' campaign can be answered.We are prepared to support this claim in open and honest debate on the publically accesible and viewable forum page wwwdotevcforumdotnet.
1. Life originated from various amino acids conjoining in a reproductive form, this conjunction is guided by forces of electromagnetism. We have much more reason to believe this rather than a magical all powerful being magically proofing everything into existence a few thousand years ago.
I think I will make a video, '15 questions about the Global Flood'
1. What did they eat when they stepped of into the mud.
2. Did the saltwater fish die in the rain or the freshwater fish when they were washed into the salt ocean?
3.Which one of Noah's pure noble family members had crabs, herpes, syphilis and Chlamydia since most human diseases including STDs can't survive outside the human body?
And then say something like ''IF you can't answer these questions then Jesus was Gay!''
@TheGreekMan1981 For exactly that reason. If the world was created as stated in the Bible, than Biblical teachings contradict modern science. The world can not be both 6,000 years old, and 4.5 billion years old.
Got as far as question one before it degenerates into a farce...Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, only how it adapts...If you bubble-heads want to debate this, then at least try and understand the argument you're trying to have.
"So if you can't prove me wrong, I guess that makes me right, right?" No. This is basic logic.
I believe the creationist mantra referred to was the contention that evolution is random. Physical laws are not random. You made your own strawman. I'm sorry he didn't make this obvious enough for you. And you need to work on your act.
Of course, the question itself is irrelevant, as the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life.
@scottpastry Is your reading comprehension really this piss-poor? Actually you just pwned yourself. Gravitational theory doesn't explain where gravity "comes from," yet it still works. Do you get the irony or do I have to draw you a picture?
The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.
You can find the same for any other countries scientific body.
"But wait evolutionists have been busy trying to salvage their materialistic theory"
but wait - no they haven't, most of them are too busy and a fair percentage have never even heard of youtube or your bizarre rambling delusions of grandeur. They are busy working on new drugs, in universities teaching a theory that has withstood the test of time and publishing data against peer review. Which the ID jokers ahem creationists seem unable to do.
Anyone who uses the term "evolutionist" should immediately be ignored with respect to their opinions or claims about anything related to science, specifically evolutionary biology. There is no such thing as an evolutionist and there never will be, just like there are is no such thing as a cellularist.
Unanswered questions lead only the weak-minded to leaps of faith about magic and the supernatural.
This is not a serious video and you are not a serious human being when it comes to this topic.
1st of all, Origin of Life has NOTHING to do with evolution!!! When the fuck are creationists going to understand at least THIS simple concept?!?
2nd, creationists DO claim that chemicals laws cannot produce order, i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets shoved into everyone's faces as "proof" that things tend to go from order to disorder overtime and therefore "evolution is impossible"!
3rd, way to claim there is "no evidence" over and over even when scientific articles are presented! LOL
Well creationists what exactly were the first living things .Now if the earth is 6,000 years old,all things that have lived will be on the same level,from 6k back up to now.Is this so ?No ,if an animal goes extinct like the dino's,other species will fill the void and breed like Rabbits.Oops,my mistake rabbit fossils were found alongside dino's ,i forgot.Anyway,it will all come out when they find the collossal noahs ark'Now where did he moor that boat,i better get my spoon out and start digging
To be honest; this is one of the lamest attempts at pwning I've seen yet. To me, it just looks like you have made a choice to believe a magic thingy created everything and will dismiss all else. There is no reasoning with someone like you because you can't reason. What answer would work for you - a Leprechaun did it? That should work, right? Okay fine - you believe a leprechaun did it. You DO know that God is a leprechaun, right?
SuperSoylent2 17 hours ago
They've been answered.
SuperSoylent2 18 hours ago
Your claim of strawman is pretty... umm... off.
It's a common claim among creationists (Discovery Institute) that complexity requires a designer. I'm sure you're familiar with 'Irriducible Complexity' and the 'Look at the flowers and trees!' argument.
Sorry, no logical fallacy here.
L00NGB00W 18 hours ago
"A comprehensive answer"
We have a firm understanding of how this can arise, Just not the whole sequence of events.
Much like the fossil record, there are gaps.
This much we do know.
1. All the amino acids found in life on Earth can be formed though natural processes, from simple inorganic compounds found throughout the cosmos. And well understood principles such as evaporation, condensation, and static discharge.
2. RNA can self replicate.
Evolution takes over from there.
L00NGB00W 18 hours ago
OMG I love this.
wynonna38 2 days ago
(cont.) Think about it- most cultures from different areas of the world believe they were visited by the gods. What does that interpret to now? Beings. Descending from the skies. What would YOU call em? The point is- something may of happened, but obviously the different people from different parts of the world interpreted it differently, such as the egyptians, sumerians, mayans, etc. Therefore- It's completely a matter of interpretation and no one will ever know what really happened. Period.
MrFlacid1 4 days ago
The problem with videos like these- is that disproving one theory... does not prove another. Why can't people accept the fact that NO ONE knows the truth? That IS the truth: nobody knows the truth. Religious ppl believe in Angels, but refuse to believe in aliens- what if the angels ARE aliens. It's all a matter of interpretation. Religious ppl refuse to re-interpret the same ideas that have been practiced before science even existed. We've learned new things- it's time to apply them.
MrFlacid1 4 days ago
evolution is a proven theory, and to say that it can not be proven becuase "you were´nt their to see it happen" is false. All microbiologist know that micoorganisms many of which can and do produce human illness and infections, are constantly evolving and changing becoming quickly inmune to antibiotics, this is proof of evolution. Not only this but the extensive fossill record also proves a common ancestor for all life, and anatomy, biochemistry....all life forms have similar metabolisms
moonearthrise 6 days ago 2
evolution is not a theory about were life came from but how life evolved once that the very first lifeform that indeed was a very complex biomolecule or strand of DNA, was able to duplicate itself, forming an exact copy. Evolution only explains how this first inteligent molecule (DNA), evolved through billions of years of natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc.. into the diferant plant and animal species that existed and live today. Evolution does not explain how the first DNA formed
moonearthrise 6 days ago 2
With all due respect, it doesn't matter how many questions you can pose that someone can't answer. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. It is one of the best established theories in all of science, and there's plenty of that to go around.
The war is over. Science won and religion lost, yet, yet again.
This message is not to convince you, just to let you know. It's a lost cause; evolution is a fact already. You're arguing about a fact.
SentientRaven 6 days ago
@SentientRaven Ah yes and you or any evolutionist can say its a fact all you want. Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact. Science has never been a help to evolution. Theory has and the two are black and white. Science = what we can test, observe and repeat. Evolution fails all of these. Theory = what we hope to find to be true using the scientific method. Again Evolution is an epic fail. Macro evolution has never been observed
3gdosrsfs 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3gdosrsfs "Science = what we can test, observe and repeat. Evolution fails all of these. Theory = what we hope to find to be true using the scientific method." A scientific theory is exactly what you defined as science.Fool.
"Macro evolution has never been observed" Macro evolution if you really want to use it is any change on species level and above.So that means speciation is macro evolution.This has been observed multiple times.Do you deny that?
gastarbeiter1 6 days ago
@3gdosrsfs "Ah yes and you or any evolutionist can say its a fact all you want. Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact." Have you ever educated yourself onb the topic other then watching youtube vids that say how EVIL evo is or from creation minisitries or whatever?DOesn't seems like.Otherwise you would know what evidence areout there.I feel sorry for you.
gastarbeiter1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3gdosrsfs
"Not one of you have ever come even remotely close to presenting any evidence that it is fact"
That's right. Besides the terabytes of research data being published yearly, the thousands of experiments, genetic assays and observation in the wild, the hundreds of papers and letters, the dozens of significant fossils being found, each year - besides all that, there's almost none at all. Good call, kid!
XGralgrathor 5 days ago
@3gdosrsfs: Not only does it pass those tests, but it passes them all and has been passing them for 150 years. That's why there is as absolute a consensus in the relevant scientific fields as there could possibly be.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just warning you, that you're going to lose this battle like you always do, because it's religion against science, and science has already won this battle.
Go spend some time on the Big Bang or something, more options there.
SentientRaven 5 days ago
@3gdosrsfs You've never read anything on evolution from actual scientists, have you?
foxhole8063 3 days ago
The problem with Creationists is they are too proud to say, "I don't know," so they make up something that they're comfortable with. "God did it. There... I'm easily pleased. It'll do."
GodPatrol 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onceforgivennowfree Even the Catholic church accepts evolution, with the addition that it was a process designed and guided by God.
MrSitemaster2 1 week ago
The amount of likes on this video disturbs me....
Dragonite789 1 week ago
Read the papers.Not just look at the titles.The evidence are INSIDE the papers.Duh...
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
"Evolutionists think they have reasonable answers!
REALLY!??!?"
Have you checked if all of those questions are 1) not already answered?2) Do even make sense?3)Don't answer themselves with the next supposed question?4)For the last 2 if I remember correctly, what does this actually have to do with knowledge of biology?
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 There is a disturbing trend among creationists in which they do just enough research on a topic to collect a series of questions, but stop far short of getting the answers that are, many times, readily available.
And they wonder why creationist papers never pass peer review ...
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@foxhole8063 "And they wonder why creationist papers never pass peer review ..." I sometimes wonder how they even manage to write something down.With all this new age written language stuff I thought they were more feared by that "new" invention^^
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The former is a fact which has been observed both in nature and in controlled laboratory settings. The theory axplaining it is overwhelmingly supported by objective physical evidence from genetics, the fossil record, morphology, etc.
Abiogenesis involves the ORIGIN of life, not how it evolves. These are two different things. Just because we don't know how life started doesn't mean we can't explain its diversity.
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@foxhole8063
You are guilty of equivocation here. The 'evolution' that is observed both in nature and in controlled lab settings is the change in gene frequency over time. No one denies this.
The evolution definition that all living things come from a single cell is NOT empirically supported nor supported by genetics, fossil record, morphology, etc. It is ASSUMED.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Wrong. Common ancestry is empirically supported through phylogenetics. And yes, it's the result of a change in allelle frequency over time, resulting in speciation, greater complexity, etc.:
Theobald, Douglas L. (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222.
Steel, Mike; Penny, David (2010). "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9.
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@foxhole8063
A followup of Theobald's statistical analysis by Yoneazwa and Hasegawa (Nature, Dec. 10) questions his conclusions.
I find it interesting the Steel states, "Despite the widespread acceptance in biology, there has been comparatively little attention to formally testing this hypothesis of common ancestry."
It appears that evos had no trouble accepting it before it was tested! :)
I would like to see Haldane's dilemma (best kept secret of evolutionists) solved first.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "I would like to see Haldane's dilemma (best kept secret of evolutionists) solved first."
It has been, and it's no secret. His original model was based on invalid assumptions that have since been corrected, showing that this "cost" of natural selection disappears.
Yoneazwa and Hasegawa did question Theobald's work, to which he responded (Theobald. 2010. Theobald reply. Nature 468:E10.).
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@foxhole8063
Can you point me to the studies that have solved Haldane's dilemma?
Thank you.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Haldane's calculated "speed limit" for evolution was refuted by observations that showed some organisms broke that limit and still survived. Even he admitted his model was a preliminary shot at simulating selection processes, and that improvements were needed. The problem, uncovered in later years, is that the majority of variations are neutral and the number fixed by selection is far less. (more)
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed ReMine (incorrectly) calculated that only 1667 fixed beneficial mutations were allowable during human evolution. Geneticists determined we've accumulated 240 since our last common ancestor with chimps. There's plenty of time for that to occur, and that assumes he was right. (more)
foxhole8063 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
Flake RH, and Grant V. (1974 Sep). An analysis of the cost-of-selection concept. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 71, 3716-20.
Grant V, and Flake RH. (1974 Oct). Solutions to the cost-of-selection dilemma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 71, 3863-5.
Kimura M. (1968 Feb 17). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, 217, 624-626.
Wallace, Bruce, 1991. Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey. Cornell University Press.
foxhole8063 1 week ago
Sorry. You're wrong. Brain size and shape does not always correlate with intelligence or creativity.
e.g. a Neanderthal's brain capacity is larger than homo sapiens sapiens.
And the common crow is one of the most intelligent animals on earth. Er.... brain size??
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed While that's usually the case, at least in primates, I never said brain size was the only factor. If you really had an argument, you wouldn't have to lie and put words in my mouth. Besides, Neandertals probably were just as smart as us, not the dumb barbarians you seem to think they were. You seem to be getting your information from Hollywood. That might explain your ignorance of the subject.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
So far, I've been accused of lying. Being ignorant of the subject. Not holding an MSc.
I didn't think you would have to revert to ad hominems so quickly!
I never said anything about Neaderthals being barbarians. Nor have I gotten any information from Holllywood.
You have a tendency to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions.
That might explain why you swallow this stuff so easily.
But I understand. I did too, before I actually thought about it objectively.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed When you display ignorance of psychology, it casts doubt on your "credentials." When you deliberately misrepresent your opponent, that's a lie. Those aren't "ad hominems," they're legitimate accusations.
You cited Neandertals having larger brains than us as a refutation of "brain size=intelligence," implying that they were dumber. Evidently, that's not the case. Hollywood portrays them as dumb brutes, which you seemed to think they were.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed While I use logic and analyze your arguments to determine how you think, you simply project your own thought process (e.g. jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions like "God did it" to avoid having to think and using ad hominems and other fallacies against your opponents) onto me. Overall, you've proven to be completely ignorant of science and unable to think or argue properly. Continuing this "debate" would be pointless.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
Re: continuing this debate would be pointless
That's the only reasonable thing you've said so far.
Adios.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
Mindlessness to mind.
Unconsiousness to consciousness.
Non-rationality to rationality.
A great God void to creatures who grasp the concept quite well.
Molecules to man.
Bacteria to Beethoven.
All originating from mindless, unconscious, non-rational, unguided natural processes.
Extraordinary claims indeed.
Where's the extraordinary evidence for any of this?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Most of it is in the fossil record and the DNA of every organism on the planet. If you're really looking for the extraordinary evidence of evolution, just open a biology book sometime.
Of course, the extraordinary claim that an invisible man in the sky created everything by magic then transmuted dirt into humans who were tricked by a talking snake into eating an enchanted apple still has no evidence. Nor does the Jewish zombie carpenter who walked on water and healed the blind.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
Point out the fossils and DNA that demonstrate the origin of mind, consciousness, rationality, and morality.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed I suppose you could look at the various hominid and primate fossils, particularly the skulls. It's pretty easy to understand that things like intelligence and morality would've been extremely beneficial to our species during our evolution, and would of course be selected for. If you want a more in-depth answer, I'd recommend studying psychology or anthropology. It's unrealistic to ask for an explanation of all that in less than 500 characters.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
I simply want you to think. A skull tells you NOTHING about these things - not even about intelligence for that matter.
It's one thing to say that 'mind' would be selected for (though that is doubtful in itself) and another thing to give the mechanism by which it is derived from 'non' mind.
I have a MSc. in Psychology already.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed A skull can tell you plenty. Aside from the size, you can also figure out the structure of the brain by examining the braincase. Learn paleontology.
I think someone with an MSc. in psychology would know that a mind is the product of the brain, and a brain is composed of neurons. All you need to get started on a brain is a few neurons, then it can improve through natural selection. You do understand how natural selection works, right? If not, you're too uninformed to be arguing.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
You have quite an impressive faith in the evolutionary paradigm.
There's a lot more to 'mind' that a few billion neurons. So, your thinking at the moment is merely and totally the result of the firing of neurosynapses? How can you claim any rationality at all?
Re: "all you need to get started on a brain is a few neurons" You say this so glibly. Don't you understand how complicated and specialized these cells are?
How, when, and why did the first neuron form?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed You claim to understand psychology; you tell me. What more is there than firing neurons? That's how all brain activity works. I doubt you really have a MSc.
The first neurons appeared in cnidarians in the Precambrian, and evolved because they gave the creatures primitive nervous systems.
And finally, projecting faith onto me is just a desperate ad hominem. While your belief in talking snakes and zombie carpenters is pure faith, my position is entirely fact-based. No faith for me.
MrMaster90 1 week ago
@MrMaster90
Fact based? They evolved 'because they gave the creature primitive nervous systems' is evolutionary gobblygook.
It's like saying, 'They evolved because creatures evolve'. You're not saying anything!
They 'appeared'. What came before? Where's the evidence for the progression WITHIN that organism? None. None.
Wake up. You are ruled by the paradigm.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed What came before neurons, cells specialized for transmitting signals to other cells? Well, that would probably be the fact that cells already have a way of communicating with neighboring cells, which would naturally lead to cells specialized for the task.
I stick to evolution because that's what we observe in nature. Progression over time is a fact. You believe a magical man in the sky poofed everything into existence by magic. What evidence do you have for that?
MrMaster90 1 week ago
It actually *is* a common creationist mantra that order cannot come about on its own. I've seen it over and over. BestbiblescienceDOTorg, drdinoDOTcom, TruthnetDOTorg and lots of creationist speakers say this. It's not a strawman. Also explaining natures tendency to order itself is the first step in explaining the concept of the of the Abiogenesis hypothesis: Basic proteins can come about on their own.
Dancing around declaring it a strawman has caused them to miss their needed chemistry lesson.
CorndogMaker 1 week ago
HAHA! they admited they don't know something! God made everything, problem solved! Lets move on to the next question: How did God create things from nothing? How is it that he is able to simply think something and then it happens just as he wanted? Why is this ability 100% effective? Why does God have the character traits and abilities he has as opposed to others. We can't say we don't know or we'll be just as bad as the Evolutionologists!
CorndogMaker 1 week ago
Terrible, just terrible, the original video was over an hour long and you think a few minutes of refutation is sufficient? I'm always amazed at this level of ignorance.
VeritasLuxMea100 2 weeks ago
Yeah, the evil scientists are in a world wide conspiracy to deny god's existence! They know that god really used magic to poof everything into existence but are working feverishly to cover it up. I would stop going to the doctor immediately since many medications are made with "evil" evolution and the sum of our medical knowledge was obtained with evil science. I think praying would be a much smarter course of action for you than relying on evil science. Put your money where your mouth is.
ultim4t32 2 weeks ago
2:48 Absolutely not. Can you disprove the Flying Saghetti Monster? No. So does that mean it's real? Of course not.
PrrrromotionGiven 2 weeks ago
You are really bad at this. I would have thought that since your point in this video is to expose a straw man argument that you would have tried very hard to avoid logical fallacies yourself. But your use of ad hominems completely destroys your credibility when it comes to logical fallacies.
CrimsonVoid 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are absolutely right! As an "Evolutionist" I have no satisfactory answer for the origin of life on this planet. This might pose a problem if evolution attempted to provide one. The theory of evolution has no more to say on the origin of life than the theory of gravity does. Evolution only describes how lifeforms change via the process of random variation with non random selection; not how life originated. It is equally valid to state that a helio centrist cannot answer this question either.
theRecursiveAtheist 2 weeks ago
You are absolutely right! As an "Evolutionist" I have no satisfactory answer for the origin of life on this planet. This might pose a problem if evolution attempted to provide one. The theory of evolution has no more to say on the origin of life than the theory of gravity does. Evolution only describes how lifeforms change via the process of random variation with non random selection; not how life originated. It is equally valid to state that a helio centrist cannot answer this question either.
theRecursiveAtheist 2 weeks ago
Evolution, like all science has been extensively tested and found to be true. Ask any scientist. If there really were any flaws in it, you can bet some fundamentalist would have found it by now.
Ozzyman200 2 weeks ago
200 years ago (before Charles Darwin) there were millions of unanswered questions about the origin of life, or worse, we didn't even know that the questions existed. 15 questions only for which science does not yet have an answers for? Is that it, is that the best you can do? You are desperately defending the goal line against science but it is only a matter of time. In 100 years which is not much time, that big "15" of yours may only be 1, 2 or 3. The god of the gap is shrinking every year.
PeterandThalea 3 weeks ago
@PeterandThalea
Actually, the more we learn about science, the bigger problems Evolution has. We are only starting to understand the complexity of even a so-called "simple" cell, and it is a complete engineering feat beyond our comprehension. Back in Darwin's day, people thought life could come from non-life in some warm little pond. But not today! With today's technology, we KNOW that that is not possible. Advancements in science have created more problems for Darwinists!
onceforgivennowfree 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree It hasn't created more problems. We have learned more, realized previous assumptions were incorrect, and have more questions to answer. Science doesn't claim to know everything. But just because we have no answer today doesn't mean we won't tomorrow. We have proven Einstein was wrong in his theory. Vaccines have virtually wiped smallpox off the planet. And what has religion done today?
amanounmei 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree
Huh? Where do you get these assertions from?
CrimsonVoid 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree In Darwin's day we didn't know what DNA was.You may see unknowing as a flaw, because in religion, a lack of unknowing represents a failure. Like a house of cards. In science, not knowing inspires people to question and seek answers. Data is collected, analyzed, verified.In religion, a mythical book of hatred from just out of the stone age says the earth is flat on a pedestal in the center of the universe, and that is the unquestionable word of god.
phpistasty 1 week ago
@phpistasty
You seem to be having trouble here. Science is simply an established methology to collect and analyze data. It's use is (or should be) completely objective in the search for knowledge.
Both 'relgious' AND 'nonreligious' scientists are presented with the same data.
The difference is in the interpretation.
It isn't science against religion. God's science and God's world do not contradict.
It's a world view issue.
Don't persist in your strawman argument.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed That is true.Gods word, the earth is a flat quadrilateral in the center of the Universe. Scientific community it is a sphere orbiting a sun.Creationism believes in a deity, but you cant prove one.Its like arguing Santa.You can argue till you turn blue, but at the end of the day you're left with pseudoscience and faith.Provide evidence,verifiable evidence,and it can become theory instead of hypothesis.God contradicts himself.cant even get his own words right.
phpistasty 1 week ago
@phpistasty
Where in the Bible does it say the world is flat and quadrilateral?
What proof would you accept for a supernatural being? I'll see if I can give it.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed I'd accept the same level of proof that has been given for science's current origin timeline. Cosmological,geological,biological,and physical data all consistent within reasonable relative means of the theory, that disproves what the scientific community states.Needs to be credible sources, at least names and degrees.
phpistasty 1 week ago
@phpistasty
What kind of cosmological proof? The universe is there for us to explore and we've done that to a degree. How would you find God by examining the cosmos?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Evidence which supports God creatin life 6k years ago, as ID states. Then prove the sun is that old perhaps?Maybe answer how a galaxy 250Mly away is visible when it shouldn't be if the earth is 6k yr old. etc.. Unless you're an old earth creationist, in which case, perhaps evidence refuting vestigial organs/muscles like the appendix, plantaris. etc.. To scientifically prove something, just follow the scientific process.Write your hypothesis first, and then go.
phpistasty 1 week ago
@phpistasty
The Bible does not give the age of the earth.
The number of 'vestigial' organs are shrinking as we discover their functions. Hint: don't cite appendixes They've been off the list for some time now.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed And 2 Timothy 3:15 (I think.. its been awhile) I'd compile a list of chapters, but I can't link to them here, so I will message you. Anyone else interested let me know. That guy has better credentials than I do on the subject.I basically assume if you believe in young earth creation that you believe the bible is the word of god. If you don't, then well, you'd be the 3rd person I've met who believes creationism just because.
phpistasty 1 week ago
@onceforgivennowfree
Just because you don't know how to answer a question, don't say that GOD is the answer because that makes you look so bad.
Also, read a biology book. Our only problem right now is how the cells are generated, and we are already very close to find it, there are thousands of valid theories about it. We can't say we've found it yet because unlike you christians, we like to make sure we give the correct answer.
Pitikitty 1 week ago
Hey buddy, we may not have answers, but we are looking. And we've pretty much proven evolution to be factual... but even if evolution is wrong, creationism has already been tested, and disproved. So no sane scientist will venture to start spreading the word of god, sorry, They will try and find another theory, and will. Creationism was never the answer, and even though we don't know some things, you don't either,l in fact you know less about it than because you rely on a 2,000 year old storybook
ChinaRuler 3 weeks ago
First answer to the first question: "we don't know yet".
Hey, it's a better answer than "God did it". It really is! It means we're working on it, and have some good ideas, and we'll figure out the rest soon enough. God did it has no explanatory power, so we'll get back to you when we have an answer that FUCKING DOES.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago 2
@alphaenemy
Why does God creating life have no explanatory power? Is it not even POSSIBLE in your mind that there is a Creator? What if he DID create life? You seem to rule out that possibility a-priori.
onceforgivennowfree 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree It's possible that we just have not found any good evidence for a creator that is actually out there, just really, really unlikely. Like almost 100% unlikely. I only rule it out because there isn't any good evidence. Only bad evidence.
And "God did it" lacks explanatory power because it's unfalsifiable, cannot be used to make predictions, cannot be tested, etc. It's as useful as if I said I created life when you weren't looking. (end of pt.1)
alphaenemy 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree (pt.2) Now if he DID create life, then first of all, he has a lot of things to account for. First and foremost, why did he write the Bible the way he did if he knew we were going to figure out how life works on our own, and it's completely different from what he wrote? Doesn't help us at all. What we've discovered DOES have explanatory power, we CAN apply our knowledge of it, etc. So, our best means for discovery is now useless because God messed up.
alphaenemy 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree Science as such doesn't rule out the possibility of there being a creator. But anything that science accepts must be measurable, and the results need to be consistent and repeatable for potentially anyone. No such evidence has been provided for any creator, since personal experiences cannot be measured and are not repeatable. The Bible (or any other book) is also no proof, but circular reasoning.
amanounmei 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree to be possible,m you have to demonstrate how. You cannot do that.
eleminatus 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree
Of course there's a possibility that there was a creator. There's just no reason to assume that there is. Actually, let me rephrase that, there is no reason to believe that the god of the modern major religions is real.
CrimsonVoid 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree how did he create life? HE CAN'T , nothing can control life, only life can control itself
we are still learning what is happening and how it formed
aliens have no religion, that's y the have superior tech then us
MultiVietMinh 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree Of course, you preclude evolution and abiogenesis from the outset and only want to believe in a fairy tale involving a magic apple and a talking snake. Quite hypocritical of you to ask us to be open-minded when you won't even consider anything other than "God did it." Doesn't your imaginary friend Jesus dislike hypocrites? Besides, what if that creator was Brahma or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do those possibilities exist in your mind?
MrMaster90 2 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree "Why does God creating life have no explanatory power?"
Because you can't explain how he did it or by what mechanism. Do you seriously want to posit that he "spoke" things into existence? This is your "science"? In the past 150 years, the evidence for naturalism has only grown by leaps and bounds while in the past 4000 years, the evidence for supernaturalism remains at a big glaring zero. Lay off science and stick to preaching. Unless you're incompetent at that too.
AtheistRex 1 week ago
@onceforgivennowfree It has no explanatory power because you have no basis on which to make such an arguement.
Heck, even if I granted you that life was originally created by a sentient being, you'd still have nothing that disproves evolution. Not to mention, that being would most certainly not be the 'God' you subscribe to.
Aragashia 1 week ago
@alphaenemy I agree. Although I can't honestly say that I rule out the possibility of a god-like entity, because I subscribe to the "many worlds" theory of the universe. But the fact is that the original conditions of creation and evolution cannot be replicated or observed, at least not in our lifetime, and will most likely remain theories. No matter what people believe, it's important to live your life to the fullest and stop wasting time arguing over something we can't control.
ClayDuMaw 1 week ago
@ClayDuMaw Now don't go mistaking theory for hypothesis. Evolution and at least the Big Bang have enough evidence to make the certainty pretty high. The Big Bang has its issues, as near around Planck Time, we need more info to fully understand what really happened, but with evolution, we're talking about 99.99999% or so certainty, which IS 100%. The Big Bang expansion is pretty close to undeniable, though, too, and cosmic background radiation proves it. Before it? Hard to say.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@alphaenemy Believe me, I'm not denying evolution. I personally believe it's far more probable than creation. My point is that it's silly to put so much energy toward arguing about it.
ClayDuMaw 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw To each his own, for sure. I find arguing this has good reason. These people are ultimately anti-science and discovery, period, and they're voters. No good can come from them unchecked.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@alphaenemy What do you do to change that besides posting comments on the internet?
ClayDuMaw 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw Admittedly, it's the current scope of my influence, but it can shut people up that might influence others. I'm starting school for Biology in the fall. I'll have more resources then. Anyway, what's the difference between my arguing with people over the internet about evolution and you arguing with me on the internet over arguing over the internet?
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw One more thing, just so you don't think I'm some shut in...I'm a shut in! I broke my knee in November and there is a very long healing time involved, and since it's my right knee, I can't drive, so my only transportation is through rides from friends. I'm laid up at home and bored as hell and I like evolution videos, and evolutionary dissenters agitate me in my current state. It's something to do, and maybe I actually have changed a mind or two. I've shut many up, I know that.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@alphaenemy You're implying that I'm calling you a shut in. I don't mind if you are, and you don't have to be so insecure, buddy. I just get the feeling you enjoy antagonizing people.
ClayDuMaw 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw I get the feeling you enjoy antagonizing people, too, as you just implied my insecurity. Nobody does that without expecting retaliation. I should know! Two peas in a pod, you and I, buddy.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@alphaenemy I didn't imply your insecurity. You made it very apparent, and I stated the obvious. I was just making conversation with someone who I thought had a similar belief system.
ClayDuMaw 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw Then we're getting nowhere. I already explained why I like to argue this, and I don't deny that I like to antagonize, especially when people are so wrong about this issue, but I think it goes deeper, and if I can change a mind, I will at least try, even if it is just on the internet. Sitting idly by and watching people be belligerently wrong about things and pushing to make laws that harm science doesn't work for me. That's it.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@ClayDuMaw Ultimately, though, I feel as living my life to the fullest includes arguing with those who choose to pervert and distort science to support their religion. It's one of the things I live for and take joy in. There is certainly a lot more, but it's something I like, and choose not to refrain from.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@alphaenemy To each his own, I suppose.
ClayDuMaw 6 days ago
I like how the first part of that video is a Church telling you to question all things, which is exactly what science is about. When you try to question the Church however... "Oh noes they're insulting our faith."
SotanahtDarksol 3 weeks ago
This video is brilliant! Had copious amounts of laughther!
You're really offensive though with your pointing out these nasty truths! Looke how you made the poor evolutionsts swear like anything :o) Must've hurt....
florinmoc 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This Canadian miscreant is getting shredded--on his own channel.
odinata 3 weeks ago
Religion has has more than 2000 years to prove their beliefs and they still can't. Evolution is getting better at providing satsifactory answers after only a few hundred years, and still improving.
MadamKouassi 4 weeks ago
stop with the fucking panphlet my fucking god
PandaProductionsNZ 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
dfdooling 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
dfdooling 4 weeks ago
I just watched the video that you butchered to make your pile of garbage. It was well done. It was honest (a concept you apparently can't conjure) and reasonable. The scientific method will lead us to better explanations. Dark age drivel should be scorned. You are shameful.
dfdooling 4 weeks ago
This video is another pathetic, dishonest, desperate, disgusting attempt to indicate that legitimate scientists using logic, reason, evidence, experimentation, intelligence and observation are somehow bungling hacks with nothing to back their claims. The science is legitimate, the evidence is overwhelming, reality is opening to us more everyday. The way this video is edited is evidence that creationists know they have nothing; obvious hatchet job propaganda is their only hope. Atrocious.
dfdooling 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfdooling This video is another fabulous,honest,confident,solide argument to indicate that illegitimate pseudo-scientists lacking logic,reason,evidence,experimentation, intelligence and observation are bungling hacks with nothing to back their claims.The science is legitimate,the evidence is overwhelming,reality is opening to us more everyday.The way this video is edited is evidence that creationists know what they're doing;obvious hatchet job propaganda is the only hope to stop them.Marvelous
YamiYami17 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfdooling
Why do you believe that reptile to mammal evolution occured when it has never been observed occuring?
WildCatsKitten1 3 weeks ago
In a somewhat neutral stance on stuff like this, may I just say it isn't really "fair" for religious people to attack the evolution theory so harshly? I mean, the theory isn't even 200 years old (I'm using the basic Darwinian beginning as the starting point), and it's constantly getting new information as technology improves (like finding DNA). So it isn't necessarily fair to say that just because they may not be able to answer one or more questions, it automatically disproves their theory...
Serina9234 1 month ago
@Serina9234 That's like saying because I toddler doesn't know/grasp the concept of gravity, force, etc., and therefore they can't answer questions involving it, it must not exist. Give Evolutionists enough time to be as old as religion, and THEN, only THEN, if they still can't answer these questions should we doubt them so much! Give them time to "grow up", so to speak. I mean, so much of what is scientifically true now was not accepted when it was first theorized, you know...
Serina9234 1 month ago
I laugh everytime I hear someone compare Jesus to the Pagan Gods..it shows how ignorant and gulible people really are..they will believe anything..LOL
doobersmanster 1 month ago
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults and people who believe in it have nothing to base that belief on except no transitional forms at all in the fossil record. Evolution is as much a fairytale as Wolverine is to Marvel comics, thats why the comics use Evolution as a source of thier powers becasue it is a fantasy world that People actually believe in..Hilarious how gulible people are..Haahahaa..humans came from a monkey..hahaa so hilarious that people actually believe in this fairytale !! LOL
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Obviously you don't understand evolution at all if you think it says humans came from monkeys, equate it to X-men, or say it's untestable, unobservable, or lacks evidence. Debating the facts of evolution will be pointless, since you're too ignorant of science to have an opinion on it. Take a biology class before coming back.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
Evolution is so stupid..haha I can't believe any thinking person even believes in this made up theory made by a man that was mad at God for his daughter dying. Stupidest theory ever devised. “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster You believe in talking snakes, magic apple trees, rib-women and magic carpenters but not that allele frequencies change over time, despite it being repeatedly proven beyond all reasonable doubt? That's pretty hypocritical of you, and I think that magic carpenter of yours dislikes hypocrites.
He also doesn't like liars; quote-mining Darwin like that is pretty dishonest. If evolution really is false, why do you have to lie? Can't you present any real refutation?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 I am not lieing. Talking snakes.? Oh you mean Sataan in the form of a snake..I do know of a talking Donkey:) Yes I believe that,No on majic apple trees..the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil and the tree of Life I believe in that,Rib women..oh yes I believe Eve was made from the Rib of Adam yes, Majic Carpenters..Uhh? Oh Jesus? He is God and Majic is from Satan and his Demons unless it is harmless tricks and illusions. No proof for evolution ever. You are the Liar .
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Transmuting water into wine and dirt into humans seems like magic to me. Of course, those are just fairy tales. None of it really happened. And of course, evolution has mountains of evidence to back it up; only someone completely ignorant of reality would say there's none. The real reason you deny evolution is the Bible's fairy tales. But the Bible also says Earth is flat, immobile and on pillars. Why do you agree with science on the shape of the Earth but not evolution?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Miricles of God is not magic, study the Occult and know the difference. The Bible does not say that it is on pillars, it states that it is hung on nothing, learn to differintiate between The earth(ground ) and the earth as in the globe. The bible does not say the earth is flat that was the Catholic church and Greek Philosphers. Because evolution has no evidence, only theories that are not observable and not testable and not Science.All of The Bible really happened and God Created U.
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Miracles, supernatural, magic, call it what you want, but it's all the same thing. And by the way, Job 9:6 and 1 Samuel 2:8 say Earth is on pillars, and multiple verses refer to the corners, edges and ends of the Earth, and say it's shaped like "clay under a seal." And then there's Matthew 4:8, where Jesus sees the entire Earth from a mountaintop. If Earth were a sphere, that would be impossible, but not on a flat plane. The Bible says it, and you believe it: Earth is flat.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page. Don't fall for the Con. It will only lead to you accepting the abominations of God:)Act 4:12 Jesus is the way to peace.:)
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Do you really think that a quote from some creatard holds any weight? It doesn't. Neither does the Bible; it's just an old book.
Jesus isn't a way to peace, either. Aside from the fact that he never existed (he's just a composite of Mithra, Horus, Krishna and some other savior myths), Christianity is responsible for most of the greatest tragedies of history. Plus, Christian countries have much higher crime rates than secular ones. Look at America versus Japan or Sweden or Norway.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.L.C. Birch,P. Ehrlich, Nature
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Japan is a Shinto culture (religious) I should know I lived there and Sweden and noraway are existing off of the carcass of Christian Morality. Jesus is not a combination of any of those false Gods.youtu.be / duufMN7KV94 I refer you to this video on Osiris. There is no evidence that Jesus the Person was in anyway untrue and also he was never made up from Pagan Gods. That is just a lie and has no corraborating evidence.You have fallen for another lie..Hahaahha.so funny:)
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Recent polls show that Japan is mostly nonreligious. Less than 2% are still Shinto. You also clearly don't know anything about the deities I mentioned. Like how Mithra was born on December 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, etc. Or how Dionysus turned water into wine and how Horus walked on water and healed the sick and blind. Plus, all those gods were born to virgins and were resurrected after 3 days. Jesus is a composite of them and others; he never really existed.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Plus, Sweden and Norway don't follow "Christian morality." Nobody does, not even Christians. Nobody follows any of the rules of the Bible or holds any of it's values these days. Freedom, equality, democracy, progress, these are all secular values. The Bible promotes slavery, oppression, bigotry and ignorance. You're also supposed to kill people if they work on Friday, make "graven images," eat pork, or aren't Christian. Why aren't you?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 You are totally mis-representing The Bible and its teachings. The only reason I can see for this is that you are totally indoctrinated with lies and are completly ignorant of the Love of God for his creation and the Bible. You don't even know what you are talking about but sound like a programmed robot saying the same things that I have heard for years from the Communist/Marxist groups. Your hatred for God and Christians will only lead you to more hatred and bitterness.
doobersmanster 1 month ago
@doobersmanster Nope, I'm just telling you what the Bible says. And for the record, I used to be Christian until I found out that it was a load of crap. If you can read the Bible and think that God is loving and that it makes any sense, then I can safely say religion has destroyed your ability to think. Since I now know you're to stupid, dogmatic, and bigoted to argue with, I'll have to call this "debate" off. For humanity's sake, don't ever have children.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Wow what a cruel thing to say. Thank you and I will pray that you come to the Lord Jesus Christ before you die. Godbless you and have a great day.:)Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
doobersmanster 1 month ago
the narrator's commentary is really pissing me off. why don't you try studying evolution? ignorance is not a substitute for knowledge, dumbass. oh yeah, and learn argumentation too. base mockery of argument isn't a valid counter argument.
kimichii 1 month ago
actually your leaflet said that if the atoms bounce around it would be unlikely, he's saying there are laws which would bring them together ect.
snypervyper 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onceforgivennowfree
"Please provide one flaw in my video."
Sure, question 1 concerns the origin of life, not evolution.
And when the guy in the video shows you a couple hundred studies done on the origin of life, you dismiss them all as "not being evidence". Are you fucking serious?
I'm terribly sorry that science is progressing towards an answer as to how life originated, while superstitionists like you keep shouting "goddidit", but show not even ONE study.
anglicantian 1 month ago
Of for the love of ... Are you really that unwilling to think for yourself? Are you so willfully ignorant that you believe that evolution is not the way the world works despite mountains of evidence? Step away from the computer, you clearly don't deserve access.
eddiethebarbarian 1 month ago
this is total nonsense. yes, let's all believe with no evidence that some guy in the sky created everything, yet didn't need a creator him/her self.
giovannito858 1 month ago
1. do creatards have an answer? 2. Evolution is not abiogenisis. Evolution explainsthe origin of SPECIES not the origin of life
scarletharlot69 1 month ago
Narrator answer his damn question, I see no critical analysis of the evolutionist argument and you really go to town on that straw man argument. You are aware you're using a couple logical fallacies yourself right?
dallinjw96 1 month ago in playlist 15 questions evolutionists still can't answer
Another video full of garbage and second guessing ...
oODarkEnergyOo 1 month ago
How hard is it to get this into your head?
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be.
Sweddude 1 month ago
EvCforum (wwwdotevcforumdotnet) has emailed to CMI.
here is part of that email -
I repeat this claim on behalf of interested members of EvC forum
that the 15 questions for evolutionists put forward by Creation Ministries International in their 'Question Evolution!' campaign can be answered.We are prepared to support this claim in open and honest debate on the publically accesible and viewable forum page wwwdotevcforumdotnet.
We are still waitng...The silence is telling...
ButterflyTyrant 1 month ago
1. Life originated from various amino acids conjoining in a reproductive form, this conjunction is guided by forces of electromagnetism. We have much more reason to believe this rather than a magical all powerful being magically proofing everything into existence a few thousand years ago.
kyekire 1 month ago
I think I will make a video, '15 questions about the Global Flood'
1. What did they eat when they stepped of into the mud.
2. Did the saltwater fish die in the rain or the freshwater fish when they were washed into the salt ocean?
3.Which one of Noah's pure noble family members had crabs, herpes, syphilis and Chlamydia since most human diseases including STDs can't survive outside the human body?
And then say something like ''IF you can't answer these questions then Jesus was Gay!''
gregrutz 1 month ago
@zhalfirim God is the creator of science, so I'm not sure why you think the Church denies science. The world was created as stated in the Bible.
TheGreekMan1981 1 month ago
@TheGreekMan1981 For exactly that reason. If the world was created as stated in the Bible, than Biblical teachings contradict modern science. The world can not be both 6,000 years old, and 4.5 billion years old.
zhalfirim 1 month ago
@zhalfirim
Yes. And as we know for a fact it's not 6,000 years old, where does that leave the bible?
voiceoftruth2006 1 month ago in playlist 15 questions evolutionists still can't answer
Got as far as question one before it degenerates into a farce...Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, only how it adapts...If you bubble-heads want to debate this, then at least try and understand the argument you're trying to have.
rogan71 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
"So if you can't prove me wrong, I guess that makes me right, right?" No. This is basic logic.
I believe the creationist mantra referred to was the contention that evolution is random. Physical laws are not random. You made your own strawman. I'm sorry he didn't make this obvious enough for you. And you need to work on your act.
Of course, the question itself is irrelevant, as the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life.
tctheunbeliever 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
@tctheunbeliever "Of course, the question itself is irrelevant, as the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life.:
neither does gravitational theory. so its wrong too?
scottpastry 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
@scottpastry Is your reading comprehension really this piss-poor? Actually you just pwned yourself. Gravitational theory doesn't explain where gravity "comes from," yet it still works. Do you get the irony or do I have to draw you a picture?
tctheunbeliever 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tctheunbeliever "Is your reading comprehension really this piss-poor? "
perhaps it is, i think we have both mistaken each other for creationists. sorry. :)
scottpastry 1 month ago
@tctheunbeliever and evolution isnt random. non random processes of natural selection act upon random mutations.
scottpastry 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
@scottpastry Why are you telling me this? I don't care if you're a Hovindite, a Hamster, or a WLC worshipper. You still believe in magic.
tctheunbeliever 2 months ago
@tctheunbeliever i worship nobody. especially the creationists you just named.
"Gravitational theory doesn't explain where gravity "comes from," yet it still works. Do you get the irony or do I have to draw you a picture?"
just as evolutionary theory doesnt say how life originates, yet it still works!
the irony IS dripping, beleive me lol
scottpastry 1 month ago
@scottpastry I think you're arguing with the choir.
tctheunbeliever 1 month ago
To quote the Royal Society:
The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.
You can find the same for any other countries scientific body.
aardjazz 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
This has been flagged as spam show
"But wait evolutionists have been busy trying to salvage their materialistic theory"
but wait - no they haven't, most of them are too busy and a fair percentage have never even heard of youtube or your bizarre rambling delusions of grandeur. They are busy working on new drugs, in universities teaching a theory that has withstood the test of time and publishing data against peer review. Which the ID jokers ahem creationists seem unable to do.
aardjazz 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
Anyone who uses the term "evolutionist" should immediately be ignored with respect to their opinions or claims about anything related to science, specifically evolutionary biology. There is no such thing as an evolutionist and there never will be, just like there are is no such thing as a cellularist.
Unanswered questions lead only the weak-minded to leaps of faith about magic and the supernatural.
This is not a serious video and you are not a serious human being when it comes to this topic.
gatorhighlights4 2 months ago in playlist Dubunking fodder
1st of all, Origin of Life has NOTHING to do with evolution!!! When the fuck are creationists going to understand at least THIS simple concept?!?
2nd, creationists DO claim that chemicals laws cannot produce order, i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets shoved into everyone's faces as "proof" that things tend to go from order to disorder overtime and therefore "evolution is impossible"!
3rd, way to claim there is "no evidence" over and over even when scientific articles are presented! LOL
Spetsop 2 months ago
Well creationists what exactly were the first living things .Now if the earth is 6,000 years old,all things that have lived will be on the same level,from 6k back up to now.Is this so ?No ,if an animal goes extinct like the dino's,other species will fill the void and breed like Rabbits.Oops,my mistake rabbit fossils were found alongside dino's ,i forgot.Anyway,it will all come out when they find the collossal noahs ark'Now where did he moor that boat,i better get my spoon out and start digging
tontobones