in the beginning there was nothing but god. Then god got lonely so he had a one night stand with loretta jones. Loretta Jones got awfully big those nine months! then she got REAL constipated then schat out Jesus and he fell down to earth. POOR JESUS. Now Jesus got sent to hell
"Are you willing to include ALL religious creation myths in with that? "
Yeah, teach the "Controversy"... There's nothing like having a burger flipper try and tell a geneticist what's "wrong" in his own field of expertise ;-)
I did.. I'd recommend reading the 5th post, and not just the ones the ID-proponents want to use. The entire salt argument has been refuted. With mathematics to back it up. Or Google 'Evolution - June 1996: Salt in the sea'
An interesting article "capping" the maximum possible age of the earth based upon the fact that the saltiness of the worlds oceans is increasing (not stasis as evolutionists claim). If the earth were billions of years old the ocean's salt concentration would be in a steady state (stasis) and much more salty.
THE SEA'S MISSING SALT: A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
Google search using quotes "THE SEA'S MISSING SALT"
These "PhDs" are from the "Discovery Institute", the discredited creation science think tank that got routed in the Pennsylvania trial of ID.
For REAL science, google "seawater subduction" and read the NATURE article from 2006 (sorry, it's real science, so it's dense), or some of the popular press explanations of it.
Evolution is the FACT that life forms have arisen from earlier life forms.
Evolution is a well-confirmed process of biological change that produces heritable diversity and coherent functionality in populations by a variety of natural mechanisms.
dj, there is a fine line between evolution and adaptation.
In order to result in the large diversity of organisms that we see today, evolution requires that (by random processes) extremely complex biochemical pathways are created. For example, evolution needs to be able to create enzymes and proteins.
However, that is exactly what evolution can NOT do, and has never done. The mutations in the genetic code do nothing more that change the function of pre-existing biochemical pathways.
And don't forget.. Most experts do agree the dog was the first domesticated animal, was domesticated around 14 to 15,000 years ago. Domesticating an animal before the earth was created.. THAT'S a miracle. :)
You do realize that what you're talking about is 100% speculation, right?
The oldest civilization that has written records is just about 6000 years old.
Assuming that dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago doesn't mean anything. I can assume that dogs were domesticated 5500 years ago. They're both assumptions.
Wait, but I think historical records indicate the domestication of dogs. How old are these records? No older than 6000 years.
Is evolution science or a dogma that gives rise to evil?????
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."
(Thomas Huxley "Darwin's bulldog", 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)
In the same sense as gravity is a "dogma that gives rise to evil" because the guillotine relies on gravity to function.
In the same sense that marine biology is a "dogma that gives rise to evil" because of sharks.
You're really clutching at straws if you're hoping to dismiss a theory by tenuous association. This isn't a class president election, you know. You can't just say "Well, Evolution was really mean to me, so it can't be real."
Boy what a scholarly answer. I bet you used up a lot of brain cells coming up with that one. Perhaps you should explain how is quoting from an evolutionist is lying? Huxley most certainly made the statement. Do you agree with Darwin and Huxley and Hitler in white racial superiority as an undisputed fact? Obviously wrong and racist statements used as evidence of evolution by the pillars of evolution would cause an honest man to seriously question what other "facts" they based evolution on.
See.Lies. Hitler was Catholic... Hitler wasn't a darwinist. And Darwin wasn't a eugenics supporter. You continue to spread lies and distortions. Either you do it willfully or you do it from a position of ignorance. Either way it's what creationists do all the time. You are one of hundreds I've encountered. It's really quite boring but also maddening. Evolution is a fact. Animals evolve. It's a fact. Nothing has ever shown that they don't. Everything else you bring up is just noise.
"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Sure he was that is why the pope backed him....there are tons of photos. The new testament tells christians that the jews killed their god..what does that inspire, brotherly love? It has a few passages about converting the heathens.....jewish people fall into this category as far as the new testament goes. Read something other than apologist literature and you might grasp reality.
Hitler was as anti-religion as Darwin (who's only degree by the way was in theology not science). From Adolph Hitler's 2nd book (Zweites Buch 1928) advocating killing the sick and weak to purify the race.
The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State.
Hitler developed a new Christianity called "Positive Christianity". You can find an article in Wikipedia.
All of the Christian Churches in Germany subordinated themselves to Hitler's Reichskirch or to the Pope's Concordat with Hitler. Free Inquiry Magazine and the Internet Infidel's website both have numerous articles on this topic, as do Joseph McCabe's Big Blue Books.
We don't know what Hitler's private thoughts were, but his followers were certainly Christian.
Hitler's stated goal in his own words was to obliterate the Ten Commandments. He said that. His other comments reveal that he hated Christianity and Christians except to the extent that he could deceive and use them for his evil purposes. The book Hitler's Cross by Lutzer details his relationship to Christians. Read about his commitment to the occult in The Pink Swastika by Lively. The Hidden Hitler also traces his homosexuality.
Hitler developed a new Christianity called "Positive Christianity". You can find an article in Wikipedia.
All of the Christian Churches in Germany subordinated themselves to Hitler's Reichskirch or to the Pope's Concordat with Hitler. Free Inquiry Magazine and the Internet Infidel's website both have numerous articles on this topic, as do Joseph McCabe's Big Blue Books.
We don't know what Hitler's private thoughts were, but his followers were certainly Christian.
Oh by the way, not "all" of the Christian churches subordinated themselves to Hitler. There were the more biblically faithful who stood up to him as they should have. At a video store get a copy of the movie AMEN which is about Christians who tried to resist and paid with their lives. The get the documentary BONHOEFFER for the more detailed story of one minister who worked to create a "Confessing Church" and who died trying.
Actually, they all joined the Reichkirch. Not one protested.
The individual Christians who protested did so without the backing of their churches. Bonhoeffer did not speak for any established church, and did not represent any church.
pirbird...You're thinking too institutionally here. True Born Again Christians like Bonhoeffer are part of the organic church which overlaps in and out of anything institutional. The true Church of the true followers of Jesus is an organism of heart and soul that spans around the world. Right now I am not a member of any institutional man-made "church" but am a very active member of the organic church, which to be faithful to our Master must stand both apart from and within earthly organizations
DeanCo777: I stick with Einstein, I think I am in good company. I quote :"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.
pirbird...but it certainly is true that man-made institutions do tend more toward self-preservation than to virtue at any price. That applies to religious or non-religious organizations like the AMA, ADA, NEA, or whatever. People with virtue often find themselves looking for the courage to stand against corrupt organizations.
DeanCo777...The congress of german Evangelical Churches in 1933 voted to support Hitler. It was a narrow vote split almost evenly by yea, nay, and abstain. The yes won by 1 vote, meanig that 60% could not bring themselves to oppose Hitler. Verses such as Tit. 3:1, Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Pe. 2:18, Heb. 13:17 very explicitely tell Christians to obey the earthly authorities, willingly and wholeheartedly.
Jesus was not interested in changing worldly conditions - Mat. 26:11, Mar. 14:7.
The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine
that it did."
Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner
Charles Darwin: Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.
Perhaps you should show where he retracted the statement before his death in 1981. And it is obvious that Urey agreed with Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Dr. Francis Crick co discoverer of DNA.
Jester. This is what they do. Lie and quote mine. Penguin probably isn't even familiar with the sources of the quotes. But his ignorance is a pathetic excuse. He'll keep going to his creationist site and dropping quotes over and over. And we could actually point him to the fact that the quotes mean the opposite of what he's implying. BUt it's pointless. He needs his sky daddy to have paid special attention to creating man... despite the fact that man isn't all that well design.
OK... Darwin did not retract his statements before his death.. even AnswersinGenesis admits darwin didn't retract or change his beliefs. Google 'did Darwin recant'.. quite educational.
As for Urey.. please show where he retracted his statements please. Only thing I could find where Urey retracted was some statements on the origins of meteorites. A retraction which has nothing th do with evolution.
Actually djchubakka has yet to provide an intelligent answer to several questions I posed to him. Take the question of the 1st life form, ever read the book "life itself it's origin and nature" by DNA discoverer Francis Crick? I read it but I doubt djchubakka has. The vast complexities of DNA shook Crick's faith that life could arise by chance on earth so much that in 1980 he proposed "Directed Panspermia". The best djchubakka did was a site that skipped over a statistical mountain.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees;
as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)
** savage races generally refers to the Negroes of Africa and Aborigines of Australia.
Why don't you post the full quote? It gives context to what he's talking about. He's not advocating extermination. Have you read the Descent of Man? Compared to his Victorian contemporaries, Darwin was much more accepting of other races than his fellow countrymen.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
(Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")
Crick:"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established..."
This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."
You do know Hitler was a Christian please look it up. Why believe in a god that says to kill all who work on the sabbath like in exodus 31:15. Also evolution takes time as rapid evolution such as down syndrome leads usually to death. Please do more research.
The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans... the result of a systematic race preservation... The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of ...preserving the most pathological subject, and at any price... a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.
Yup. He didn't understand it at all. Evolution only effects whole species populations. Hitler's racism was a clear misunderstanding of evolution. His aryan mythology drove him. There's races, but we're all the same species of man. He didn't understand it.
chap 7:"I might have adduced for this same purpose the differences between the races of man, which are so strongly marked"
chap 13: "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from Negroes" (Hottentots considered of inferior culture and intellect in Darwin's day and was a justification for slavery).
The british considered everyone inferior. Also everyone in europe felt that way in the 1800's. Nothing new and it doesn't prove evolution is evil or wrong. Racism was and is not connected to the theory of evolution.
Matthew 22:34: "Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in Moses' Teachings?" Jesus answered him, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' All of Moses' Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
Kind of hard to love you neighbor as yourself when your stuffing him into an oven. You are badly mistaken.
Firstly, Darwin's training at Cambridge was in Divinity (theology) not science. Secondly it has everything to do with morality, Darwin believed in "races" of man (plural) not "race" of man (singular). Considering Negroes subhuman, some used it as a justification for slavery. Hitler wanted to "purify" his master race of the weak. This is historic fact not theoretical speculation. If survival of the fittest is your religion's greatest commandment, it would be blasphemy to not destroy the weak.
It doesn't matter if Darwin was a serial killer... his theory still holds up. It's been expanded upon and evolution is a fact. Hitler was a christian... should we blame jesus for the holocaust? Grow up. Stop being such an ignorant fuckwit.
Darwin had a degree in Divinity; was he a Christian? Hitler was no more a Christian than Darwin was. And; if Evolution is such a rock solid fact, why did DNA, discoverer Francis Crick (an evolutionist) write "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", arguing statistically that as DNA was extremely complex the "odds" against life beginning in a warm pond on earth were nearly impossible and then suggesting as a sort of plan B that the 1st life forms were sent here by aliens?
Isn't it disturbing that the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of DNA, so seriously doubts that a DNA molecule could have formed by chance on earth, that he shreds his credibility suggesting aliens as a alternative? Crick was not speaking outside his field. In regards to DNA, he is "The Expert". Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle compared the statistical improbability that life could happen by chance to be about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747.
Actually, you do not get it. Your respond with trite phrases and sophomoric answers. Your use of profanity indicates immaturity. You have not even begun to answer a very serious question about origins. If you had bothered to read their books before answering you would know that Crick and Hoyle did science, research and analysis. Your ludicrous assertion that Hitler was Christian violates plain bible teaching to love thy neighbor (not bake thy neighbor). You are badly mistaken.
Prisons are full of christians. I've heard the "no true christian' argument before. If your logic held up, there would be millions of atheists in jail. You make arguments not based on science but on personal statements.
Still waiting for some scientific evidence answering Crick's origins dilemma...that's a tough one I know but I'm sure you'll find some non molecular biologist who will say with a straight face that the father of molecular biology just did not understand molecular biology.
As an evolutionist, are you embarrassed that it took evolutionists 40 years to figure out that Piltdown man was a hoax / fraud / lie / PR gimmick? (after it was used to "prove" evolution in the infamous Scopes Monkey trial)
SCIENTISTS proved that piltdown man was a fraud. If there was some huge conspiracy would that of happened? No. CRICK supported evolution. PERIOD. A lot of ideas have emerged about abiogenesis since Crick's pondering. He supported science and evolution. Was he doing research in abiogenesis? Nope.
WHY DID IT TAKE SCIENTISTS 40+ YEARS TO FIGURE OUT PILTDOWN WAS A FRAUD??????????????? When a simple critical examination would have easily show it was an obvious hoax????????
Oh, and I forgot to add, even though Piltdown may not necessarily be a HUGE conspiracy, a one man hoax combined with no critical peer evaluation of supposed evidence = really sloppy science (still true today). Crick found a big problem for evolution called origins but rather than suggest "GOD created" HE PUT HIS HOPE IN ALIENS! How Scientific!!! How scholarly!!! Where is the evidence? Still waiting for empirical evidence on origins... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...
Why are you obsessed with Crick? He accepted evolution. The science of abiogenesis isn't an easy one. Panspermia is just a theory, a viable one. It's possible that rocks from another planet ended up here and jumpstarted life. It's just an idea. Doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen.
Francis Crick said, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Perhaps the thing that kept Crick from suggesting "GOD created" was his rabid hatred for religion.
God did it is not an answer... unless you have some proof. And you don't. Supernatural explanations are worthless. Everything is natural and happens within reality. There's no magic. The reason abiogenesis is such an interesting problem is that we're not quite sure what the conditions were exactly when life arose... that's why research is being done. Stopping with GOD DID IT... doesn't answer any questions. It stops enquiry.
Actually you are stopping inquiry. I only hope to get credible inquiry started and am having to deal with unsubstantiated "evolution did it, I believe it and that settles it" answers. You have yet to provide even one credible response about how DNA arose purely by chance on earth when Crick the religion hating father of molecular biology so doubted that it could happen by chance on earth that he turned to aliens rather than God.
The science is being done. What else can I say? You can't say "we don't know how exactly DNA formed, therefor evolution is impossible." Evolution happens. Finding out how DNA was formed is more of a way to understand how evolution occurs. It's like trying to find the source of spoken language and how the brain evolved to use language. We speak now, so there's not a question of whether language "happens".
still laughing at your "Finding out how DNA was formed is more of a way to understand how evolution occurs" suggestion as though lifeless inorganic atoms could mate and have offspring before life has begun.
Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick in his book "Life Itself -- Its Origins and Nature" considers that the chance of the required twenty amino acids being in the correct order to produce one protein is 10 to the power of 260. This is 1 followed by 260 zeros. He goes on to say that this is considerably more than all the fundamental particles in the known universe, which is estimated at only 10 to the power of 80.
I read the article which STILL has the cow jumping over the moon. Paragraph 5 went straight from amino acids into injecting RNA into a growth medium completely skipping over how you get to RNA from amino acids by random chance. And toward the end the writer claimed that something "very close" to RNA had "recently" been discovered...yea right. I was born at night but not last night. I'll sent you a link to a video and lets see if you watch it.
Just for fun...Charles Darwin; origin of species; Chapter VI Difficulties on Theory
"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered"
non-Christian molecular biologist, Michael Denton: in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, 'Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.'
non-Christian molecular biologist, Michael Denton: in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, 'Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.'
It's part of keeping natural possibilities open. 2-4 billion years ago we were getting hit by asteroids consistently. Some form of simple life could of came here under those circumstances... doesn't mean it did or that it's the only explanation for how life originated on the planet.
Encyclopedia of Evolution; has a foreword by prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, regarding the origin of life "Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, 'no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube', and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to 'create life' by the 'spark-in-the-soup' method (or to find such productions in nature), have caused other researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma."
I "stick" with this because contrary to much of evolutionary "evidence" it is measurable and testable. And of course having read Crick's book (as well as others) I can speak with some measure of authority.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory,"
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
Gould saw big problems with the fossil record and gradualism (little changes stacking up over long periods of time) and offered up his own theory to explain why the fossil record does not show so called "missing links". "Puncuated Equilibrium" basically says that evolution happened in such rapid spurts that it would leave few (if any) fossils in the fossil record. His argument in summary is: The fossils do not show gradualism so it must have been puncuated equlibrium (now that's faith)!!!
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."
(Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)
I read Crick's book "Life itself" and can speak with some measure of authority about it. And why pose other questions when you have not made a good faith attempt to answer the 1st question (though I have raised several other issues). You keep repeating that Crick believed in Evolution as if it were some magic spell that makes a serious origin of life issue go away... it does not. Crick confessed that 'panspermia' was "Chariots Of The Gods" stuff lacking credible empirical evidence.
And I keep saying that it doesn't matter what Crick thought about abiogenesis. Or evolution for that matter. One person's opinion is not evidence for an alternate theory to evolution. If you have an alternate theory, that's based on research and science I'd love to hear it.
You say that Crick's opinion about the origins of life doesn't matter, but HE IS THE FATHER OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. If the discoverer of DNA is not enough of an expert in DNA for you then who is? Name your DNA expert who trumps Crick!!! Who might you quote that has more credibility on the subject than him? Darwin did not know about DNA but we do. Cricks EXPERT "opinion" on the origins of life have more weight than anyone you might quote to dispute him with. If you disagree, name your expert!!!
arrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only true creator, one true lord only one believable religion arrrrrrrrrrr that be the church of the flying spaghetti monster,,,,,,,peace and meatballs be to you all ,,,,,, shiver me timbers,
This video is so filled with sacrcasm (and a bad voice over - watch the over-modulation), I can't keep track of which side he's making fun of. As tleast he's got one thing wrong - I learned theory of evolution in a Catholic instituation.... wow... yes they do teach it.
Your god is stupid and weak. He let his own son be tortured to death and billions to suffer because he chose to create a talking snake and a magic tree of knowledge. He had the power to erase all sin without sacrifices, murder or the crucifixion, but instead he's a sick, twisted freak who enjoys torturing people to sooth his own vanity.
That is why our peanut mind is gazillion miles from the Infinite mind of Almighty God.
In Romans 9:13-18 God Declare> As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? is there unrighteousness with God? God Forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion...Continue>>>
Continue>Peanut mind of Mankind. Romans 9:13-18...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh. Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my POWER in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the EARTH...
Because there's is NONE righteous NO, NOT ONE, the seeketh after God. There's NONE, that Understand; They are all gone out of their way, together become unprofitable. There's NONE that do good. Their THROAT is an OPEN "Sepulcher; with their TONGUES they have used DECEIT, the POISON of "ASPS" is under their LIPS. Whose MOUTH is FULL of "CURSING" & "BITERNESS": Therefore WE ALL
come under the "JUDMENT of ALMIGHTY GOD THE CREATOR. ROMANS 3:10-18...GOD BLESS...
Stop kidding yourself, you know damn well what happens when you die.
People with brain damage lose their ability to speak, regognize people, remmember things.
And yet you are going to belive that somehow when your whole brain is damaged beyond repair, you'll somehow magicly save your personality and go elsewhere?
There's a reason even religious people cry at funerals.
Deep down, they know exactly whats going on when you die. Not saying you have to like it, i sure don't. But it's real.
I don't have a need to be saved, but apparently you've bought into "we're all sinners" bullshit...but, whatever keeps you happy, sport. And speaking of bullshit, when you die, be sure you file a report about what heaven is like,huh?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 > He hath made "every thing" beautiful in his time: also he hath set the "world" in their "heart", so that no "man" can find out the work that GOD maketh from the "BEGINNING" to the "END"...
it only seems like nostridamus made accurate predictions because they were made so long ago, the odds of none of his predictions coming true are pretty bad. if i say "its gonna rain" with no specific date or time, the possiblity of rain is open to abosutly any time. it might not rain tomorrow, or the next day, or even that year, but, eventually, its gonna rain. so of couse some of his predictions came truw
As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.
The presence of the Oort cloud is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.
If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.
The defining character trait of creationists is lying.
"i know another group who loved science, they were called the nazis." hahhaah totally the creationist argument
BillKiernan 1 year ago
That was an amazing caricature. I love it!
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago
in the beginning there was nothing but god. Then god got lonely so he had a one night stand with loretta jones. Loretta Jones got awfully big those nine months! then she got REAL constipated then schat out Jesus and he fell down to earth. POOR JESUS. Now Jesus got sent to hell
JakeBartlam 2 years ago
coexistence anyone?
jaw1024 2 years ago
this was awesome!
little else to say really lol. wish I'd found it earlier
JackWisps 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kids!
The Bible says the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes, donkeys, and bushes talk.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
Isn't that silly?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 2
sinful out of wedlock monkey sex, fuck yeah and if you think god shit you out you are a monkey
orkasteez 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits
"Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.'
evoloution is FAILS a LIE just an excuse LUSTS -- SIN
a way to settle their consience
that our loving GOD put in them
evoloutionists just want to satisfy thier LUSTS greedy sexual evil they hate the GUILTY feelings
GOD sees their deeds and will broadcast all in font of the whole world SHAME will overtake them
ARE YOU SAVED?
valu777 2 years ago
This has to be satire, its far to intelligently argued to be a real ID video.
boonw 2 years ago 2
Of course it's satire!
And very funny indeed
Zarathustra314 3 years ago 2
Heh, funny.
Wait, this is satire right?
I can never be too sure with ID after the banana man video.
zombat 3 years ago 2
"your hand will go to your privates and that is where Beelzebub lives!" hahah!
Kurce12345 3 years ago
"If evolution was true, I'd have a self-lubricating hand!" HAHAHAH CLASSIC! CLASSIC! HAHAHAHAH
ozpowermo 3 years ago 3
out of wedlock monkey intercourse...I don't want to be a NAZI!!...LOL I love it!
1n354a 3 years ago
"you're not a facist are you billy"?
That is fucking priceless,
ExarGane 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that's more like what the evolutionist will do the creationist. just like what this person trying to make evolutionist look retarded in this video.
Unforgivence 3 years ago
there is not such thing as evolutionists
CREATIONSISTS added the ist to evolution
deljugo 3 years ago 2
lol, I love the 'use all the critical thinking skills your catholic education has taught you'
genius.
KierenMan 3 years ago 5
Heheh. Nice.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
is that the sims?
thegodlessatheist 3 years ago
God wants me to go to heaven cos he wants to suck my dick... but im not into that, what should I tell Him?
pubuman 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is pathetic. Both ID and evolution theories should be taught so that our children can learn to think and critique.
ziglet53 3 years ago
Are you willing to include ALL religious creation myths in with that?
rocas511 3 years ago 9
"Are you willing to include ALL religious creation myths in with that? "
Yeah, teach the "Controversy"... There's nothing like having a burger flipper try and tell a geneticist what's "wrong" in his own field of expertise ;-)
fs3d 3 years ago
You're kidding right?
calhoun81670 3 years ago
"ID" is not a scientific thoery is a belief
deljugo 3 years ago
ooh, monkey intercourse!!!!!!
1godlessmonkey 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
.
Pure
Unadulterated
Shite
.
tellnet 3 years ago
the nazis loved science...HAHAHAH.."i only wanted to do science to young boys"..HAHAHHAHA
Bockatadi 3 years ago
Ah... creationist logic.
JTS11d6 3 years ago
I did.. I'd recommend reading the 5th post, and not just the ones the ID-proponents want to use. The entire salt argument has been refuted. With mathematics to back it up. Or Google 'Evolution - June 1996: Salt in the sea'
jesterspace 3 years ago
An interesting article "capping" the maximum possible age of the earth based upon the fact that the saltiness of the worlds oceans is increasing (not stasis as evolutionists claim). If the earth were billions of years old the ocean's salt concentration would be in a steady state (stasis) and much more salty.
THE SEA'S MISSING SALT: A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
Google search using quotes "THE SEA'S MISSING SALT"
penguinistas 3 years ago
This idea has been thoroughly debunked.
These "PhDs" are from the "Discovery Institute", the discredited creation science think tank that got routed in the Pennsylvania trial of ID.
For REAL science, google "seawater subduction" and read the NATURE article from 2006 (sorry, it's real science, so it's dense), or some of the popular press explanations of it.
middlekk 3 years ago 2
god damn' funny! great!
jimiwantstobelieve 3 years ago
Um.. nylon-eating bacteria.. lactose tolerance.. there was a time that most us were lactose intolerant.
jesterspace 3 years ago 2
Evolution is not the creation if DNA or RNA.
Evolution is the FACT that life forms have arisen from earlier life forms.
Evolution is a well-confirmed process of biological change that produces heritable diversity and coherent functionality in populations by a variety of natural mechanisms.
djchubakka 3 years ago
dj, there is a fine line between evolution and adaptation.
In order to result in the large diversity of organisms that we see today, evolution requires that (by random processes) extremely complex biochemical pathways are created. For example, evolution needs to be able to create enzymes and proteins.
However, that is exactly what evolution can NOT do, and has never done. The mutations in the genetic code do nothing more that change the function of pre-existing biochemical pathways.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
You're wrong... how old is the earth?
djchubakka 3 years ago
Even if abiogenesis was possible (which it's not), evolution and would still not be even remotely possible.
The real issue is that people (like you) assume that just because an organism is undergoing change, it's evolution.
To tell you the truth, that's you're teacher's fault (or whoever taught you evolutionary dogma).
My point:
Adaptation (combined with natural selection) is not evolution. Evolution requires that new biochemical pathways are created.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
The earth's age? Just about 6,000 years (give or take 6 days, lol)
C'mon now, couldn't you tell by my name?
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"You're wrong"
If I'm wrong, you'd be a peach to point it out. Give me one example of a new biochemical pathway being evolved into existence.
You do admit that is what's needed for evolution, correct? Because without enzymes, proteins, amino acids, etc, we wouldn't be able to function.
BTW, a new pathway being defined is not being evolved into existence.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
YoungEarth.. heh.. I kinda figured out what your answer to that question was gonna be :)
jesterspace 3 years ago
There are GLACIERS that are older than that you ignorant asshat.
djchubakka 3 years ago
And don't forget.. Most experts do agree the dog was the first domesticated animal, was domesticated around 14 to 15,000 years ago. Domesticating an animal before the earth was created.. THAT'S a miracle. :)
jesterspace 3 years ago
You do realize that what you're talking about is 100% speculation, right?
The oldest civilization that has written records is just about 6000 years old.
Assuming that dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago doesn't mean anything. I can assume that dogs were domesticated 5500 years ago. They're both assumptions.
Wait, but I think historical records indicate the domestication of dogs. How old are these records? No older than 6000 years.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"What can someone like me do to stop evolution?"
"Think Billy."
Hilarious.
dhchemistry 3 years ago
Is evolution science or a dogma that gives rise to evil?????
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."
(Thomas Huxley "Darwin's bulldog", 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)
penguinistas 3 years ago
In the same sense as gravity is a "dogma that gives rise to evil" because the guillotine relies on gravity to function.
In the same sense that marine biology is a "dogma that gives rise to evil" because of sharks.
You're really clutching at straws if you're hoping to dismiss a theory by tenuous association. This isn't a class president election, you know. You can't just say "Well, Evolution was really mean to me, so it can't be real."
Chumpsky 3 years ago
Creationists lie and quote mine. It's what they do best.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Boy what a scholarly answer. I bet you used up a lot of brain cells coming up with that one. Perhaps you should explain how is quoting from an evolutionist is lying? Huxley most certainly made the statement. Do you agree with Darwin and Huxley and Hitler in white racial superiority as an undisputed fact? Obviously wrong and racist statements used as evidence of evolution by the pillars of evolution would cause an honest man to seriously question what other "facts" they based evolution on.
penguinistas 3 years ago
See.Lies. Hitler was Catholic... Hitler wasn't a darwinist. And Darwin wasn't a eugenics supporter. You continue to spread lies and distortions. Either you do it willfully or you do it from a position of ignorance. Either way it's what creationists do all the time. You are one of hundreds I've encountered. It's really quite boring but also maddening. Evolution is a fact. Animals evolve. It's a fact. Nothing has ever shown that they don't. Everything else you bring up is just noise.
djchubakka 3 years ago 2
"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"
(Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)
you were saying....
penguinistas 3 years ago
Exactly... he doesn't understand evolution. It's funny that you don't see why.
djchubakka 3 years ago
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
All from Adolf Hitler
jesterspace 3 years ago
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
[Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2)]
Mahoivlich 3 years ago
perhaps you better show me where the bible (written by Jewish people) tells anyone to exterminate Jewish people.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Sure he was that is why the pope backed him....there are tons of photos. The new testament tells christians that the jews killed their god..what does that inspire, brotherly love? It has a few passages about converting the heathens.....jewish people fall into this category as far as the new testament goes. Read something other than apologist literature and you might grasp reality.
Mahoivlich 3 years ago
Hitler was as anti-religion as Darwin (who's only degree by the way was in theology not science). From Adolph Hitler's 2nd book (Zweites Buch 1928) advocating killing the sick and weak to purify the race.
The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Hitler developed a new Christianity called "Positive Christianity". You can find an article in Wikipedia.
All of the Christian Churches in Germany subordinated themselves to Hitler's Reichskirch or to the Pope's Concordat with Hitler. Free Inquiry Magazine and the Internet Infidel's website both have numerous articles on this topic, as do Joseph McCabe's Big Blue Books.
We don't know what Hitler's private thoughts were, but his followers were certainly Christian.
pirbird14 3 years ago
Hitler's stated goal in his own words was to obliterate the Ten Commandments. He said that. His other comments reveal that he hated Christianity and Christians except to the extent that he could deceive and use them for his evil purposes. The book Hitler's Cross by Lutzer details his relationship to Christians. Read about his commitment to the occult in The Pink Swastika by Lively. The Hidden Hitler also traces his homosexuality.
DeanCo7777 3 years ago
No, he only hated organized Christianity. His Positive Christianity was presented as a purer form. His public statements on this are quite clear.
pirbird14 3 years ago
Hitler developed a new Christianity called "Positive Christianity". You can find an article in Wikipedia.
All of the Christian Churches in Germany subordinated themselves to Hitler's Reichskirch or to the Pope's Concordat with Hitler. Free Inquiry Magazine and the Internet Infidel's website both have numerous articles on this topic, as do Joseph McCabe's Big Blue Books.
We don't know what Hitler's private thoughts were, but his followers were certainly Christian.
pirbird14 3 years ago
Oh by the way, not "all" of the Christian churches subordinated themselves to Hitler. There were the more biblically faithful who stood up to him as they should have. At a video store get a copy of the movie AMEN which is about Christians who tried to resist and paid with their lives. The get the documentary BONHOEFFER for the more detailed story of one minister who worked to create a "Confessing Church" and who died trying.
DeanCo7777 3 years ago
Actually, they all joined the Reichkirch. Not one protested.
The individual Christians who protested did so without the backing of their churches. Bonhoeffer did not speak for any established church, and did not represent any church.
pirbird14 3 years ago
pirbird...You're thinking too institutionally here. True Born Again Christians like Bonhoeffer are part of the organic church which overlaps in and out of anything institutional. The true Church of the true followers of Jesus is an organism of heart and soul that spans around the world. Right now I am not a member of any institutional man-made "church" but am a very active member of the organic church, which to be faithful to our Master must stand both apart from and within earthly organizations
DeanCo7777 3 years ago
DeanCo777: I stick with Einstein, I think I am in good company. I quote :"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.
Philos2006 3 years ago
pirbird...but it certainly is true that man-made institutions do tend more toward self-preservation than to virtue at any price. That applies to religious or non-religious organizations like the AMA, ADA, NEA, or whatever. People with virtue often find themselves looking for the courage to stand against corrupt organizations.
DeanCo7777 3 years ago
DeanCo777...The congress of german Evangelical Churches in 1933 voted to support Hitler. It was a narrow vote split almost evenly by yea, nay, and abstain. The yes won by 1 vote, meanig that 60% could not bring themselves to oppose Hitler. Verses such as Tit. 3:1, Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Pe. 2:18, Heb. 13:17 very explicitely tell Christians to obey the earthly authorities, willingly and wholeheartedly.
Jesus was not interested in changing worldly conditions - Mat. 26:11, Mar. 14:7.
pirbird14 3 years ago
(continued)...
The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses
penguinistas 3 years ago
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine
that it did."
Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner
Charles Darwin: Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.
penguinistas 3 years ago
You did forget to mention Urey got his Nobel Prise in 1934. Before we even knew what DNA was.
Oh.. and the REST of Darwin's quote.. authority arguments and quote mining for the loss.
jesterspace 3 years ago
Perhaps you should show where he retracted the statement before his death in 1981. And it is obvious that Urey agreed with Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Dr. Francis Crick co discoverer of DNA.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Jester. This is what they do. Lie and quote mine. Penguin probably isn't even familiar with the sources of the quotes. But his ignorance is a pathetic excuse. He'll keep going to his creationist site and dropping quotes over and over. And we could actually point him to the fact that the quotes mean the opposite of what he's implying. BUt it's pointless. He needs his sky daddy to have paid special attention to creating man... despite the fact that man isn't all that well design.
djchubakka 3 years ago
OK... Darwin did not retract his statements before his death.. even AnswersinGenesis admits darwin didn't retract or change his beliefs. Google 'did Darwin recant'.. quite educational.
As for Urey.. please show where he retracted his statements please. Only thing I could find where Urey retracted was some statements on the origins of meteorites. A retraction which has nothing th do with evolution.
jesterspace 3 years ago
Actually djchubakka has yet to provide an intelligent answer to several questions I posed to him. Take the question of the 1st life form, ever read the book "life itself it's origin and nature" by DNA discoverer Francis Crick? I read it but I doubt djchubakka has. The vast complexities of DNA shook Crick's faith that life could arise by chance on earth so much that in 1980 he proposed "Directed Panspermia". The best djchubakka did was a site that skipped over a statistical mountain.
penguinistas 3 years ago
It's been answered by Dawkins and many others in the past 27 years. You just choose to ignore it.
djchubakka 3 years ago
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees;
djchubakka 3 years ago
as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
djchubakka 3 years ago
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
djchubakka 3 years ago
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)
** savage races generally refers to the Negroes of Africa and Aborigines of Australia.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Why don't you post the full quote? It gives context to what he's talking about. He's not advocating extermination. Have you read the Descent of Man? Compared to his Victorian contemporaries, Darwin was much more accepting of other races than his fellow countrymen.
djchubakka 3 years ago
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
(Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")
penguinistas 3 years ago
Dude. That's a classic creationist quote mine.
Try posting the REST of the quote.
djchubakka 3 years ago
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
penguinistas 3 years ago
So Darwin was skeptical.. as all good scientists and rational people MUST be. Prevents slavish adherence to dogmas.
jesterspace 3 years ago
Crick:"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established..."
djchubakka 3 years ago
This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."
djchubakka 3 years ago
You do know Hitler was a Christian please look it up. Why believe in a god that says to kill all who work on the sabbath like in exodus 31:15. Also evolution takes time as rapid evolution such as down syndrome leads usually to death. Please do more research.
proatheism 3 years ago
actually Hitler believed in evolution and believed the Germans were the "master race".
penguinistas 3 years ago
He didn't understand evolution very well.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Hitler:
The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans... the result of a systematic race preservation... The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of ...preserving the most pathological subject, and at any price... a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Yup. He didn't understand it at all. Evolution only effects whole species populations. Hitler's racism was a clear misunderstanding of evolution. His aryan mythology drove him. There's races, but we're all the same species of man. He didn't understand it.
djchubakka 3 years ago
excerpts from Darwin's "The Origin of Species"
chap 7:"I might have adduced for this same purpose the differences between the races of man, which are so strongly marked"
chap 13: "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from Negroes" (Hottentots considered of inferior culture and intellect in Darwin's day and was a justification for slavery).
penguinistas 3 years ago
The british considered everyone inferior. Also everyone in europe felt that way in the 1800's. Nothing new and it doesn't prove evolution is evil or wrong. Racism was and is not connected to the theory of evolution.
djchubakka 3 years ago
he was a catholic
999VINCENT666 3 years ago
Matthew 22:34: "Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in Moses' Teachings?" Jesus answered him, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' All of Moses' Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
Kind of hard to love you neighbor as yourself when your stuffing him into an oven. You are badly mistaken.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Evolution is science and a fact. It has nothing to do with morality.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Firstly, Darwin's training at Cambridge was in Divinity (theology) not science. Secondly it has everything to do with morality, Darwin believed in "races" of man (plural) not "race" of man (singular). Considering Negroes subhuman, some used it as a justification for slavery. Hitler wanted to "purify" his master race of the weak. This is historic fact not theoretical speculation. If survival of the fittest is your religion's greatest commandment, it would be blasphemy to not destroy the weak.
penguinistas 3 years ago
It doesn't matter if Darwin was a serial killer... his theory still holds up. It's been expanded upon and evolution is a fact. Hitler was a christian... should we blame jesus for the holocaust? Grow up. Stop being such an ignorant fuckwit.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Darwin had a degree in Divinity; was he a Christian? Hitler was no more a Christian than Darwin was. And; if Evolution is such a rock solid fact, why did DNA, discoverer Francis Crick (an evolutionist) write "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", arguing statistically that as DNA was extremely complex the "odds" against life beginning in a warm pond on earth were nearly impossible and then suggesting as a sort of plan B that the 1st life forms were sent here by aliens?
penguinistas 3 years ago
Crick accepted evolution. Abiogenesis is a different problem.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Isn't it disturbing that the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of DNA, so seriously doubts that a DNA molecule could have formed by chance on earth, that he shreds his credibility suggesting aliens as a alternative? Crick was not speaking outside his field. In regards to DNA, he is "The Expert". Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle compared the statistical improbability that life could happen by chance to be about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747.
penguinistas 3 years ago
You don't get it. It doesn't matter. Science, research, analysis decides what is not valid and what is.
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Actually, you do not get it. Your respond with trite phrases and sophomoric answers. Your use of profanity indicates immaturity. You have not even begun to answer a very serious question about origins. If you had bothered to read their books before answering you would know that Crick and Hoyle did science, research and analysis. Your ludicrous assertion that Hitler was Christian violates plain bible teaching to love thy neighbor (not bake thy neighbor). You are badly mistaken.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Prisons are full of christians. I've heard the "no true christian' argument before. If your logic held up, there would be millions of atheists in jail. You make arguments not based on science but on personal statements.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Still waiting for some scientific evidence answering Crick's origins dilemma...that's a tough one I know but I'm sure you'll find some non molecular biologist who will say with a straight face that the father of molecular biology just did not understand molecular biology.
As an evolutionist, are you embarrassed that it took evolutionists 40 years to figure out that Piltdown man was a hoax / fraud / lie / PR gimmick? (after it was used to "prove" evolution in the infamous Scopes Monkey trial)
penguinistas 3 years ago
SCIENTISTS proved that piltdown man was a fraud. If there was some huge conspiracy would that of happened? No. CRICK supported evolution. PERIOD. A lot of ideas have emerged about abiogenesis since Crick's pondering. He supported science and evolution. Was he doing research in abiogenesis? Nope.
djchubakka 3 years ago
WHY DID IT TAKE SCIENTISTS 40+ YEARS TO FIGURE OUT PILTDOWN WAS A FRAUD??????????????? When a simple critical examination would have easily show it was an obvious hoax????????
penguinistas 3 years ago
Why does it matter? We've found plenty of primate fossils. We keep finding them.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Oh, and I forgot to add, even though Piltdown may not necessarily be a HUGE conspiracy, a one man hoax combined with no critical peer evaluation of supposed evidence = really sloppy science (still true today). Crick found a big problem for evolution called origins but rather than suggest "GOD created" HE PUT HIS HOPE IN ALIENS! How Scientific!!! How scholarly!!! Where is the evidence? Still waiting for empirical evidence on origins... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...
penguinistas 3 years ago
Why are you obsessed with Crick? He accepted evolution. The science of abiogenesis isn't an easy one. Panspermia is just a theory, a viable one. It's possible that rocks from another planet ended up here and jumpstarted life. It's just an idea. Doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Francis Crick said, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Perhaps the thing that kept Crick from suggesting "GOD created" was his rabid hatred for religion.
penguinistas 3 years ago
God did it is not an answer... unless you have some proof. And you don't. Supernatural explanations are worthless. Everything is natural and happens within reality. There's no magic. The reason abiogenesis is such an interesting problem is that we're not quite sure what the conditions were exactly when life arose... that's why research is being done. Stopping with GOD DID IT... doesn't answer any questions. It stops enquiry.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Actually you are stopping inquiry. I only hope to get credible inquiry started and am having to deal with unsubstantiated "evolution did it, I believe it and that settles it" answers. You have yet to provide even one credible response about how DNA arose purely by chance on earth when Crick the religion hating father of molecular biology so doubted that it could happen by chance on earth that he turned to aliens rather than God.
penguinistas 3 years ago
The science is being done. What else can I say? You can't say "we don't know how exactly DNA formed, therefor evolution is impossible." Evolution happens. Finding out how DNA was formed is more of a way to understand how evolution occurs. It's like trying to find the source of spoken language and how the brain evolved to use language. We speak now, so there's not a question of whether language "happens".
djchubakka 3 years ago
still laughing at your "Finding out how DNA was formed is more of a way to understand how evolution occurs" suggestion as though lifeless inorganic atoms could mate and have offspring before life has begun.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Amino acids. Start there.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick in his book "Life Itself -- Its Origins and Nature" considers that the chance of the required twenty amino acids being in the correct order to produce one protein is 10 to the power of 260. This is 1 followed by 260 zeros. He goes on to say that this is considerably more than all the fundamental particles in the known universe, which is estimated at only 10 to the power of 80.
penguinistas 3 years ago
I showed you and article on abiogenesis probability. Crick was wrong. You're wrong.
I'll send you a link. Which I'm sure you'll ignore.
djchubakka 3 years ago
I read the article which STILL has the cow jumping over the moon. Paragraph 5 went straight from amino acids into injecting RNA into a growth medium completely skipping over how you get to RNA from amino acids by random chance. And toward the end the writer claimed that something "very close" to RNA had "recently" been discovered...yea right. I was born at night but not last night. I'll sent you a link to a video and lets see if you watch it.
penguinistas 3 years ago
Just for fun...Charles Darwin; origin of species; Chapter VI Difficulties on Theory
"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered"
penguinistas 3 years ago
He's right. Does he say... "don't bother trying to know how they happened"?
djchubakka 3 years ago
non-Christian molecular biologist, Michael Denton: in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, 'Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.'
penguinistas 3 years ago
non-Christian molecular biologist, Michael Denton: in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, 'Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.'
penguinistas 3 years ago
It's part of keeping natural possibilities open. 2-4 billion years ago we were getting hit by asteroids consistently. Some form of simple life could of came here under those circumstances... doesn't mean it did or that it's the only explanation for how life originated on the planet.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Encyclopedia of Evolution; has a foreword by prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, regarding the origin of life "Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, 'no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube', and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to 'create life' by the 'spark-in-the-soup' method (or to find such productions in nature), have caused other researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma."
penguinistas 3 years ago
I know you're stuck on the problem of abiogenesis. What's your theory? I still haven't heard it yet.
djchubakka 3 years ago
I "stick" with this because contrary to much of evolutionary "evidence" it is measurable and testable. And of course having read Crick's book (as well as others) I can speak with some measure of authority.
penguinistas 3 years ago
I stopped watching this video after 1 min., because its allrdy fault from start, human's are not comming from apes....
hebus4 3 years ago
We are essentially apes smart guy. We share a common primate ancestor. It's in our genes. It's scientifically proven.
djchubakka 3 years ago
proven, really?
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory,"
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
Dr. Stephan J Gould,"Evolution, Erratic Pace"
penguinistas 3 years ago
Dude... quote mining is boring.
Notice the TITLES of his books?
djchubakka 3 years ago
Gould saw big problems with the fossil record and gradualism (little changes stacking up over long periods of time) and offered up his own theory to explain why the fossil record does not show so called "missing links". "Puncuated Equilibrium" basically says that evolution happened in such rapid spurts that it would leave few (if any) fossils in the fossil record. His argument in summary is: The fossils do not show gradualism so it must have been puncuated equlibrium (now that's faith)!!!
penguinistas 3 years ago
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."
(Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)
penguinistas 3 years ago
Offcourse, we are not comming from apes but from a primate ancestor.
I tought it was one of those idiot creationts video's again , but now i see its a satire, dint look good.
hebus4 3 years ago
I read Crick's book "Life itself" and can speak with some measure of authority about it. And why pose other questions when you have not made a good faith attempt to answer the 1st question (though I have raised several other issues). You keep repeating that Crick believed in Evolution as if it were some magic spell that makes a serious origin of life issue go away... it does not. Crick confessed that 'panspermia' was "Chariots Of The Gods" stuff lacking credible empirical evidence.
penguinistas 3 years ago
And I keep saying that it doesn't matter what Crick thought about abiogenesis. Or evolution for that matter. One person's opinion is not evidence for an alternate theory to evolution. If you have an alternate theory, that's based on research and science I'd love to hear it.
djchubakka 3 years ago
You say that Crick's opinion about the origins of life doesn't matter, but HE IS THE FATHER OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. If the discoverer of DNA is not enough of an expert in DNA for you then who is? Name your DNA expert who trumps Crick!!! Who might you quote that has more credibility on the subject than him? Darwin did not know about DNA but we do. Cricks EXPERT "opinion" on the origins of life have more weight than anyone you might quote to dispute him with. If you disagree, name your expert!!!
penguinistas 3 years ago
He's not an expert on abiogenesis.
djchubakka 3 years ago
Utube has to be a breeding ground for retired, bored, & desparate evolutionists scientists...hehe...
TJae1 3 years ago
lol nazis liked science so science = fascism lol!!
religion is fascism and in order to defeat it, u have to get laid and not feel bad about it.
kathleenvh 3 years ago
Yeah! Shut up scientist!
Pyrethryn 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
arrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only true creator, one true lord only one believable religion arrrrrrrrrrr that be the church of the flying spaghetti monster,,,,,,,peace and meatballs be to you all ,,,,,, shiver me timbers,
jubbster 4 years ago
This video is so filled with sacrcasm (and a bad voice over - watch the over-modulation), I can't keep track of which side he's making fun of. As tleast he's got one thing wrong - I learned theory of evolution in a Catholic instituation.... wow... yes they do teach it.
bsdman1 4 years ago
We could have gone and explore the universe
and learn more about his creation...But, now
God has cut off our blessing instead he will
destroy the earth and the universe with fire
and brimstone because man's heart were evil,there's none the seeketh after GOD.
and there's no fear of GOD before their eyes...Romans 3:10-18.
jegjegod 4 years ago
Your god is stupid and weak. He let his own son be tortured to death and billions to suffer because he chose to create a talking snake and a magic tree of knowledge. He had the power to erase all sin without sacrifices, murder or the crucifixion, but instead he's a sick, twisted freak who enjoys torturing people to sooth his own vanity.
cerebulon 4 years ago
its what christianity is all about, baby!
noobwithagun 4 years ago
That is why our peanut mind is gazillion miles from the Infinite mind of Almighty God.
In Romans 9:13-18 God Declare> As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? is there unrighteousness with God? God Forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion...Continue>>>
jegjegod 4 years ago
Continue>Peanut mind of Mankind. Romans 9:13-18...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh. Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my POWER in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the EARTH...
jegjegod 4 years ago
Because there's is NONE righteous NO, NOT ONE, the seeketh after God. There's NONE, that Understand; They are all gone out of their way, together become unprofitable. There's NONE that do good. Their THROAT is an OPEN "Sepulcher; with their TONGUES they have used DECEIT, the POISON of "ASPS" is under their LIPS. Whose MOUTH is FULL of "CURSING" & "BITERNESS": Therefore WE ALL
come under the "JUDMENT of ALMIGHTY GOD THE CREATOR. ROMANS 3:10-18...GOD BLESS...
jegjegod 3 years ago
"You are a fucking idiot" Chapter 7, Verse 19, My Little Black Holy Book. Fuck jesus. Fuck God. Right in their supple, homosexual anuses. :)
I bet i'm gonna get some hate flaming for that :)
Neeboopsh 3 years ago
jegjegod : No one giveth a shit about your goofy bible quotes.
auzndm 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why? Just because you an Atheist and you don't believe in God. So if you die, that's
it for you correct? You don't believe all us
has the right to leave for ever with God.
But, if you're not saved you have just lost
your inheritance to live for ever. God Bless.
jegjegod 3 years ago
Stop kidding yourself, you know damn well what happens when you die.
People with brain damage lose their ability to speak, regognize people, remmember things.
And yet you are going to belive that somehow when your whole brain is damaged beyond repair, you'll somehow magicly save your personality and go elsewhere?
There's a reason even religious people cry at funerals.
Deep down, they know exactly whats going on when you die. Not saying you have to like it, i sure don't. But it's real.
saintkamus14 3 years ago
I don't have a need to be saved, but apparently you've bought into "we're all sinners" bullshit...but, whatever keeps you happy, sport. And speaking of bullshit, when you die, be sure you file a report about what heaven is like,huh?
WishboneAshFan 3 years ago
Judgment of Almighty God has already began
for mocking his creation. God declare in
Ecclesiastes 3:11 > He hath made "every thing" beautiful in his time: also he hath set the "world" in their "heart", so that no "man" can find out the work that GOD maketh from the "BEGINNING" to the "END"...
jegjegod 4 years ago
Like "Moses" The Great Servant of God..He was
not able to see the promise land...Because he struck the ROCK with his Rod instead of speaking to the rock so the "water" will come
out...Beause of the he will do the same thing
to the world...we will no be able to explore
the universe and creation of almighty God for
mocking his creation...
jegjegod 4 years ago
Great video, very funny!
Meisterdieb 4 years ago
Lol of course it was a joke, relax guy.
Phantom550 4 years ago
the mosnster lamb 1?
dimlightbulb10 4 years ago
it only seems like nostridamus made accurate predictions because they were made so long ago, the odds of none of his predictions coming true are pretty bad. if i say "its gonna rain" with no specific date or time, the possiblity of rain is open to abosutly any time. it might not rain tomorrow, or the next day, or even that year, but, eventually, its gonna rain. so of couse some of his predictions came truw
dimlightbulb10 4 years ago
The BIBLE is the most accurate prohetic concerning the end of the world..According to
the bible history time line God has warned
us that world will end on 10/21/2011 A.D.
The earth will burned up and the universe with fire and brimstone.
jegjegod 4 years ago
ill keep that in mind when its 2035 and im still laughing at you.
dimlightbulb10 4 years ago
Sunscreen of some sort would be advisable. It will be hot.
rincewind3336 4 years ago
lmao
nxzo2 4 years ago
My video to be or not to be
Proves intelligent design
What did you think?
oh you never
4take4give 4 years ago
Catholic Education? Catholics accept evolution! You probably meant "Christian fundamentalist homeschooling".
rednurse 4 years ago
That was beautiful.
fielsjd 4 years ago
what is your damage_?
type318 4 years ago
LOL that was brilliant. That kind of satirical intelligence need to be seen more often.
TheMonsterPatrol 4 years ago
lol I love sarcastic videos
boorens18 4 years ago
LOL this is the most stupid thing I have ever watched.
NikolajIbKlausen 4 years ago
As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.
The presence of the Oort cloud is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.
If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.
The defining character trait of creationists is lying.
JohnK75136 4 years ago