U call it debunking but a lot of your material uses the words "may have" 3:11 I was looking for a better view of the other side of the debate. Guess i'll keep looking.
I'm not able to continue posting, I'm guessing it's because I've already posted too much at one time. If you are interested in the rest of my response, let me know, and I would be happy to get it to you somehow. Thanks.
Hey, since you have this down to a "science", it should be no problem for a team of intelligent, enterprising scientists to create life from inorganic material. Based on your video, it looks easy enough. Everything just kind of "comes together" on its own. What's that you say? It's never been done? Hmmm...
@JeffAY57 It is difficult to create a cell from scratch because cells have been evolving for 4 billion years. What we have created from scratch are the biological molecules which probably gave rise to cells. Read the links--it would seem you have not done so.
@Ekenedil Sorry. Hiding behind Father Time buys you nothing. Time has no creative power. In fact, observational science tells us that time does just the opposite of what you want. In time, things decay, rust, decompose, dissolve, and fall apart. Without directed, purposeful, intelligent input, time does one thing... it passes. Your philosophy of 'deep time-driven' evolutionism is absurd.
(Gould agrees), as well as philosophical considerations such as the nature/existence/non-existence of good and evil, self awareness, man's propensity to harm and even kill himself, etc. Let's be intellectually honest with ourselves first, and secondly, it seems the burden of proof is upon the evolutionist to prove his theory. thanks for reading.
1. "Showing this wacko as the representative of the "creationist movement" is intellectually dishonest." No it is not. Most creationists believe what he says.
2. Evolution and String theory explain different phenomena, you stupid moron.
3. Matter was created by a process called nucleosynthesis.
@Ekenedil Thank you for your response. Ok, first off, if we argue about (1) it will be purely qualitative and based on our own subjectivity, so I will skip to (2). With regards to your second statement, you are very, very right..... not my point at all. My point is that if you, (A), reject a divine creator, then the origin of matter, (not life), must be the result of modern String Theory, (which now consists of accepting an infinite number of universes happening simultaneously). cont...
@1981mattaa That's the best that modern astronomy and physics can offer those choosing to reject the possibility of a creator concerning the existence of “matter”. This means that you must accept, (B), said String Theory. This observation is singularly about what “must” be adhered to, as well as evolution, if one wishes to dispute the existence of a divine creator. Now for (3). Dude, I get it.. You have apparently taken some classes, and you know what nucleosynthesis is… congratulations.
@1981mattaa I’m also assuming that you mis-spoke when you wrote that “matter” was created by this mechanism, since that would be, not just ridiculous, but incoherent. I would encourage you to consider two things if you want to honestly pursue truth in what you believe. Firstly, I believe that it’s logical to assume that everyone has his or her own subjectivity that is inescapable;
@1981mattaa (you can accept that or reject it as you see fit, but I certainly see it as being in everyone’s best interest to accept, as it causes us to examine the deeper science behind a lot of what is going on now, by having the guts to question conventional wisdom). Secondly, I would encourage you to examine the concept of “motive”, and its relationship to individuals. Once again, you may accept or reject this as you see fit, but I believe it is both reasonable and prudent to
@1981mattaa assume that everyone carries with them a motive. Accept or reject these if you find them to be reasonable; not because it is an idea from a creationist. Just like science, logic should be examined independently of people; just as a thief is capable of speaking the truth, so should science support its own weight with regards to logic. Finally let’s move from the preface of point three to the rebuttal itself. I’m sure you are completely familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment;
or look at the possibility of a Divine Creator; irreducibly complex systems, (the human eye), inconsistency in geological strata; (and circular reasoning using geological strata as a baseline), the assumptions made by those who subscribe to the uniform and constant creations of fossils, (there are fossils of fish in the act of giving birth; it takes a quick, forceful action for a fossil to be created), lack of transitional fossils,
Regardless of what our opinions are, if we aren't ready to challenge them with the best of what "the other side" of the argument has to offer, then we aren’t serious about what we believe. We may say we are; we may even think we are, however we are not. Let's get real guys; either consider Darwinian evolution along with the "String Theory", (in order to explain the appearance of matter in the first place),
I always like to consider the strongest evidence against my position, and that way I can have confidence in the substance of what I choose to believe. Showing this wacko as the representative of the "creationist movement" is intellectually dishonest. It's akin to the creationist saying that, "the evolutionist wants you to believe that your ancestors were monkeys"; that isn't an honest appraisal of the evolutionist's position at all.
There is no solid evidence for new information to enter the genome.
Mutations are almost always harmful or benign. The odds against a "good mutation" happening every split second over the last 4 billion years are astronomical!
Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"
@co2isgoodal "Evolution has been debunked over and over again." Where? By whom? In what journal? Cite your sources. If it were, it would be Nobel Prize worthy.
"Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"" Look up the definition of "scientific theory". Kind of like gravity huh? Now pass 5th grade before commenting further.
@co2isgoodal No, evolution has never been disproved it's only been confirmed. You only say that because you are a scientific illiterate and probably a brainwashed bigot who did not have a proper education.
I'm no expert in this but I'd like to offer up my ideas to you.
There are monkeys, or apes as we are more related, because we evolved from lower forms of apes. At some point in history these apes evolved separately into what we have now, namely, humans, chimps, and orangatangs(horrible spelling lol). So you see we did not evolve from current chimps.
@SwordBlue wow. you spent all that time typing just to dig yourself a huge hole of ignorance.
the theory of a-biogenesis is fully backed up not only by experimentation but by chemestry and the laws of physics. the only location that remains for any kind of supernatural super-being to exist is before the universe existed to set up the whole thing then leave. that is the only point for current science and technology that canot be tested, but i don't think it will be long before that's gone too.
@QCreyton Okay...? I fully admit I don't know all about everything. Super natural and/or scientific but am not about to start the insult game because I really do value everyone just hard to listen to some who completely reject the supernatural when I have experienced it in a big way in my life as have millions and many of whom are non Christian. Anyhow enjoy your weekend.
Honestly. No one on this planet seriously has any perspective on who we really are in the big picture and think by throwing big words around with that they will disprove God and the existence of an all powerful God because of course if he existed to them they would know nothing and have no real power at all. Come on, get real. There is always going to be evidence from things seen that we may never reach a conclusion for unless we know and prove how they got there in the first place.
PS George bush is not my god neither is the pope. I do not claim to know exactly who God is and what he plans but I would rather believe in something I don't fully understand than the mess that exists on this planet. Look how we treat our home, how we treat each other and how we treat ourselves. Not very promising. We claim ourselves to be gods and yet when we fck up again and again we blame WHO?
What happens when the big one hits or the apocalypse does come or all out war or holocaust? Who then will you call on? We all know the answer to that and you can talk and yammer on all you want but we all know who we call on when we have no one to turn to the most tried and true Atheist cannot dispute it. Now comes understanding and getting to know Who/What force did Create this place we live in. How, why and when we may never fully know or understand.
The truth is that all these claims of Creationist and evolutionist that cannot be fully proven through scientific avenues can only be proven through spiritual ones. Oh yeah!;) Evolutionist's have no spiritual avenues to go down. They only have themselves and now so do many creationist because they have stooped to the level of these small minded men who seek only to uses monkey tactics to prove their points.
That is why most real geniuses(they had ideas or believes that were not fully understood and or documented but inspired many others to become greater than they ever would have been otherwise)have been scoffed at and why these opportunist are telling me where I came from and how, all about the universe and multi-verse and everything there is to know about everything. We should be ruling the multi-verse's with EGOS as big as these. You people have the audacity to tell me where I came from.
The fact is(and it's seen all over the scientific community)that if you don't prove every thing that exists with evidence that is seen or that you can touch than it is a lie.
Lol! Lol! Lol! This is funny. Lol! This idiot panel. I should judge my existence through this pile of dung. Lol! Am sure I could find a bumbling evolutionist even though this man did quite well considering the poor week and ignorant panel he had to face but then...What is the point of this post?
Yes, it does. It debunkns the stupid claim of creationism that organisms were created in their present form and it debunks the even stupider straw man that atheists say "something came from nothing".
The model presented in the video is backup up by experimentation and objective evidence. What is the creation model backup up by? The ridiculous speculation of uncultured imbeciles who arbitrarily interpret a stupid Bronze Age text.
I'de love to see creationists attempt to explain the recent discovery of amino acids from a comet. How they may try with their silly narratives, they will always fail.
Do you mind offering any evidence for your claim? You're only raising problematic questions like "which god", "how", and "why", and you also state your incredulity of such topics.
I see QQOQQ, you even have the richard dawkins stumped by creationist question, sorry to stomp on your toes but this was a hoax, the guy who posted this hoax video is a complete censoring twat sorry to say. Im surprised to meet a creationist from the UK, your very rare lol.
No, he did not say that. You misinterpreted him. He said there is A SLIGHT POSSIBILITY that our DNA or our macromolecule ancestors were designed by extraterrestrials.
Ok look, I really can't take you seriously any more. You are misunderstanding things that a child should understand - you are wasting everyone's time.
bear in mind- this is the guy from aronra's recent videos. this is the guy who thinks science says there were blind humans waiting around for the eye to evolve.
when backed into a corner, claim to be privy to mystical wisdom only bestowed on the believer.
Seriously, people without eyes? Try to learn about science before attempting to debate against it. You're quickly becoming more of a laughing stock than venomfangX.
Science has answers you don't know about. These answers work for reasons you don't care to learn.
Simple fact is we're running out of unknowns, and you're desperatly trying to stuff god into the few unknowns we have left.
Oh, and for the record, I am a very spiritual person. I just don't see the point in reducing the universe to only what some bronze-age goat herders could dream up. The real story is much more amazing, and does so much more credit to the creator.
The things we learn about the universe through direct observation. If you insist on being spoonfed everything, then I don't have time for you. I know it's been decades since you sat through an actual science class- it's a whole different world than it was back then. Just look and learn.
Ok, so please can you tell me this: A woodpecker's tongue goes right around the back of it's head and comes out over it's left nostril, can you please give me any intermidiate species, from wha it was to what it is?
This one is easy, this is another creationist argument that is rather patheitc, my explanation will be too long for this comments box, but type in evolution of woodpecker in google and its the first page debunking the creationist bullshit myths.
Before i or anyone does do so, why are you looking for intermediate species of every species in existance, their only needs to be one intermediate fossil to prove evolution and theirs countless. Fossilisation processes are so rare m8 that i doubt every intermediate fossil can be found, but genetics can show the evolutionary tree by showing and comparing extant retro virus groups and sections of genes that are active or inactive as well as other comparisons.
See, this is where you're hitting the wall of running back to Ansers in genesis or whatever every time one of your questions is answered. We don't need an intermediate between every single species to prove that evolution happens.
It's like refusing to believe that a grown man was ever a baby until you see a photo taken at every one of his birthdays.
Not exactly because i wouldnt think evolutionists would say that. Owls arent my speciality, but im familiar with archaeopteryx, this is a half bird, dinosaur fossil, theirs a few found now, over time, speciation occurs through seperated groups. To answer this, we would need to look from this starting point , but the fossil record isnt complete and it doesnt need to be to prove evolution. Archaeopteryx alone is a blow for creationists that has no valid counter claims. thanks
Haha, straight from the creation wiki. Do you understand what a transitional form is? Something with traits from both groups. Can you name me a dinosaur with feathers or a bird with a long bony tail and no beak? And I see you're choosing to ignore microraptor. That was a four-winged glider with feathers that looked even more like a dinosaur than archeopteryx.
Well done, you accept transitional fossils then, woopie so now you dont think the world is 6000 years old, im glad we cleared that up. Yes archaeopteryx was a perching bird but what is that as a point about your god. It seems very strange, you seem to be attempting a cherry picking technique here. Which transitions of the transitions are you talking of precisely.
I did not say that, there are fossils in he ground, we do not know for sure how old they are, less than 10,000 yrs as carbon 14 takes 5,500 yrs to decay 50%.
And we can see their is only 50% in the ground from the original inception.
Your driving me insane, theirs more than carbon dating. Fossils dont have the carbon required for accurate dating, theirs also argon/ strontium, argon/ argon dating and more. Why are you torturing people with this nonesence. No matter what, you cannot prove the earth to be 6000 years old, your ignorant and completely off balance to even try. cheers
No they didnt, if thats the case, show me the scientific journal that showed this, they can be trusted, do you trust tree ring data, kent hovind did and then claimed he didnt when he found that the oldest trees are over 10,000 years old, already the world is older than 6000 years isnt it. As far as ive seen the radiometric dating is highly consistant and i have the references available if youd like to see them. You only have claims, you cannot prove a word you say my friend.
It only takes a minimum of 40 yrs for an object to start to petrify, 24 hrs in a lab.
We see trees in the upright position running thru many rock layers, the rock layer's according to the evolutionist has been their for milion's of yrs.
If this were so then the tree would have been long gne.
You seem to think theirs only one example or one law for everything that happens. Sometimes trees dont decay in forty years at all, let me guess, answers in genesis right. Their are conditions that allow wood to be preserved and guess what, even fossilised, oh yes, even wood can fossilise because it gets replaced with minerals too. Other conditions turn it into coal, so what is your point, where is your proof the earth is 6000 years old, your not answering my questions. thanks
No, I was listening to a Kent Hovind dvd, I have got the whole set.
I can not prove to you the earth is 6000 or 20 billion, like you can not prove to me exactly, all I can go on is what science throw's at us, but carbon 14 and the rest are not reliable..
OMG, science isnt throwing anything, its showing to the best of our abilities and knowledge of our time. Ihad a feeling you have been watching kent hovinds videos lol because the claims are so similar.
Yes it has been proved the earth to be older than 6000 years old, what about the civilisations from 8000 years ago, you cannot deny something just because you want to belief in your fairytales. I accept evidence, not stories and ancient myths......
Ok, listen because I will only say this once. Kent Hovind is a scientifically illiterate imbecile and a sinster clown. I would STRONGLY recommend that you get your information from others sources. You know, like ACTUAL SCEINTISTS who have ACTUALLY graduated kindergarten. . .
You know them all, that would be impressive, name all 13 isotopes used in dating processes then, all of which are consistant and agree with each other. The problem with creationist claims are they take scientific papers that explore the flaws in certain techniques and you assume that means they are wrong and dont work when in fact they are doing good science in making sure they do their best to not get innacurate results. KEEP TRYING QQQOQQ
Then tell me all fourty dating techniques. I would love to see your publications if you have the ability to prove these dating techniques dont work, but i doubt, like with other creationist claims, you havent published one paper, you want to know why, because you have no evidence, its as simple as that, no conspiracy. Its about time you let your mind evolve and get with the reality you are denying yourself
So are you going to answer my question or ignore it like every other theist has done so far, what is your proof, whats the most comelling proof you have that the world is 6000 years old, even one of the science papers im looking at on radiometric data is from a christian who accepts the world to be around 4.56 billion years old, why dont you go and tell him he's wrong. You can accept science and still have room for your god theory, but dont expect anyone to believe it.
Well yeah, but where did you find this story, ive never heard of this, give me the science paper to look it up so i can see what it says.
But you cannot deny radiometric dating just because it conflicts with your hopes. The earth is definately billions of years old i can guarentee, if you take your info from that fraud kent hovind, then you have been brainwashed, his propaganda is seriously flawed and full of lies/deceit and corruption. cheers
ok ive been looking this up and it seems that this red blood cell thing is true, but it doesnt have anything to do with YEC, just an unexpected phenonema. In some special cases when bones fossilise, no bacteria invades the bone in time to decompose it, the bone is fossilised and so the blood cells and even vesicles are preserved in a type of capsule, makes sense considering thats how something would be preserved in the first place. NO bacteria,even the creationist website said it had no bacteria
Why do you expect there to be a God? Why do you expect there to be life after death?
Did you know that death meant the end of life?
See, this is one of the reasons why I find your ideology destructive. It gives you hope based on unfalsifiable speculations. It gives you hope that is probably just wishful thinking and false hope. Atheists' hopes are usually grounded in reality and that is what makes them so much more beautiful and enriching.
End of this life will result in death, I do not know 4 sure if their is a life after death, that's why I have a faith, their are lots of ppl who have N.D.E's.
This planet is awonderful place, look at it's beuty, all the different creatures perfectly adapted to there environment, their has 2 be a creator..
Ok why do you have faith then if you do not know for sure if there is a life after death? Is your faith based on anything at all? Has anyone EVER come back from the dead. Oh an please don't say "Jesus" or "near death experiences". Both can be contested..
The planet is a result of then laws of physics. It is suited to us because of observer bias. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, yes, but whatever originated them does not necessarily have to be "a creator" with a consciousness and purpose in the way you are thinking. It is ALMOST CERTAINTLY not the Abrahamic God that is described in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Do you mean ganymede, jupiters moon. Well now you are in my area of interest and quite an easy one for me to answer. Jupiter has a very big gravitational field and like with most large moons around large planets, have a hot core because of the stresses and strains exerted on the planets by the gravitational pulls, this stretches and strains causing friction, friction generates heat. Io is a fine example with volcanoes erupting from its surface.
errrrrrrrrrrrrr, who said it was 20 billion years old, the age of the universe at best is thought to be around 14 billion years old and this isnt the same age as the solar system. Seriously research cosmology, others will have a tougher go at you than me if you go telling that idea out loud.
No, ive never heard or seen two scientific journals that said two totally different things at all, i mean at all. Where are you getting your dates from because they are aweful. 20 billion years, thats a hell of a leap and i have no book or journal that even comes close to that guess even before huble deep field image technology.
but mostly can shaped eyes are benificial as a telescope tube would be for getting a better view of the stars, this is the simple evolution of an owls eye, its always dependent on its environment and doesnt take much of an evolutionary change to change the shape of the eye, its always about natural selection and time, more time than 6000 years im afraid, I suggest you read legitimate science journals on the subjects before asking, they are plentiful and full of evidence.
See, one question answered so you just throw out another one.
I have a question for you. What would it take to prove it? Your unreasonable doubt is rather tiresome. We have mountains of observed evidence and fossils and what do you have? An ancient myth.
My thoughts exactly, this poor dude has been brainwashed by this creationist crap that im surprised he didnt tell me their are no fossils lol. Ignorance truly is bliss though because now their are groups who pretend to accept fossils and somehow stuff it in their bronze age book, that now they want the fossil of every little thing that has ever existed, even then they wouldnt be happy. This guy isnt the worst though, ive had much worse, even abusive but that tends to be their nature. cheers
Moving the goalpost: the lifeblood of creationism. If they actually defined what it would take to prove evolution in scientific terms, their game would be over.
Like the absence of one transitional fossil in the presence of so many others somehow disproves evolution... what the hell, man?
lol, i know what you mean. Their whole proposition and structure clearly demonstartes they dont have a clue as to what they are even talking about. It is funny how the scientific community sais present evidence then a theory can be justified but creationists cannot do this, so attack the system itself. They do make proposals for evolutionary truth but the terms for proof goes along the lines of creating your own universe in a vacuum flask with life on planets in that flask, weirrrrrd.
yeah i can answer those prophecies, just peoples interpretation of scripture that nobody seems to know was there until it happened, sorry but its called a fairy tale. You creationists are all obsessed with this idea of an end to the world and those in power are trying to make it happen, you are all a dangerous lot obsessed with ending the world for a stupid bronze age belief, dont deny this i read your page.
I wote about that on one of his videos to prove a point that he is uneducated and in no position to argue with scientific work that has evidence to support it, i wished they would work on getting evidence for their theories of a god instead of attacking the non believers, what primative peoples, as primative as their book, shit, no wonder aliens dont want to be associated with us humans, too many are too stupid lol.
I'm guessing you mean the end times. Can you name me a generation which has lived since those prophecies were made who didn't think they were living in the end times? You can impose scripture over anything and make it sound convincing. I don't think that proves your point. Now. Answer my question. What would it take to prove evolution?
Ok, listen, man, if you knew ANYTHING about paleontology then you would know that fossilisation of land animals is a very rare event. That is why we do not have many intermediates for the woodpecker. So what? We can still describe its evolution. It's tongue is a adaptation to its niche.
Obviously you are not going to understand evolution because when it comes to science you don't seem to know anything about ... well ... anything.
Also, I know your game. You post things in the form of a question, but those are things you have no interest in knowing. For you, it's nothing more than a game of "stump the science guy"
You know, every last one of your "questions" has an answer, right? Your refusing to accept them doesn't make them any less valid.
How about the scarred surface of every other rocky planet. Geological activity smoothed over all but the most recent craters here, though.
And the dawkins thing sounds like a quote mine to me. perhaps he was suggesting that that scenerio, however unlikely, is still more likely than the genesis account.
U call it debunking but a lot of your material uses the words "may have" 3:11 I was looking for a better view of the other side of the debate. Guess i'll keep looking.
isaacaaron4jesus 1 month ago
I'm not able to continue posting, I'm guessing it's because I've already posted too much at one time. If you are interested in the rest of my response, let me know, and I would be happy to get it to you somehow. Thanks.
1981mattaa 1 month ago
Hey, since you have this down to a "science", it should be no problem for a team of intelligent, enterprising scientists to create life from inorganic material. Based on your video, it looks easy enough. Everything just kind of "comes together" on its own. What's that you say? It's never been done? Hmmm...
JeffAY57 1 month ago
@JeffAY57 It is difficult to create a cell from scratch because cells have been evolving for 4 billion years. What we have created from scratch are the biological molecules which probably gave rise to cells. Read the links--it would seem you have not done so.
Ekenedil 1 month ago
@Ekenedil Sorry. Hiding behind Father Time buys you nothing. Time has no creative power. In fact, observational science tells us that time does just the opposite of what you want. In time, things decay, rust, decompose, dissolve, and fall apart. Without directed, purposeful, intelligent input, time does one thing... it passes. Your philosophy of 'deep time-driven' evolutionism is absurd.
JeffAY57 1 month ago
(Gould agrees), as well as philosophical considerations such as the nature/existence/non-existence of good and evil, self awareness, man's propensity to harm and even kill himself, etc. Let's be intellectually honest with ourselves first, and secondly, it seems the burden of proof is upon the evolutionist to prove his theory. thanks for reading.
1981mattaa 2 months ago
@1981mattaa
1. "Showing this wacko as the representative of the "creationist movement" is intellectually dishonest." No it is not. Most creationists believe what he says.
2. Evolution and String theory explain different phenomena, you stupid moron.
3. Matter was created by a process called nucleosynthesis.
Ekenedil 1 month ago
@1981mattaa
4. There is absolutely no evidence of "a divine creator". You think that because you are a scientific illiterate.
5. There are transitional fossils. See the links.
6. "burden of proof is upon the evolutionist to prove his theory" Yes. They have.
Ekenedil 1 month ago
@Ekenedil Thank you for your response. Ok, first off, if we argue about (1) it will be purely qualitative and based on our own subjectivity, so I will skip to (2). With regards to your second statement, you are very, very right..... not my point at all. My point is that if you, (A), reject a divine creator, then the origin of matter, (not life), must be the result of modern String Theory, (which now consists of accepting an infinite number of universes happening simultaneously). cont...
1981mattaa 1 month ago
@1981mattaa That's the best that modern astronomy and physics can offer those choosing to reject the possibility of a creator concerning the existence of “matter”. This means that you must accept, (B), said String Theory. This observation is singularly about what “must” be adhered to, as well as evolution, if one wishes to dispute the existence of a divine creator. Now for (3). Dude, I get it.. You have apparently taken some classes, and you know what nucleosynthesis is… congratulations.
1981mattaa 1 month ago
@1981mattaa I’m also assuming that you mis-spoke when you wrote that “matter” was created by this mechanism, since that would be, not just ridiculous, but incoherent. I would encourage you to consider two things if you want to honestly pursue truth in what you believe. Firstly, I believe that it’s logical to assume that everyone has his or her own subjectivity that is inescapable;
1981mattaa 1 month ago
@1981mattaa (you can accept that or reject it as you see fit, but I certainly see it as being in everyone’s best interest to accept, as it causes us to examine the deeper science behind a lot of what is going on now, by having the guts to question conventional wisdom). Secondly, I would encourage you to examine the concept of “motive”, and its relationship to individuals. Once again, you may accept or reject this as you see fit, but I believe it is both reasonable and prudent to
1981mattaa 1 month ago
@1981mattaa assume that everyone carries with them a motive. Accept or reject these if you find them to be reasonable; not because it is an idea from a creationist. Just like science, logic should be examined independently of people; just as a thief is capable of speaking the truth, so should science support its own weight with regards to logic. Finally let’s move from the preface of point three to the rebuttal itself. I’m sure you are completely familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment;
1981mattaa 1 month ago
or look at the possibility of a Divine Creator; irreducibly complex systems, (the human eye), inconsistency in geological strata; (and circular reasoning using geological strata as a baseline), the assumptions made by those who subscribe to the uniform and constant creations of fossils, (there are fossils of fish in the act of giving birth; it takes a quick, forceful action for a fossil to be created), lack of transitional fossils,
1981mattaa 2 months ago
Regardless of what our opinions are, if we aren't ready to challenge them with the best of what "the other side" of the argument has to offer, then we aren’t serious about what we believe. We may say we are; we may even think we are, however we are not. Let's get real guys; either consider Darwinian evolution along with the "String Theory", (in order to explain the appearance of matter in the first place),
1981mattaa 2 months ago
I always like to consider the strongest evidence against my position, and that way I can have confidence in the substance of what I choose to believe. Showing this wacko as the representative of the "creationist movement" is intellectually dishonest. It's akin to the creationist saying that, "the evolutionist wants you to believe that your ancestors were monkeys"; that isn't an honest appraisal of the evolutionist's position at all.
1981mattaa 2 months ago
Creation science is a JOKE. Laugh and laugh HARD.
dkthg 3 months ago
Evolution has been debunked over and over again.
There is no solid evidence for new information to enter the genome.
Mutations are almost always harmful or benign. The odds against a "good mutation" happening every split second over the last 4 billion years are astronomical!
Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked"
Galatians 6:7
co2isgoodal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@co2isgoodal "Evolution has been debunked over and over again." Where? By whom? In what journal? Cite your sources. If it were, it would be Nobel Prize worthy.
"Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"" Look up the definition of "scientific theory". Kind of like gravity huh? Now pass 5th grade before commenting further.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Great Bible verses!!!
jknengr796 3 months ago
@co2isgoodal Thou shallt not bear false whitness.
What you have writen here is simply lies.
Your god is not pleased.
Sweddude 1 month ago
@co2isgoodal No, evolution has never been disproved it's only been confirmed. You only say that because you are a scientific illiterate and probably a brainwashed bigot who did not have a proper education.
Ekenedil 1 month ago
does the word "before" actually have a meaning when you take the big bang as reference point?
nublered 6 months ago
so.....my evolution questions are,
why are there monkeys around today?
will they eventually reach our level of evolution?
what will we evolve into?
what happened before the big bang?
where did matter come from in the first place?
bennolanman 9 months ago
@bennolanman
I'm no expert in this but I'd like to offer up my ideas to you.
There are monkeys, or apes as we are more related, because we evolved from lower forms of apes. At some point in history these apes evolved separately into what we have now, namely, humans, chimps, and orangatangs(horrible spelling lol). So you see we did not evolve from current chimps.
shanewarren123456789 9 months ago
@bennolanman Hi, I will answer your questions too.
America was populated by europeans. Why are there still europeans?
Don't know, science says you can't predict that.
Don't know, science says you can't predict that (within reason)
According to science nobody knows. Nobody even knows if there was a "before" the big bang.
According to science the early stages of the big bang represent the earliest state of matter that we know about.
narco73 8 months ago
That idiot was trying to make a rabbit out of soup!!! Everyone knows you're supposed to use Dinty Moore beef stew! Creatard!
twatoast 1 year ago
The guy is right.
Logically, there should be nothing; physical matter cannot all of a sudden exist.
kub73158 1 year ago
He must be a poor speller: that's Progresso soup, not primordial soup!!!!
criskity 1 year ago
Brilliant work, favourite + subscription + friend request.
simple382 1 year ago
My last comment fits nicely in the middle of my first and third. Had to make correction.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
@SwordBlue wow. you spent all that time typing just to dig yourself a huge hole of ignorance.
the theory of a-biogenesis is fully backed up not only by experimentation but by chemestry and the laws of physics. the only location that remains for any kind of supernatural super-being to exist is before the universe existed to set up the whole thing then leave. that is the only point for current science and technology that canot be tested, but i don't think it will be long before that's gone too.
QCreyton 1 year ago
@QCreyton Okay...? I fully admit I don't know all about everything. Super natural and/or scientific but am not about to start the insult game because I really do value everyone just hard to listen to some who completely reject the supernatural when I have experienced it in a big way in my life as have millions and many of whom are non Christian. Anyhow enjoy your weekend.
SwordBlue 10 months ago
Honestly. No one on this planet seriously has any perspective on who we really are in the big picture and think by throwing big words around with that they will disprove God and the existence of an all powerful God because of course if he existed to them they would know nothing and have no real power at all. Come on, get real. There is always going to be evidence from things seen that we may never reach a conclusion for unless we know and prove how they got there in the first place.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
PS George bush is not my god neither is the pope. I do not claim to know exactly who God is and what he plans but I would rather believe in something I don't fully understand than the mess that exists on this planet. Look how we treat our home, how we treat each other and how we treat ourselves. Not very promising. We claim ourselves to be gods and yet when we fck up again and again we blame WHO?
SwordBlue 1 year ago
What happens when the big one hits or the apocalypse does come or all out war or holocaust? Who then will you call on? We all know the answer to that and you can talk and yammer on all you want but we all know who we call on when we have no one to turn to the most tried and true Atheist cannot dispute it. Now comes understanding and getting to know Who/What force did Create this place we live in. How, why and when we may never fully know or understand.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
The truth is that all these claims of Creationist and evolutionist that cannot be fully proven through scientific avenues can only be proven through spiritual ones. Oh yeah!;) Evolutionist's have no spiritual avenues to go down. They only have themselves and now so do many creationist because they have stooped to the level of these small minded men who seek only to uses monkey tactics to prove their points.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
That is why most real geniuses(they had ideas or believes that were not fully understood and or documented but inspired many others to become greater than they ever would have been otherwise)have been scoffed at and why these opportunist are telling me where I came from and how, all about the universe and multi-verse and everything there is to know about everything. We should be ruling the multi-verse's with EGOS as big as these. You people have the audacity to tell me where I came from.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
The fact is(and it's seen all over the scientific community)that if you don't prove every thing that exists with evidence that is seen or that you can touch than it is a lie.
SwordBlue 1 year ago
Comment removed
SwordBlue 1 year ago
Lol! Lol! Lol! This is funny. Lol! This idiot panel. I should judge my existence through this pile of dung. Lol! Am sure I could find a bumbling evolutionist even though this man did quite well considering the poor week and ignorant panel he had to face but then...What is the point of this post?
SwordBlue 1 year ago
haha!!!
LittoMoonLight 1 year ago
hey the animation is great...however it doesnt "debunk" anything...none of this can be replicated. great try but its still a guess...FAIL
williamscarlet 1 year ago
@williamscarlet
Hello unlettered bigot :)
Yes, it does. It debunkns the stupid claim of creationism that organisms were created in their present form and it debunks the even stupider straw man that atheists say "something came from nothing".
The model presented in the video is backup up by experimentation and objective evidence. What is the creation model backup up by? The ridiculous speculation of uncultured imbeciles who arbitrarily interpret a stupid Bronze Age text.
Ekendil 1 year ago 11
@Ekendil Nicely Pwned sir!!! :)
MattChez 1 year ago
@Ekendil "stupid Bronze Age text"
Only a fool couldn't see wisdom in this miracle.
bogan182 1 year ago
I'de love to see creationists attempt to explain the recent discovery of amino acids from a comet. How they may try with their silly narratives, they will always fail.
amorphousguy 2 years ago 2
God put that there to test our faith in him!!!!
Damn heretic!
LaingGod 2 years ago
Do you mind offering any evidence for your claim? You're only raising problematic questions like "which god", "how", and "why", and you also state your incredulity of such topics.
amorphousguy 2 years ago
@LaingGod
Do you seriously believe that?
Ekendil 2 years ago
@LaingGod, You know, I think you're right: God IS a heretic!
(Think *that* one over for a year or two, my friend.)
EyeLean5280 1 year ago
what the heck???!!! why is a Creationist evangelising on American Idol???!! tha'ts just...EMBARASSING!!!! *CRIIIIIINNNGGGE*
Sophiethefembot 2 years ago
This moron is the perfect speaker for the creationist position. Lets hope the diiot speaks everywhere.
nolobede 2 years ago
Very cool video! I love the american idol clips!
1heersond 2 years ago
Thanks for the vid!
I always love it when religious people tell me the big bang theory says that something came from nothing.
Noooo.... The big bang theory says that everything came from a gravitational singularity. A gravitational singularity is quite far from nothing.
Morlock27 2 years ago
I see QQOQQ, you even have the richard dawkins stumped by creationist question, sorry to stomp on your toes but this was a hoax, the guy who posted this hoax video is a complete censoring twat sorry to say. Im surprised to meet a creationist from the UK, your very rare lol.
01101100d 2 years ago
Well the truth is spreading....
QQOQQ 2 years ago
good video, it deserves alot more viewers.
01101100d 2 years ago
What evidence have we of a huge meteor bombardment.
Recent interview with Dawkins:
He said the latest thinking is that we came from outer space with an intelligence, we are from aliens..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
I put the links and references in the side-bar under "Meteorites containing organic molecles & Earth bombardments:"
Ekendil 2 years ago
No, he did not say that. You misinterpreted him. He said there is A SLIGHT POSSIBILITY that our DNA or our macromolecule ancestors were designed by extraterrestrials.
Ekendil 2 years ago
Well, their is no evidence that it happened the way he hoped, as you can see from this interview, he has run out of ideas for now..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Ok look, I really can't take you seriously any more. You are misunderstanding things that a child should understand - you are wasting everyone's time.
Ekendil 2 years ago
And you do not understand the thing's which are of God..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
I understand the Christian dogmas. Is that what you are referring to?
Have you ever heard the words :
unfalsifiable speculation
wishful thinking
internally inconsistent
?
Ekendil 2 years ago
bear in mind- this is the guy from aronra's recent videos. this is the guy who thinks science says there were blind humans waiting around for the eye to evolve.
geminyo 2 years ago
So the eye came first then the legs grew a few millins yrs later, that would explain my short sightedness..
Cheer's..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Typical creationist copout:
when backed into a corner, claim to be privy to mystical wisdom only bestowed on the believer.
Seriously, people without eyes? Try to learn about science before attempting to debate against it. You're quickly becoming more of a laughing stock than venomfangX.
geminyo 2 years ago
You will not understand the spitual matter's that is why you don't accpt my thought's.
You do not know where the matter came from, I told you where it was from and you have dismissed it.
That's fine but I have given you the answer science can't.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Science has answers you don't know about. These answers work for reasons you don't care to learn.
Simple fact is we're running out of unknowns, and you're desperatly trying to stuff god into the few unknowns we have left.
Oh, and for the record, I am a very spiritual person. I just don't see the point in reducing the universe to only what some bronze-age goat herders could dream up. The real story is much more amazing, and does so much more credit to the creator.
geminyo 2 years ago
The real story is much more amazing, and does so much more credit to the creator.
So what's the "real story" then, please tell.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
The things we learn about the universe through direct observation. If you insist on being spoonfed everything, then I don't have time for you. I know it's been decades since you sat through an actual science class- it's a whole different world than it was back then. Just look and learn.
geminyo 2 years ago
Ok, so please can you tell me this: A woodpecker's tongue goes right around the back of it's head and comes out over it's left nostril, can you please give me any intermidiate species, from wha it was to what it is?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
This one is easy, this is another creationist argument that is rather patheitc, my explanation will be too long for this comments box, but type in evolution of woodpecker in google and its the first page debunking the creationist bullshit myths.
01101100d 2 years ago
Ok, the owl's eye is a can shape, can you please give me or show me an intermidiate species from a normal bird's eye and a owl's present eye.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Before i or anyone does do so, why are you looking for intermediate species of every species in existance, their only needs to be one intermediate fossil to prove evolution and theirs countless. Fossilisation processes are so rare m8 that i doubt every intermediate fossil can be found, but genetics can show the evolutionary tree by showing and comparing extant retro virus groups and sections of genes that are active or inactive as well as other comparisons.
01101100d 2 years ago 2
Evolution is a long draw out process, so their should be a whole load of transition's from a normal bird to an owl or vise versa.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
See, this is where you're hitting the wall of running back to Ansers in genesis or whatever every time one of your questions is answered. We don't need an intermediate between every single species to prove that evolution happens.
It's like refusing to believe that a grown man was ever a baby until you see a photo taken at every one of his birthdays.
geminyo 2 years ago 2
Not exactly because i wouldnt think evolutionists would say that. Owls arent my speciality, but im familiar with archaeopteryx, this is a half bird, dinosaur fossil, theirs a few found now, over time, speciation occurs through seperated groups. To answer this, we would need to look from this starting point , but the fossil record isnt complete and it doesnt need to be to prove evolution. Archaeopteryx alone is a blow for creationists that has no valid counter claims. thanks
01101100d 2 years ago
archaeopteryx was what it is, a perching bird.
They found bird's above and below archaeopteryx in the fossil record..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Haha, straight from the creation wiki. Do you understand what a transitional form is? Something with traits from both groups. Can you name me a dinosaur with feathers or a bird with a long bony tail and no beak? And I see you're choosing to ignore microraptor. That was a four-winged glider with feathers that looked even more like a dinosaur than archeopteryx.
geminyo 2 years ago
Well spotted but im beginning to think this dude has scrambled eggs for breakfast lol.
01101100d 2 years ago
Well done, you accept transitional fossils then, woopie so now you dont think the world is 6000 years old, im glad we cleared that up. Yes archaeopteryx was a perching bird but what is that as a point about your god. It seems very strange, you seem to be attempting a cherry picking technique here. Which transitions of the transitions are you talking of precisely.
01101100d 2 years ago
I did not say that, there are fossils in he ground, we do not know for sure how old they are, less than 10,000 yrs as carbon 14 takes 5,500 yrs to decay 50%.
And we can see their is only 50% in the ground from the original inception.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Your driving me insane, theirs more than carbon dating. Fossils dont have the carbon required for accurate dating, theirs also argon/ strontium, argon/ argon dating and more. Why are you torturing people with this nonesence. No matter what, you cannot prove the earth to be 6000 years old, your ignorant and completely off balance to even try. cheers
01101100d 2 years ago 2
LED 208/LED 206 yes yes yes I know all them, but they can not be trusted!
Many many times 2 lab's got samples and both of them came back way way different.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
No they didnt, if thats the case, show me the scientific journal that showed this, they can be trusted, do you trust tree ring data, kent hovind did and then claimed he didnt when he found that the oldest trees are over 10,000 years old, already the world is older than 6000 years isnt it. As far as ive seen the radiometric dating is highly consistant and i have the references available if youd like to see them. You only have claims, you cannot prove a word you say my friend.
01101100d 2 years ago
It only takes a minimum of 40 yrs for an object to start to petrify, 24 hrs in a lab.
We see trees in the upright position running thru many rock layers, the rock layer's according to the evolutionist has been their for milion's of yrs.
If this were so then the tree would have been long gne.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
You seem to think theirs only one example or one law for everything that happens. Sometimes trees dont decay in forty years at all, let me guess, answers in genesis right. Their are conditions that allow wood to be preserved and guess what, even fossilised, oh yes, even wood can fossilise because it gets replaced with minerals too. Other conditions turn it into coal, so what is your point, where is your proof the earth is 6000 years old, your not answering my questions. thanks
01101100d 2 years ago
No, I was listening to a Kent Hovind dvd, I have got the whole set.
I can not prove to you the earth is 6000 or 20 billion, like you can not prove to me exactly, all I can go on is what science throw's at us, but carbon 14 and the rest are not reliable..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
OMG, science isnt throwing anything, its showing to the best of our abilities and knowledge of our time. Ihad a feeling you have been watching kent hovinds videos lol because the claims are so similar.
Yes it has been proved the earth to be older than 6000 years old, what about the civilisations from 8000 years ago, you cannot deny something just because you want to belief in your fairytales. I accept evidence, not stories and ancient myths......
01101100d 2 years ago 2
Ok, listen because I will only say this once. Kent Hovind is a scientifically illiterate imbecile and a sinster clown. I would STRONGLY recommend that you get your information from others sources. You know, like ACTUAL SCEINTISTS who have ACTUALLY graduated kindergarten. . .
Ekendil 2 years ago
You know them all, that would be impressive, name all 13 isotopes used in dating processes then, all of which are consistant and agree with each other. The problem with creationist claims are they take scientific papers that explore the flaws in certain techniques and you assume that means they are wrong and dont work when in fact they are doing good science in making sure they do their best to not get innacurate results. KEEP TRYING QQQOQQ
01101100d 2 years ago
13? thought 15?
vilidium stromsom dating
Carbon 14
led 208 led 206 Optically Stimulated Luminescence
Racemization
Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
Thermoluminescence Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Potassium- Argon Dating
ummm..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Then tell me all fourty dating techniques. I would love to see your publications if you have the ability to prove these dating techniques dont work, but i doubt, like with other creationist claims, you havent published one paper, you want to know why, because you have no evidence, its as simple as that, no conspiracy. Its about time you let your mind evolve and get with the reality you are denying yourself
01101100d 2 years ago 2
I aint God mate..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
So are you going to answer my question or ignore it like every other theist has done so far, what is your proof, whats the most comelling proof you have that the world is 6000 years old, even one of the science papers im looking at on radiometric data is from a christian who accepts the world to be around 4.56 billion years old, why dont you go and tell him he's wrong. You can accept science and still have room for your god theory, but dont expect anyone to believe it.
01101100d 2 years ago
Well, they found a trex leg bone, and this was dated to be 65 million yrs.
The bone still had red blood cells in it, how could red blood cells be in a bone dated at 65 million yrs?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Well yeah, but where did you find this story, ive never heard of this, give me the science paper to look it up so i can see what it says.
But you cannot deny radiometric dating just because it conflicts with your hopes. The earth is definately billions of years old i can guarentee, if you take your info from that fraud kent hovind, then you have been brainwashed, his propaganda is seriously flawed and full of lies/deceit and corruption. cheers
01101100d 2 years ago
ok ive been looking this up and it seems that this red blood cell thing is true, but it doesnt have anything to do with YEC, just an unexpected phenonema. In some special cases when bones fossilise, no bacteria invades the bone in time to decompose it, the bone is fossilised and so the blood cells and even vesicles are preserved in a type of capsule, makes sense considering thats how something would be preserved in the first place. NO bacteria,even the creationist website said it had no bacteria
01101100d 2 years ago
I don't really know?
I am not sure about the age of the arth thing.
I have my faith, I hope, I expect their to be a God, bacause I do not see any other way this planet came about.
I have my doubts just like the next man, until the day we die, then we may know if I was right or I was wrong..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Why do you expect there to be a God? Why do you expect there to be life after death?
Did you know that death meant the end of life?
See, this is one of the reasons why I find your ideology destructive. It gives you hope based on unfalsifiable speculations. It gives you hope that is probably just wishful thinking and false hope. Atheists' hopes are usually grounded in reality and that is what makes them so much more beautiful and enriching.
Ekendil 2 years ago
End of this life will result in death, I do not know 4 sure if their is a life after death, that's why I have a faith, their are lots of ppl who have N.D.E's.
This planet is awonderful place, look at it's beuty, all the different creatures perfectly adapted to there environment, their has 2 be a creator..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Ok why do you have faith then if you do not know for sure if there is a life after death? Is your faith based on anything at all? Has anyone EVER come back from the dead. Oh an please don't say "Jesus" or "near death experiences". Both can be contested..
Ekendil 2 years ago
The planet is a result of then laws of physics. It is suited to us because of observer bias. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, yes, but whatever originated them does not necessarily have to be "a creator" with a consciousness and purpose in the way you are thinking. It is ALMOST CERTAINTLY not the Abrahamic God that is described in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Ekendil 2 years ago 10
who created your creator? and who created the creators creator? proove it or just shut up you just make yourself look stupid infront of the world
frank3976 2 years ago
How long do you think it would take for a planet to cool down, if ganimead (bad spelling)
is billions of yrs old dont you think it should of cooled off by now?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Do you mean ganymede, jupiters moon. Well now you are in my area of interest and quite an easy one for me to answer. Jupiter has a very big gravitational field and like with most large moons around large planets, have a hot core because of the stresses and strains exerted on the planets by the gravitational pulls, this stretches and strains causing friction, friction generates heat. Io is a fine example with volcanoes erupting from its surface.
01101100d 2 years ago
If it's 20 billion yrs old, don't you think it should have cooled down by now?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
errrrrrrrrrrrrr, who said it was 20 billion years old, the age of the universe at best is thought to be around 14 billion years old and this isnt the same age as the solar system. Seriously research cosmology, others will have a tougher go at you than me if you go telling that idea out loud.
01101100d 2 years ago
Depends who you listen to I guess.
Why is it so many evolutionist's think differently, they can not seem to agree on most subject's.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
No, ive never heard or seen two scientific journals that said two totally different things at all, i mean at all. Where are you getting your dates from because they are aweful. 20 billion years, thats a hell of a leap and i have no book or journal that even comes close to that guess even before huble deep field image technology.
01101100d 2 years ago
but mostly can shaped eyes are benificial as a telescope tube would be for getting a better view of the stars, this is the simple evolution of an owls eye, its always dependent on its environment and doesnt take much of an evolutionary change to change the shape of the eye, its always about natural selection and time, more time than 6000 years im afraid, I suggest you read legitimate science journals on the subjects before asking, they are plentiful and full of evidence.
01101100d 2 years ago
See, one question answered so you just throw out another one.
I have a question for you. What would it take to prove it? Your unreasonable doubt is rather tiresome. We have mountains of observed evidence and fossils and what do you have? An ancient myth.
geminyo 2 years ago
My thoughts exactly, this poor dude has been brainwashed by this creationist crap that im surprised he didnt tell me their are no fossils lol. Ignorance truly is bliss though because now their are groups who pretend to accept fossils and somehow stuff it in their bronze age book, that now they want the fossil of every little thing that has ever existed, even then they wouldnt be happy. This guy isnt the worst though, ive had much worse, even abusive but that tends to be their nature. cheers
01101100d 2 years ago
Moving the goalpost: the lifeblood of creationism. If they actually defined what it would take to prove evolution in scientific terms, their game would be over.
Like the absence of one transitional fossil in the presence of so many others somehow disproves evolution... what the hell, man?
geminyo 2 years ago
lol, i know what you mean. Their whole proposition and structure clearly demonstartes they dont have a clue as to what they are even talking about. It is funny how the scientific community sais present evidence then a theory can be justified but creationists cannot do this, so attack the system itself. They do make proposals for evolutionary truth but the terms for proof goes along the lines of creating your own universe in a vacuum flask with life on planets in that flask, weirrrrrd.
01101100d 2 years ago
How come's all the prophesises are coming together.
Can you explain this?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Excuse me, which ones?
geminyo 2 years ago
yeah i can answer those prophecies, just peoples interpretation of scripture that nobody seems to know was there until it happened, sorry but its called a fairy tale. You creationists are all obsessed with this idea of an end to the world and those in power are trying to make it happen, you are all a dangerous lot obsessed with ending the world for a stupid bronze age belief, dont deny this i read your page.
01101100d 2 years ago
I read his page too.
"Schools: not much"
big surprise there.
geminyo 2 years ago
I wote about that on one of his videos to prove a point that he is uneducated and in no position to argue with scientific work that has evidence to support it, i wished they would work on getting evidence for their theories of a god instead of attacking the non believers, what primative peoples, as primative as their book, shit, no wonder aliens dont want to be associated with us humans, too many are too stupid lol.
01101100d 2 years ago
You answer the q I sent you first..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
I'm guessing you mean the end times. Can you name me a generation which has lived since those prophecies were made who didn't think they were living in the end times? You can impose scripture over anything and make it sound convincing. I don't think that proves your point. Now. Answer my question. What would it take to prove evolution?
geminyo 2 years ago
Ok, listen, man, if you knew ANYTHING about paleontology then you would know that fossilisation of land animals is a very rare event. That is why we do not have many intermediates for the woodpecker. So what? We can still describe its evolution. It's tongue is a adaptation to its niche.
Obviously you are not going to understand evolution because when it comes to science you don't seem to know anything about ... well ... anything.
Ekendil 2 years ago
Also, I know your game. You post things in the form of a question, but those are things you have no interest in knowing. For you, it's nothing more than a game of "stump the science guy"
You know, every last one of your "questions" has an answer, right? Your refusing to accept them doesn't make them any less valid.
geminyo 2 years ago
OMG! AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHH!!
*facepalm*
We know exactly where matter came from because we have cosmological models that have been confirmed by predictions.
Ever heard of the term nuceleosynthesis?
And this is why people laguh at you. Because not only are you ingnorant, you are also UNWILLING TO learn anything!!
Ekendil 2 years ago
How about the scarred surface of every other rocky planet. Geological activity smoothed over all but the most recent craters here, though.
And the dawkins thing sounds like a quote mine to me. perhaps he was suggesting that that scenerio, however unlikely, is still more likely than the genesis account.
geminyo 2 years ago