Love the musical score. It depicts very well the struggle on how that this argument is expressed on this forum. People need to realise that God created man. God is creation. Mankind can create. Man's technology evolves. Science evolves. Our understanding evolves. Nothing is absolute here. These are current THEORIES! In the last hundred years, our understanding of evolution has EVOLVED from a tree to a complex bush. The bible states of God's good news-TO MAN. Meaning, he has selected US.
@ChristisTruth7 All major complex fossils? WTF does that mean exactly? One has a nervous chord. one. None have jaws or teeth or mouths with palates. None have fins. And on and on and on. And you say "all major complex fossils"? Tell you what. Dig a hole, sit in it, pull a rock over it, eat shit and die. Trust me, it will only increase the collective IQ of the human race, and that's a good thing.
The Cambrian explosion all took place in the ocean. It's ironic that you are telling others to research it, when clearly you yourself have not. As for "all major complex fossils found in cambrian", the TEMPLATES are, but the fossils are not. The templates being bilateral symmetry, arthropods, annular creatures that would become tetrapods, etc. The dinos? Well, for a start, look up "tiktaalik". Not a direct ancenstor, but a cousin of the direct anscestor of reptiles.
Fossils evidence supports many theories. However, the further back in time you go, the less likely one can find any viable fossils of the transitional animals that hasn't been reduced by the many seismic events, scavengers, and weather changes that occurred back then. This planet has been through a lot of major changes, especially the continental shifting and atmospheric calamities that followed. This planet will see more of it long after we are gone.
@KJOSCOT "Fossils evidence supports many theories"
I don't think so, the fossils along with the rest of the evidence (geology for instance) when reviewed they're found to be consistent with one model over all others, and it's not the creation de'novo model.
@agentorange20 I wasn't suggesting that it was. Fossil evidence demonstrates a creature, not just hominin, and its ability to adapt to environment. That is one of the many theories discussed here. The point of my last post was that people need to understand that it is all God's creation, and that evolution is a part of, not apart from, the mechanism of life here on this planet. I follow no 'de'novo' models, just the word.
@KJOSCOT sounds fine by me. I have no beef with that, I mean one could argue that the dynamic ability for life to evolve is one of the genuine genius' moves behind it all.
@agentorange20 Yes, it can be argued as such. It is also fascinating to study. Look at our creations. From the first stone tools, which took millions of years to get to the bronze age. After that, it just took a mere thousand years to get to where we are today. Incredible, how our understanding has evolved to what we know and do now. That includes any form of (a)theism that one applies to one's life. There is an intelligent design here. Not just a clump of cells forming a matrix.
I belong to the oldest fossil club in the USA . I have made many videos of beginners fossil classes , field trips and paleontologists lectures just 4 you fossil lovers . Just search under Dry Dredgers or Cincinnati fossils .New videos added monthly !
Dawkins was asked by scientists in a famous interview on TV to give one example where new information arises by chance in matter and couldnt give one example and had to end the interview. Because all mutations studied at the molecular level reduce the information in the geno making evolution impossible. I shall be placing that video on utube shortly, God Bless.
I'd call you stupid...Pascal's Wager isn't a logical argument for the reasons Dawkins gave it's like not caring who your real father,mother or brother is and having the means to find out but instead out of ignorance or fear not doing so, weak...
I am going to chose to believe in God. I see it this way. If I"m wrong I'll die and become dirt, if I'm right Heaven is waiting for me. Call me stupid, but it is a win-win situation for me.
jimbozinoh, you need to look up 'Pascal's wager and the contemporary reuftations to it, you're arguement was more or less like Pascal's and it falls short of reasonable.
rameznabel, I think you're missing the point. If based on Pascals wager alone, 'none of the above' would be equally valid when compated to any of the many 1000's, if not more valid so based on just statistics alone.
You would be wrong. Why bother, most of the bones for a number of the skulls were missing. Have you ever noticed some people have a more pronounced eye brow bone? Some have bigger jaws, noses, eyes, and foreheads. Diversity, variety, I didn't see any connection to apes.
I've seen part 1. D.N.A.? Until all the D.N.A. is mapped I will not readily accept such information. And how can any D.N.A. be present after millions of yrs.. Just can't believe that, not possible it's hard enough from mummies, and their how old?
'And how can any D.N.A. be present after millions of '
it's not, I am talking about the DNA studies comparing neanderthal DNA (28 K) with homo sapiens, and the studies comparing sapiens DNA with other extant apes & all the data evidence in how it shows our relationships there as well. IE, ERV's & Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
28K? is that 28,000 yrs? Relationships doesn't mean desendents, or is that what you think it does? To me it just means we were created by the same God from the earth, not that we evolved from some common ancestor.
'Relationships doesn't mean desendents, or is that what you think it does?'
tell that to a paternity test. DNA analysis can show the degree to which different species are related, just as it can also show 'who's da daddy'. the very process of how DNA works from one generation to the next implies decendents inheriting parentalally combined DNA, ergo it does mean desendents.
we can't test this hypothesis as it persists on using a supernatural, and thus isn't not even falsifiable, so its not science.
besides, we no more need a magical god to explain the relationships of species on earth any more than we need it to explain other natural processes. there is plenty of natural evidence to explain the question, no need to appeal to the supernatural.
Test, no, but the sheer complexity of our universe shouts that there is a God. Otherwise there's to much left to chance. When the possible out come is as big as this universe, really, what are the chances.? 1 to the millionth power? or somehting like that. My belief, my opinion, disagree if you want, but be honest about the impossible odds of life just happening the way it did without a God.
your faith, not based on evidence, but mere faith....it's all yours. you've already given up the arguement of fossils & immeidately moved to complexity, which is in itself unstestable means to adjudicate your position.
we have no idea considering the countless worlds how probable life is, but given the make up of the cosmos, all the elements are already there, there is nothing un-natural which seems to to be required.
I believed on faith, but there is evidence, that supports that the Bible is a accurate account of Jesus's ministry, death, and resurection. You would have to research literature history.
But I will say this that the idea of random mutation, that just happens, over and over, until a beneficial mutation happens over a really........long...... time is just to hard to believe. There's more evidence for the Bible than evolution.
"that the idea of random mutation, that just happens, over and over, until a beneficial mutation happens over a really........long...... time is just to hard to believe. "
And yet, it happened. mutations happen. We can see it happening even today. I don't think you really have a concept of how long millions of years REALLY is.
"There's more evidence for the Bible than evolution"
Sorry, but that's patently false. There is scant corraboration of Jesus in extra-biblical sources, and most of those are writers writing about what the Christians believed, not what the writer believed or could verify.
@SiriusMined Actually, I have come to understand that it's a matter of interpretation of the same evidence. Where you might see a extinction level disaster. I see evidence for a flood. Both result in a large number of dead and buried animals, many no longer alive. And this is pretty much the case when ever a conclusion is based on the scientist's interpretation of the evidence and that interpretation is open to debate. So, to me there IS more evidence for the Bible than evolution. Bye
No, it really isn't a matter of interpretation. The geologic column does not support a global flood. The "large number of dead and buried animals" left by a flood leaves a DIFFERENT pattern than what is observed.
@SiriusMined Calling names doesn't change the fact that it is interpretations of the same evidence that can be argued. Especially when it is not conclusive. You just want it your way, it doesn't matter that there's a valid point or not you'll argue to the bitter end. And it isn't my unlearned interpretations. It's the interpretations of scienctists who can not justify evolution in the face of the evidence. And I'm not only talking about those that were or are Christians, but secular ones.
"it doesn't matter that there's a valid point or not you'll argue to the bitter end."
Another ironic statement on your part.
The DNA evidence alone would be enough. The geological evidence is icing on the cake
What's funny though is that you'll look at 2 or 3 creationists with a background in geology, and take their word for it, but ignore the overwhelming number that don't accept your creationist "science"
@SiriusMined Wow, you said alot. Not sure where to start but to point out the fact you don't know what I've read or who I've learned anything I know from. That's a pretty big assumption (insulting) on your part. The overwhelming amount of information you throw at me only proves my point that it is interpretation of evidence from one point of view or another not a conclusive inmoveable law or fact. Oh, I think anything that can be "falsified" can't be true, how can that be part of science??
@SiriusMined "And yet, evolution can be falsified" My point exactly, if it was TRUE, you COULDN'T falsify, you would always have contradictions in ANY OTHER explanation of the facts. Evolution is full of contradictions, and outright frauds, granted by over zealous individuals, but frauds none the less many of which, last I heard, is still used as examples for evolution. Solve all the contradictions, get rid of the known frauds, and you might be able to convince the questioning minds.
Uh, no. That's not how it works. A model/theory in science is denoted as tentative as is *possibly* could be falsified (shown to be incorrect) were it found that many lines of evidence were not congruent or consistent with the rest of the body of evidence & those outside of it. Take for instance geology/geochemistry with regards to the age of the earth. If the earth really was young, evolution couldn't be true, & yet the earth is quite old
@vbirdieb 'Every attempt I've made to point any of them out has always been rejected, for whatever reason they decide is good enough"
Maybe it has less to do with that & more do with the fact you don't know WTF you're talking about? After all, earlier you clearly didn't understand the concept of falsifiability, which is a staple demarcation of the scientific method, so how could one really think you know what you're talking about? Don't be a coward, put up or shut up.
@agentorange20 Slow down and don't try to answer when your tired, I make mistakes when I'm tired or try to go to fast.
I understand the definitiion, but if your base is false to begin with you will always find the answer you want, the wrong one. You have to start with absolute facts to get the absolute truth. If you refuse to consider evidence that is demonstrated over and over again, wouldn't that make you willfully ignorant? That's true regardless of who you are.
@vbirdieb science doesn't work by assuming its base is even correct, but the fruits of science & its accuracy in explaining nature demonstrate the picture it provides is one of utility. if it wasn't accurate, we wouldn't be talking over the internet right now.
Well, there *was* Piltdown man, but that was shown to be wrong many decades ago (hence the was), no anthropologists refer to it today as evidence for human evolution only creationists do. And there are plenty of others which show the intermediates anyway. Besides, a single fraud doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the data is wrong.
@agentorange20 Breathe much? You know, if you don't get enough oxygen, you kill brain cells. Maybe that's why you ignore the contradictions, because I think you know what they are, and you certianly can find them like I did. All by your lonesome self.
@vbirdieb no no no. every scientific theory needs to be potentially falsifiable. if you come up with an idea that no one can prove wrong, like if i said on some random planet in another galaxy theres a 700 foot tall teddy bear, then thats called an unfalsifiable hypothesis and they are completely unscientific. also we have gotten rid of the hoaxes after the scientists themselves outed them to be hoaxes. we admit when we make mistakes and move on. thats part of science.
@ihmen NO, what you've just put forth is UNPROVABLE, and definitely unscientific. Absolute truth cannot be falsified, because it would always be proven to be true. If there is any room for another just as plausible answer, then you haven't found or proven the truth of your theory or supposition.
Study your own history of how long it took to remove just ONE of those mistakes. And what about all the hipe about Ida, then the not so well known contradictions or oppositions? Just saying.
@vbirdieb thats what sceince is all about, getting closer to the truth with every new bit of evidence that comes in. it would be very unscientific and dishonest to claim an idea is the absolute truth before seeing if the evidence actually supports it. and yet that is exactly what creationists do. they conclude everything they believe is the absolute truth before even looking at the evidence. evolution has many ways of falsification. find a true chimera and evolution is toast.
In principle I would agree, but that isn't how science works. Science is a process of refinement (reductionism) over time, it's not like religion which decrees by fiat how something works. Science is all about evidence & testability.
'how long it took to remove just ONE of those mistakes'
It took a few decades, but Piltdown man is but *1* piece of all the collective evidence, & not been used as evidence for many decades.
@vbirdieb "it is interpretations of the same evidence that can be argued"
Clearly it is not. Clearly we both cannot be looking at both human chromosome 2 fusion, ERV's, GULO, & a plethora of intermediate specimens for many, many lineages and claim they do not represent some sort of biological changes overtime.
@agentorange20 One little difference in the DNA sequeneces can cause a mutation that will kill or disfigure a living creature, and you want me to accept without question what you believe to be true? You can find what I found if you look. Every attempt I've made to point any of them out has always been rejected, for whatever reason they decide is good enough.
@vbirdieb "One little difference in the DNA sequeneces can cause a mutation"
uh, a difference in the genome relative to the parents gene pool IS a mutation, there is no if or can there. A change IS a mutation. and no, not all mutations are harmful, most are actually neutral. In humans for instance each offspring has, on average ~ 175 single base point mutations neither of their parents had, while each human has ~ 3 billion base pairs, it's but a small change & it doesn't kill them at all.
@agentorange20 Are you talking mutations or variations (recombinations) of the genes? Anything outside of normal parameters is detramental to the offspring. Things that aren't normally seen, like black people with blue eyes, isn't outside the parameters, just rare.
@vbirdieb 'If you refuse to consider evidence that is demonstrated over and over again, wouldn't that make you willfully ignorant?'
I've not said I disregard evidence, I don't. Only that already long debunked & outdated evidence like Piltdown I do not cite as evidence, while you do. mutations are a form of recombination.
"Men who don't question anything beyond evolution??"
They do question it honey, it's not a presumption, the belief of it only exists as a matter of consequence of over all collective of facts which have been tested repeatedly.
But the existence of a "god" is even more unlikely than the evolution of the first bacteria on earth. Isn't it?
You try to explain the existence of some primitive lifeform (even us) by postulating a supernatural beeing out of nowhere. You turn it all upside down ... First there was a supernatural perfect beeing just to create such primitve beeings like bacteria and us (compared to god we are very primitive).
In your own private little world, only you can understand. Go bother someone else if all you want to do is throw insults to vague to understand. Then pull something out your ass that no one but you (or someone who reads german) can understand. YippieHaHaHa
Deine Dummheit ist der beste Beweis dafür, dass es keinen Gott gibt. Egal, ob du das glaubst oder nicht. Wer an Gott glaubt, ist zurückgeblieben. Mindestens 4000 Jahre ;-)
I did not know, but I assumed that you can not understand german. This was a little scientific experiment to verify my opinion about you and you cooperated very well. Thank you. NOW I know. Hypothesis - Experiment - Validation - Knowlege. That's the scientific way.
It seems, that only one of us is living in a small (minded) world. A private little word, so little, that it fits perfectly and smoothly between the covers of a tiny meaningless ancient book.
This is the truth. Believe it or not.
Why I do this? To give you a taste of your own arrogance. Do I bother you? Tell your god(s).
Jerks are people who believe in spooky beeings without having any evidence and for no reason except their fear about what will happen to them after life ...
So long ... and have a nice life. Enjoy it. It's the only one you will ever have.
So, I was human and responded like one. You called me names first. Don't have to worry about that anymore. Your so called experiment did accomplish something I'll never fall in this kind of trap again, God willing. I hope you'll find God, but, if not the last laugh won't be on me. Bye
I called you names? No. I told you what my impression of you is. Someone who believes in a ancient meaningless book is retarde. Believe it or not. People like you tend to feel superior, because they believe to be something "special" created by a superior beeing. And this is, where that special kind of arrogance comes from. And that's the reason because over and over again some people feel free to supress or even kill other people in the name of their (!) "god".
I told you I couldn't read german. The first time you used it. And you were being decietful from the begining. I was honest. You were being cryptic, and therefore arrogant in your opinion of your superiority. I just said I wasn't going to argue about the exsistence of God. But stated that I did believe the Bible tells the truth. And made a suggestion. YOUR the one who was looking for a fight, not me. I was trying to avoid it. Did I fall for your trap, yes. Does that make me a jerk, no
God is real. Believe it or not. That's decietful and arrogant.
Reason is better than faith. That's not based on arrogance but on evidence. Faith won't bring you mobile phones, tv, computers, internet, health care and so on. You dont't believe in science? Stop using it's gifts.
To believe in something or someone without evidence and to believe an ancient book tells the "truth" makes you a jerk.
@YippieHaHaHa I believe something you don't....makes me...a jerk??? And speaking german when you know I can't. Makes you a jerk. The pendulum swings both ways. You can't argue that I'm arrogant without proving or showing your arrogance.
Study history and you will find out many early scienctists were Christian. Is there a reason why your trying to make science a religion? As far as I'm concerned God created everything we are discovering. Why would I reject what God gave humanity.?
No, only 1% of our D.N.A. at that time was unraveled. It only takes 3? cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature. So any difference is a very big difference.
'When the possible out come is as big as this universe, really, what are the chances.?'
you have no evidence to support this claim. are you kidding, do you realize how old, & large the universe is? Consider the magnitude, size, age, & number of galaxies (many 100's of billions at least) stars (trillions) planets, over the age of the universe breifely, & its more obvious such outcomes are not miracles in anyway. no more so than how a rainbox forms.
'No, only 1% of our D.N.A. at that time was unraveled'
i think you mean mapped, and the entire human genome was mapped YEARS ago, as was many other species.
'cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature'
such mutations wouldn't be inherited, as get this, there would be no offspring. other, more common point mutations, which occur per generation wouldn't kill the organism, you're living proof w/ your 150 different changes when compared w/ your parents.
" It only takes 3? cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature. "
3 Chromosomes have a thousands of genes. The human genome has about 23,000 genes. And as much as 97% of our DNA does nothing. This is a result of many of the neutral mutations, over millions of years.
If some icon of society wants you to conform to BS beliefs, then the first parts of the indoctrination is to convince you that objective and honest absolute testing and seeing if it is true or not is not part of this pseudoscience of evodelusion. If you want to make a cult member then teach them that the truth doesn't matter. What the cult members believe is all that counts.
Who told you that absolute evidence is not needed to form conclusions? Why did you allow them to take your honesty.
Religion does not equal truth. Belief in things that cannot be proven is in Evodelusionism, which is a faith based religion. All beliefs in things that have no absolute proof is idiotic and causes war, hate, fear, and pretty much all that is wrong with our world. If you want to be free, then stop believing in crap. Follow your doubts, they are your friend.
There is proof, some people are just too blind to see it. Try watching the video again, or actually researching it. Evolution isn't a religion, there are no rules to follow. I stopped believing in crap the day I stopped believing in God.
Another excellent video. Sometimes the simple presentation is the best one. And there are more of our ancestors coming out of the Afar every year.The ones I'm hoping to see are the Miocene transitional forms before A. anaemesis (when we were still mostly arboreal).
no one believes whales became cows. Creationists believe that evolutionists believe its the other way around, but evolutionists know they have a common ancestor, and do not descend from one another, as they are both artiodactyla. Asses are perissodactyla, another mammal group, so your ass is still less related to them, or did you mean something else?:)
** "Get real. evolution is a well demonstrated fact. It is backed by tons of cientific EVIDENCE. a word not familiar to religion." **
'Evolution' only means 'change' and thus is the normal function of life and reproduction. Yes there is plenty of scientific evidence to confirm 'evolution which everyone accepts.
What the majority of people do not accept on our planet is the idea that over a vast period of time - manKIND descended from a pond full of bacteria. Your ToE.
And the comparison does not end there, as both were disbelieved during their lives, while about a century later most people were convinced of their ideas, as both ideas passed all thinkable tests of credibility. People accept evolution because it has proven to work in fields like medicine, petrology, biology and sedimentology. People find oil using the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. How many people find oil using flood geology?
"Pasteur then undertook experiments to find where these bacteria came from, and was able to prove that they were introduced from the environment. This was disputed by scientists who believed they could spontaneously generate. In 1864, the French Academy of Sciences accepted Pasteur's results."
** "People accept evolution because it has proven to work in fields like medicine, petrology, biology and sedimentology" **
The theory of evolution has keep manKIND from progressing in these fields. WHY? Because scientists have had this dogma around their collar for the last 200 years.
Just a few years after Darwin published his Origin of the Species every evolutionist believed that life generated spontaneously. It took one man to prove them all wrong.
"The theory of evolution has keep manKIND from progressing in these fields. WHY? Because scientists have had this dogma around their collar for the last 200 years."
Are you actually saying petrology has suffered from this "dogma?" Can you please give me ONE name of a petrologist who finds oil using flood geology?
The origin of life is still unexplained, but the models proposed for its origin are rather more advanced that mice soming from dirty cloths. Please dont use strawmen.
** "Are you actually saying petrology has suffered from this "dogma?" Can you please give me ONE name of a petrologist who finds oil using flood geology?" **
Why do evolutionists always discuss the flood geology when the Great flood only lasted one year? Plus it never affected the sea creatures.
Uh...what are you trying to say? It's only lasted one year, so petrologists don't use flood geology? We shouldn't discuss events that lasted only one year? Is that a logical explanation of some kind?
It never affected the sea creatures? What about coral reefs? Have you any idea about how sensitive they are to environmental changes? A worldwide flood would have wiped them all out. Did Noah have a coral reef on the ark or something?
"The Pope's last words to Galileo - after the Pope had been advised by all of his science advisors that they had the empiric evidence, and that 98.5% of scientists were against Galileo."
Funny example. Religious people tried to discredit Darwin just like they discredited Galileo, not because of any sensible argument against their theories, but because they didn't want to lose their position as teachers of the common people. Pure selfish shortsightedness.
** "Religious people tried to discredit Darwin just like they discredited Galileo, not because of any sensible argument against their theories, but because they didn't want to lose their position as teachers of the common people. Pure selfish shortsightedness." **
All of Galileos peers came out against him - it is very similar today - 98.5% of the scientists oppose the truth to support the theory of evolution because to do otherwise would risk their grants & salaries.
I'm not denying that Galileo found heavy opposition. However, 99,999 % of the scientists accept the round world hypothesis. According to your logic, that would mean the earth is flat because the scientists "conspire" to hide the "truth." Scientists accept evolution for a reason (better said, several thousands of them). Don't believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, but watch the video again. It's creationism which can't accept the truth, because it threatens their medieval, childish worldviews.
..... our solar system and was FLAT did not conspire to hide the truth. It was like the theory of evolution they THOUGHT they were right and everyone else was wrong. The scientists read the signs wrong.
Since Darwin published his origin of the Species 95% of the material arguments have been rejected by modern evolutionists and the other 5% is under investigation.
95%? Where did you get that number? You're getting boring when you're talking nonsense, you know. Can you name some material "truths" which are willfully rejected by evolutionists?
Galilei's theory was accepted because it explained phenomena better than previous models, just like Darwin's theory. If you want to replace evolution, provide a better working model. No one has managed to get even near.
** "95%? Where did you get that number? You're getting boring when you're talking nonsense, you know. Can you name some material "truths" which are willfully rejected by evolutionists?" **
First let's look at your alleged fossil evidence. If you locked 100 evolutionists in a room, and asked them to draw up a list of the alleged human ancestry from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of chimp / man you would get 100 different lists
Typical creationist cop-out. You can't support your numbers when I ask you to, so you start another subject. However, to show you that I can answer your challenges, I will do so.
The most important reaon that scientists do not agree on hominid classification is because paleoanthropology is science, where different insights coexist, not religion, where people are persecuted for alternating opinions.
Furthermore, of the 100 scientists, I think no one will put H erectus before A afarensis, for example. The disagreements are about very closely linked fossils, like, for example, H. heidelbergensis and erectus, or A. africanus and boisei. Discussion makes good science, people mindlessly agreeing with each other doesn't.
Now please answer me: Where did you get your numbers, and which material truths are rejected by evolutionists?
The only thing those fossils have in common is your belief. Not one single person on this earth knows what they are. For all you know they were genetic experiments from space aliens, dropped of in ancient times and none of them are related. The only thing you have is guessing and belief. Sideways logic is where belief destroys all logic and reason, so you project what you want to believe on those fossils, on yourself and others. It is intellectual dishonesty, making all of you HEMG liars.
What is your explanation, then, for the trends observed in fossil records? Why can we see changes in fossil assemblages when looking at different strata? I say an observable process (evolution) is responsible for this, space aliens or non-human designers haven't been observed. That's why my hypothesis is more valid than the one you describe. Everything in science is belief according to your logic, except for mathematics.
The only thing you have is fossils and opinions of humans who have agendas and emotional problems with objective reason. Humans project beliefs on the universe, have from the beginning. It is called mythology.
Those fossils are almost all, just extinct species that did not continue according to the fossil record. Those that remain are still the same species today.
In functional science you can perform experiments to test a theory. In evodelusion you can't. There is no way to project the study of genetics over millions of years and do any experiments that take that long. So, it is wide open to religious fanatics and believers in mythology. ERV's mean nothing as well. There is no way to know how they got there when and why. Conjecture by believers is not science it is religion.
"In functional science you can perform experiments to test a theory. In evodelusion you can't"
Sure we can gramps, the model predicts that we aught to find evidence in many independent fields which all point to the same model, & what do you know, genetics, paleontology, embryology, etc. & what do you know, we find just that.
Common genetics is not proof of any creature ever changing morphology ever. As a matter of fact all of the genetic experiments show just the opposite. The creatures, plants, do not change shape and the hybrids are predictable according toe the laws of genetics.
The study of embryos, has nothing to do with the fact that no creature has ever changed morphology or jumped species.
Get real.
The only thing shown in the physical world is no proof of evolution. Just crap beliefs systems, HEMG.
'Common genetics is not proof of any creature ever changing morphology ever. "
The worlds biologists would disagree.
"The creatures, plants, do not change shape"
Those fossilized in the geological strata obviously have, & its odd in their order of succession that we find unique body plans appearing only in succession.
" appearing only in succession." There is nothing odd about it at all. There is no tie between creatures. There are no transitional features on any fossils, just complete creatures; no partial legs or partial fins or partially developing anything that would show a slowly changing morphology as you fools believe.
"There is no way to project the study of genetics over millions of years and do any experiments that take that long."
We don't project it, there is no need to, we refer to the genomes as biological track records for hereditary relationships, just like a big extended paternity tests.
"we have mountains of evidence which is consistent" In 40 years I have looked at "mountains of your evidence" and there is no proof of evolution. That is a PERIOD.
Only a closed minded, indoctrinated, weak willed fool can "see" evolution where there is no evidence to back it up.
Hypothesis, with out being able to do empirical testing is not a good choice for a scientist. When I realize that, I chose to pursue real science, physics, math, electronics and led to me developing the best hot tubs in the world. To the owners of these hot tubs, they benefit and rave about them. I chose hot tubs because it has the least amount of negative results possible and the most positive results for health and well being. It is my yogic, yama and niyama stance.
"ERV's mean nothing as well. There is no way to know how they got there when and why"
How: Being inserted via a virus, hence the name endogenous retroVIRUS. When: we can deduce which were inserted prior to others based on relationships & nested hierarchy. Where: this is easily identified as we find them in identical genomic locations across numerous species, again, genetic relationships via descent w/ modification explain why this is so.
** "According to your logic, that would mean the earth is flat because the scientists "conspire" to hide the "truth." Scientists accept evolution for a reason (better said, several thousands of them). Don't believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, but watch the video again. It's creationism which can't accept the truth, because it threatens their medieval, childish worldviews." **
The many scientists who believed the planet Earth was the centre of .....
2) You must be joking - ay? Evolutionists do not know what a poor dead disabled pygmy looks like. Six years ago - they found a dead pygmy and said he must be a new sub-species and called him Homo floresiensis aka the Hobbit.
Google:
Were Homo floresiensis just a population of myxoedematous endemic cretin Homo sapiens?, anthropology
** "it has been observed that tall people are somehow more atractive than short people. the average highth today is much taller than a couple centuries ago. That is EVOLUTION." **
1) So the scientists are wrong to say it's because: "We eat more nourishing food"?
** "we eat better, and that contributes have taller children than their parents...
again: that is EVOLUTION." **
A particular species eating better may do lots of good things for that species - but in a million years or two - it will not make that species evolve into a different species - THUS you have no evidence for your theory of evolution.
** That article says the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove (were you trying to prove something?).
"Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths."
Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant. I quoted the article because you hadn't understood what it was about, so I thought that would clarify things. Obviously, I was wrong, you still don't understand.
As for the humans-elephants-chimps example, I'd like to know what the purpose of this game of yours is, if you don't mind.
** "As for the humans-elephants-chimps example, I'd like to know what the purpose of this game of yours is, if you don't mind" **
You argue that I do not understand the New Scientist article with reference to your alleged TREE OF LIFE. I contend that there is not one person on the planet Earth who understands the alleged evidence offered up. You are suddenly told that: "there is no TREE - it is now a web or bush."
Plus you must now accept GHT & Hybridization on pain of death.
** "religion teaches having faith, even against strong evidence, is a virtue...
dangerous, dangerous... " **
Whereas evolutionists have faith that that everyone will accept their hypothesis as correct with zero evidence and 150 years of continuous falsehoods and deception.
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
** "If it wasn't for scientists you couldn't be writing your wrong ideas on line.
you couldn't watch TV. you couldn't use electricity, medicine, cars, etc.. And evolution is not a hypothesis, is a solid, well demonstrated theory, reafirmed with tons of evidence. but, go ahead and continue to be a blind fanatic." **
Why do evolutionists grab hold of the skirt of science? To give the impression to the world that their theory has something to do with true science - it doesn't.
** "what is your scientific theory of the origen of species?" **
Well Darwin did not answer that question in his book - 'Origin of the Species' did he? Remember all evolutionists falsely believed that life generated spontaneously. That was a bad start for his book published in 1859 was it not?
Science is knowledge - The big and exciting things are the discoveries of God's creations. In the race of discovery - the race is 1,000 miles and science has taken just one step.
..... bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
Dagan dubbed Bork's result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the tree-of-life concept was redundant.
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
WHY did they make up evidence for 150 years - when we told them all along it was false?
Quotes from two top evolutionists:
A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That .......
** "We have a lot more knowledge now than Darwin, but he was in the right track." **
If he was on the right track - why did it take 150 years before you realised that your alleged TREE OF LIFE was just a mirage?
AND worse - How was it possible to produced alleged peer reviewed papers, essays and books for your alleged empirce evidence when your alleged TREE OF LIFE did not exist?
If you placed 100 evolutionists in a locked room and requested them to draw up a list of the alleged ancestry line of humans from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp / man they would give you 100 different lists.
Quote:
++There is no unanimity among paleoanthropologists as to the classification of human fossil forms preceding the classical Neanderthal in Europe.++
The Homo Sapiens Omo 1 looks like a Terminator skull...LMAO Now we know where Arnie's bloodline originates, eh?
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago in playlist More videos from agentorange20
i hope they dont find my neighbors skull in the future, they may think we all looked like that ugly bastard
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And where does George W. Bush fit in on the evolutionary scale?
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
To me, thats true. Evolution is real. Cavemen and humanity.... Both are real. But evolution is not over !, don't you know that.
1111goodmorning 1 year ago
Love the musical score. It depicts very well the struggle on how that this argument is expressed on this forum. People need to realise that God created man. God is creation. Mankind can create. Man's technology evolves. Science evolves. Our understanding evolves. Nothing is absolute here. These are current THEORIES! In the last hundred years, our understanding of evolution has EVOLVED from a tree to a complex bush. The bible states of God's good news-TO MAN. Meaning, he has selected US.
KJOSCOT 1 year ago
Awesome those are definitely monkey man skulls. Great evidence! carbon dating too!
myjumbalaya 1 year ago
@ChristisTruth7 All major complex fossils? WTF does that mean exactly? One has a nervous chord. one. None have jaws or teeth or mouths with palates. None have fins. And on and on and on. And you say "all major complex fossils"? Tell you what. Dig a hole, sit in it, pull a rock over it, eat shit and die. Trust me, it will only increase the collective IQ of the human race, and that's a good thing.
Have a nice day!!
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@ChristisTruth7 Atheism is a faith, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Please take a logic class.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ChristisTruth7
The Cambrian explosion all took place in the ocean. It's ironic that you are telling others to research it, when clearly you yourself have not. As for "all major complex fossils found in cambrian", the TEMPLATES are, but the fossils are not. The templates being bilateral symmetry, arthropods, annular creatures that would become tetrapods, etc. The dinos? Well, for a start, look up "tiktaalik". Not a direct ancenstor, but a cousin of the direct anscestor of reptiles.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@ChristisTruth7 "Where are the other millions of transitionals for all the other kinds of animals?"
In museums & books.
"Why are all major complex fossils found in cambrian?"
They're aren't. You wont find any mammals, reptiles, fish, birds in the cambrian era.
"how come there are no transitionals leading up to the dinosaurs? Where did the dinos come from?"
There were, they were known as archosaurs.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 & ChristisTruth7:
Fossils evidence supports many theories. However, the further back in time you go, the less likely one can find any viable fossils of the transitional animals that hasn't been reduced by the many seismic events, scavengers, and weather changes that occurred back then. This planet has been through a lot of major changes, especially the continental shifting and atmospheric calamities that followed. This planet will see more of it long after we are gone.
KJOSCOT 1 year ago
@KJOSCOT "Fossils evidence supports many theories"
I don't think so, the fossils along with the rest of the evidence (geology for instance) when reviewed they're found to be consistent with one model over all others, and it's not the creation de'novo model.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 I wasn't suggesting that it was. Fossil evidence demonstrates a creature, not just hominin, and its ability to adapt to environment. That is one of the many theories discussed here. The point of my last post was that people need to understand that it is all God's creation, and that evolution is a part of, not apart from, the mechanism of life here on this planet. I follow no 'de'novo' models, just the word.
KJOSCOT 1 year ago
@KJOSCOT sounds fine by me. I have no beef with that, I mean one could argue that the dynamic ability for life to evolve is one of the genuine genius' moves behind it all.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Yes, it can be argued as such. It is also fascinating to study. Look at our creations. From the first stone tools, which took millions of years to get to the bronze age. After that, it just took a mere thousand years to get to where we are today. Incredible, how our understanding has evolved to what we know and do now. That includes any form of (a)theism that one applies to one's life. There is an intelligent design here. Not just a clump of cells forming a matrix.
KJOSCOT 1 year ago
I belong to the oldest fossil club in the USA . I have made many videos of beginners fossil classes , field trips and paleontologists lectures just 4 you fossil lovers . Just search under Dry Dredgers or Cincinnati fossils .New videos added monthly !
flyingscience 1 year ago
God damn! Skhull V is one robust ass mutha fucka! slightly neanderthal looking
maximusclecyclone 2 years ago 2
Skhull V is hotly contested. Some think it's neanderthal - modern hybrid, and I'm inclined to think that way too.
KateFan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins was asked by scientists in a famous interview on TV to give one example where new information arises by chance in matter and couldnt give one example and had to end the interview. Because all mutations studied at the molecular level reduce the information in the geno making evolution impossible. I shall be placing that video on utube shortly, God Bless.
EvolutionNoEvidence 1 year ago
I'd call you stupid...Pascal's Wager isn't a logical argument for the reasons Dawkins gave it's like not caring who your real father,mother or brother is and having the means to find out but instead out of ignorance or fear not doing so, weak...
AfricanAtheist83 2 years ago
I am going to chose to believe in God. I see it this way. If I"m wrong I'll die and become dirt, if I'm right Heaven is waiting for me. Call me stupid, but it is a win-win situation for me.
jimbozinoh 2 years ago
jimbozinoh, you need to look up 'Pascal's wager and the contemporary reuftations to it, you're arguement was more or less like Pascal's and it falls short of reasonable.
agentorange20 2 years ago
But what if after you die you meet the god of another religion? you lose!
bombarderoazul 2 years ago
i agree but please which god you are going to believe in and make sure that this is the right one to believe in ?????????
rameznabel 2 years ago
rameznabel, I think you're missing the point. If based on Pascals wager alone, 'none of the above' would be equally valid when compated to any of the many 1000's, if not more valid so based on just statistics alone.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Okay then. I have a 2:100000 shot at winning, you guys have a 1:100000 shot. This still put ANY religion ahead of NONE.
jimbozinoh 2 years ago
Loved the videos... I particluarly like the Amud 1 specimen. I'm sure various churches would love to destroy all of these specimens.
crchrdsn 2 years ago
You would be wrong. Why bother, most of the bones for a number of the skulls were missing. Have you ever noticed some people have a more pronounced eye brow bone? Some have bigger jaws, noses, eyes, and foreheads. Diversity, variety, I didn't see any connection to apes.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
vbirdieb, 'more pronounced eye brow bone'
some people yes, but on the order of magnitude that we see w/ these & other specimins.
'i didn't see any connection to apes'
& you watched pt 1? & you're familar w/ the all genetic evidence which is also consistent?
agentorange20 2 years ago
I've seen part 1. D.N.A.? Until all the D.N.A. is mapped I will not readily accept such information. And how can any D.N.A. be present after millions of yrs.. Just can't believe that, not possible it's hard enough from mummies, and their how old?
vbirdieb 2 years ago
'And how can any D.N.A. be present after millions of '
it's not, I am talking about the DNA studies comparing neanderthal DNA (28 K) with homo sapiens, and the studies comparing sapiens DNA with other extant apes & all the data evidence in how it shows our relationships there as well. IE, ERV's & Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
agentorange20 2 years ago
28K? is that 28,000 yrs? Relationships doesn't mean desendents, or is that what you think it does? To me it just means we were created by the same God from the earth, not that we evolved from some common ancestor.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
'is that 28,000 yrs'
yes.
'Relationships doesn't mean desendents, or is that what you think it does?'
tell that to a paternity test. DNA analysis can show the degree to which different species are related, just as it can also show 'who's da daddy'. the very process of how DNA works from one generation to the next implies decendents inheriting parentalally combined DNA, ergo it does mean desendents.
agentorange20 2 years ago
'we were created by the same God '
we can't test this hypothesis as it persists on using a supernatural, and thus isn't not even falsifiable, so its not science.
besides, we no more need a magical god to explain the relationships of species on earth any more than we need it to explain other natural processes. there is plenty of natural evidence to explain the question, no need to appeal to the supernatural.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Test, no, but the sheer complexity of our universe shouts that there is a God. Otherwise there's to much left to chance. When the possible out come is as big as this universe, really, what are the chances.? 1 to the millionth power? or somehting like that. My belief, my opinion, disagree if you want, but be honest about the impossible odds of life just happening the way it did without a God.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
'my belief, my opinon, disagree if you want'
your faith, not based on evidence, but mere faith....it's all yours. you've already given up the arguement of fossils & immeidately moved to complexity, which is in itself unstestable means to adjudicate your position.
we have no idea considering the countless worlds how probable life is, but given the make up of the cosmos, all the elements are already there, there is nothing un-natural which seems to to be required.
agentorange20 2 years ago
I believed on faith, but there is evidence, that supports that the Bible is a accurate account of Jesus's ministry, death, and resurection. You would have to research literature history.
But I will say this that the idea of random mutation, that just happens, over and over, until a beneficial mutation happens over a really........long...... time is just to hard to believe. There's more evidence for the Bible than evolution.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
'but there is evidence'
i guess, but mostly in the bible itself, & no where else. & never mind any inherit contradictions in the gospels on the events either.
'until a beneficial mutation happens over a really........long...... time is just to hard to believe'
elaborate please & why is that?
beneficial mutations occur, just google 'stickle back fish evolution' or 'nylon digesting bacteria'.
agentorange20 2 years ago
@vbirdieb
"that the idea of random mutation, that just happens, over and over, until a beneficial mutation happens over a really........long...... time is just to hard to believe. "
And yet, it happened. mutations happen. We can see it happening even today. I don't think you really have a concept of how long millions of years REALLY is.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
"There's more evidence for the Bible than evolution"
Sorry, but that's patently false. There is scant corraboration of Jesus in extra-biblical sources, and most of those are writers writing about what the Christians believed, not what the writer believed or could verify.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Actually, I have come to understand that it's a matter of interpretation of the same evidence. Where you might see a extinction level disaster. I see evidence for a flood. Both result in a large number of dead and buried animals, many no longer alive. And this is pretty much the case when ever a conclusion is based on the scientist's interpretation of the evidence and that interpretation is open to debate. So, to me there IS more evidence for the Bible than evolution. Bye
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
No, it really isn't a matter of interpretation. The geologic column does not support a global flood. The "large number of dead and buried animals" left by a flood leaves a DIFFERENT pattern than what is observed.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
" So, to me there IS more evidence for the Bible than evolution"
Ah, so your unlearned interpretation is not only equivalent, it is of GREATER weigth than those that have actually studied this stuff?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Calling names doesn't change the fact that it is interpretations of the same evidence that can be argued. Especially when it is not conclusive. You just want it your way, it doesn't matter that there's a valid point or not you'll argue to the bitter end. And it isn't my unlearned interpretations. It's the interpretations of scienctists who can not justify evolution in the face of the evidence. And I'm not only talking about those that were or are Christians, but secular ones.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
Excuse me, but where do I engage in ANY name-calling? Calling you unlearned isn't name calling.
"it is interpretations of the same evidence that can be argued"
And on what basis are you making that argument, other than you don't want to accept the answer? You can't just make up your own geology.
"You just want it your way"
Oh, the irony.
No, the geological evidence is what it is. And it doesn't support a catastrophic global flood.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
"it doesn't matter that there's a valid point or not you'll argue to the bitter end."
Another ironic statement on your part.
The DNA evidence alone would be enough. The geological evidence is icing on the cake
What's funny though is that you'll look at 2 or 3 creationists with a background in geology, and take their word for it, but ignore the overwhelming number that don't accept your creationist "science"
Funny ,that.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Wow, you said alot. Not sure where to start but to point out the fact you don't know what I've read or who I've learned anything I know from. That's a pretty big assumption (insulting) on your part. The overwhelming amount of information you throw at me only proves my point that it is interpretation of evidence from one point of view or another not a conclusive inmoveable law or fact. Oh, I think anything that can be "falsified" can't be true, how can that be part of science??
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
The fact that there is a lot of evidence is evidence that you can make up your own bullshit explanation? NO.
And yet, evolution can be falsified
Find a land animal in cambrian strata.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined "And yet, evolution can be falsified" My point exactly, if it was TRUE, you COULDN'T falsify, you would always have contradictions in ANY OTHER explanation of the facts. Evolution is full of contradictions, and outright frauds, granted by over zealous individuals, but frauds none the less many of which, last I heard, is still used as examples for evolution. Solve all the contradictions, get rid of the known frauds, and you might be able to convince the questioning minds.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "if it was TRUE, you COULDN'T falsify"
Uh, no. That's not how it works. A model/theory in science is denoted as tentative as is *possibly* could be falsified (shown to be incorrect) were it found that many lines of evidence were not congruent or consistent with the rest of the body of evidence & those outside of it. Take for instance geology/geochemistry with regards to the age of the earth. If the earth really was young, evolution couldn't be true, & yet the earth is quite old
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 questionable?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb 'Every attempt I've made to point any of them out has always been rejected, for whatever reason they decide is good enough"
Maybe it has less to do with that & more do with the fact you don't know WTF you're talking about? After all, earlier you clearly didn't understand the concept of falsifiability, which is a staple demarcation of the scientific method, so how could one really think you know what you're talking about? Don't be a coward, put up or shut up.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Slow down and don't try to answer when your tired, I make mistakes when I'm tired or try to go to fast.
I understand the definitiion, but if your base is false to begin with you will always find the answer you want, the wrong one. You have to start with absolute facts to get the absolute truth. If you refuse to consider evidence that is demonstrated over and over again, wouldn't that make you willfully ignorant? That's true regardless of who you are.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb science doesn't work by assuming its base is even correct, but the fruits of science & its accuracy in explaining nature demonstrate the picture it provides is one of utility. if it wasn't accurate, we wouldn't be talking over the internet right now.
agentorange20 11 months ago
@vbirdieb "Evolution is full of contradictions"
Like.......
"outright frauds"
Well, there *was* Piltdown man, but that was shown to be wrong many decades ago (hence the was), no anthropologists refer to it today as evidence for human evolution only creationists do. And there are plenty of others which show the intermediates anyway. Besides, a single fraud doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the data is wrong.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 There's more
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "There's more"
Then don't be coy or shy, point them out already. Point out the contradictions you hack.
You don't even understand the concept of falsifiability.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Breathe much? You know, if you don't get enough oxygen, you kill brain cells. Maybe that's why you ignore the contradictions, because I think you know what they are, and you certianly can find them like I did. All by your lonesome self.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb 'Breathe much?'
Project much?
'that's why you ignore the contradictions'
Such as....
'I think you know what they are'
I don't. Or at least I do not know what you think they are.
agentorange20 11 months ago
@vbirdieb no no no. every scientific theory needs to be potentially falsifiable. if you come up with an idea that no one can prove wrong, like if i said on some random planet in another galaxy theres a 700 foot tall teddy bear, then thats called an unfalsifiable hypothesis and they are completely unscientific. also we have gotten rid of the hoaxes after the scientists themselves outed them to be hoaxes. we admit when we make mistakes and move on. thats part of science.
ihmen 1 year ago
@ihmen NO, what you've just put forth is UNPROVABLE, and definitely unscientific. Absolute truth cannot be falsified, because it would always be proven to be true. If there is any room for another just as plausible answer, then you haven't found or proven the truth of your theory or supposition.
Study your own history of how long it took to remove just ONE of those mistakes. And what about all the hipe about Ida, then the not so well known contradictions or oppositions? Just saying.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb thats what sceince is all about, getting closer to the truth with every new bit of evidence that comes in. it would be very unscientific and dishonest to claim an idea is the absolute truth before seeing if the evidence actually supports it. and yet that is exactly what creationists do. they conclude everything they believe is the absolute truth before even looking at the evidence. evolution has many ways of falsification. find a true chimera and evolution is toast.
what about ida?
ihmen 1 year ago
@vbirdieb 'Absolute truth cannot be falsified,'
In principle I would agree, but that isn't how science works. Science is a process of refinement (reductionism) over time, it's not like religion which decrees by fiat how something works. Science is all about evidence & testability.
'how long it took to remove just ONE of those mistakes'
It took a few decades, but Piltdown man is but *1* piece of all the collective evidence, & not been used as evidence for many decades.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "it is interpretations of the same evidence that can be argued"
Clearly it is not. Clearly we both cannot be looking at both human chromosome 2 fusion, ERV's, GULO, & a plethora of intermediate specimens for many, many lineages and claim they do not represent some sort of biological changes overtime.
"but secular ones."
Like who.......?
Seriously, you're great with generalities though.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 One little difference in the DNA sequeneces can cause a mutation that will kill or disfigure a living creature, and you want me to accept without question what you believe to be true? You can find what I found if you look. Every attempt I've made to point any of them out has always been rejected, for whatever reason they decide is good enough.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "One little difference in the DNA sequeneces can cause a mutation"
uh, a difference in the genome relative to the parents gene pool IS a mutation, there is no if or can there. A change IS a mutation. and no, not all mutations are harmful, most are actually neutral. In humans for instance each offspring has, on average ~ 175 single base point mutations neither of their parents had, while each human has ~ 3 billion base pairs, it's but a small change & it doesn't kill them at all.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Are you talking mutations or variations (recombinations) of the genes? Anything outside of normal parameters is detramental to the offspring. Things that aren't normally seen, like black people with blue eyes, isn't outside the parameters, just rare.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb 'If you refuse to consider evidence that is demonstrated over and over again, wouldn't that make you willfully ignorant?'
I've not said I disregard evidence, I don't. Only that already long debunked & outdated evidence like Piltdown I do not cite as evidence, while you do. mutations are a form of recombination.
agentorange20 11 months ago
@vbirdieb "Where you might see a extinction level disaster. I see evidence for a flood."
Uh, huh. so in the past there are 5 major extinctions we know of, that doesn't line up with a single flood event.
"to me there IS more evidence for the Bible than evolution. Bye"
Whow, that's some overwhelming logic. Nailed it? Maybe not...
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 5 major extinctions, says who?? Men who don't question anything beyond evolution??
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "5 major extinctions, says who?"
Says the earth that we've looked at, that's who.
"Men who don't question anything beyond evolution??"
They do question it honey, it's not a presumption, the belief of it only exists as a matter of consequence of over all collective of facts which have been tested repeatedly.
agentorange20 1 year ago
But the existence of a "god" is even more unlikely than the evolution of the first bacteria on earth. Isn't it?
You try to explain the existence of some primitive lifeform (even us) by postulating a supernatural beeing out of nowhere. You turn it all upside down ... First there was a supernatural perfect beeing just to create such primitve beeings like bacteria and us (compared to god we are very primitive).
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
Not going to argue.
God is real. The Bible tells the truth, believe it or not.
You know what I find really interesting is the fossil records in the middle east and places like that. Check it out.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
Somehow retarded maybe?
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
Uh??? What is that suppose to mean? Can you not form short but coherent sentences.? Really, why bother replying?
vbirdieb 2 years ago
Too retarded to understand retarded?
Eventually your german is far better than my english.
Dann können wir gerne auf Deutsch "diskutieren" ;-)
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
In your own private little world, only you can understand. Go bother someone else if all you want to do is throw insults to vague to understand. Then pull something out your ass that no one but you (or someone who reads german) can understand. YippieHaHaHa
vbirdieb 2 years ago
Deine Dummheit ist der beste Beweis dafür, dass es keinen Gott gibt. Egal, ob du das glaubst oder nicht. Wer an Gott glaubt, ist zurückgeblieben. Mindestens 4000 Jahre ;-)
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
If you know I can't read this, then why do this? Except to be a jerk. Bother someone else.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
I did not know, but I assumed that you can not understand german. This was a little scientific experiment to verify my opinion about you and you cooperated very well. Thank you. NOW I know. Hypothesis - Experiment - Validation - Knowlege. That's the scientific way.
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
It seems, that only one of us is living in a small (minded) world. A private little word, so little, that it fits perfectly and smoothly between the covers of a tiny meaningless ancient book.
This is the truth. Believe it or not.
Why I do this? To give you a taste of your own arrogance. Do I bother you? Tell your god(s).
I expect to hear from him/them ;-)
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
Jerks are people who believe in spooky beeings without having any evidence and for no reason except their fear about what will happen to them after life ...
So long ... and have a nice life. Enjoy it. It's the only one you will ever have.
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
So, I was human and responded like one. You called me names first. Don't have to worry about that anymore. Your so called experiment did accomplish something I'll never fall in this kind of trap again, God willing. I hope you'll find God, but, if not the last laugh won't be on me. Bye
vbirdieb 2 years ago
I called you names? No. I told you what my impression of you is. Someone who believes in a ancient meaningless book is retarde. Believe it or not. People like you tend to feel superior, because they believe to be something "special" created by a superior beeing. And this is, where that special kind of arrogance comes from. And that's the reason because over and over again some people feel free to supress or even kill other people in the name of their (!) "god".
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
I respect you as a human beeing but I don't respect your mind-set.
To relax: watch?v=p798WxhZniE
No german involved or needed.
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
I hope you'll find God
Arrogance again. You don't feel to be arrogant.
So someone has to tell you that you are.
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
I told you I couldn't read german. The first time you used it. And you were being decietful from the begining. I was honest. You were being cryptic, and therefore arrogant in your opinion of your superiority. I just said I wasn't going to argue about the exsistence of God. But stated that I did believe the Bible tells the truth. And made a suggestion. YOUR the one who was looking for a fight, not me. I was trying to avoid it. Did I fall for your trap, yes. Does that make me a jerk, no
vbirdieb 2 years ago
God is real. Believe it or not. That's decietful and arrogant.
Reason is better than faith. That's not based on arrogance but on evidence. Faith won't bring you mobile phones, tv, computers, internet, health care and so on. You dont't believe in science? Stop using it's gifts.
To believe in something or someone without evidence and to believe an ancient book tells the "truth" makes you a jerk.
YippieHaHaHa 2 years ago
@YippieHaHaHa I believe something you don't....makes me...a jerk??? And speaking german when you know I can't. Makes you a jerk. The pendulum swings both ways. You can't argue that I'm arrogant without proving or showing your arrogance.
Study history and you will find out many early scienctists were Christian. Is there a reason why your trying to make science a religion? As far as I'm concerned God created everything we are discovering. Why would I reject what God gave humanity.?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb many scienitsts are christians, they all accept evolution. Hilter was a christian. Learn logic.
gregrutz 2 months ago
'test, no'
that would be a n immediate 'withdraw' on your position then
'the sheer complexity of our universe shouts that there is a God'
by this logic alone, the sheer complexity of your god would thus indicate a creator god for this god you speak of.
'there's to much left to chance.'
you're leaving out some physical laws, which do not operatte by chance, & are quite deterministic.
agentorange20 2 years ago
'most of the bones for a number of the skulls were missing'
not true, while a fully complete skeleton is virtually impossible to find, b/c skeletons are symetrical we only need to find 1/2.
'Until all the D.N.A. is mapped'
both ours and Chimp DNA were mapped years ago, there are some (less than 100) species which have been fully mapped already.
agentorange20 2 years ago
No, only 1% of our D.N.A. at that time was unraveled. It only takes 3? cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature. So any difference is a very big difference.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
'When the possible out come is as big as this universe, really, what are the chances.?'
you have no evidence to support this claim. are you kidding, do you realize how old, & large the universe is? Consider the magnitude, size, age, & number of galaxies (many 100's of billions at least) stars (trillions) planets, over the age of the universe breifely, & its more obvious such outcomes are not miracles in anyway. no more so than how a rainbox forms.
agentorange20 2 years ago
'No, only 1% of our D.N.A. at that time was unraveled'
i think you mean mapped, and the entire human genome was mapped YEARS ago, as was many other species.
'cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature'
such mutations wouldn't be inherited, as get this, there would be no offspring. other, more common point mutations, which occur per generation wouldn't kill the organism, you're living proof w/ your 150 different changes when compared w/ your parents.
agentorange20 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbirdieb
" It only takes 3? cromosones to be out of place to kill a living creature. "
3 Chromosomes have a thousands of genes. The human genome has about 23,000 genes. And as much as 97% of our DNA does nothing. This is a result of many of the neutral mutations, over millions of years.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
On a lighter note, how did they manage to slip Dali and Jinniushan in to the genus Homo Sapiens these look more like Erectus or even earlier?
NZwingtamer 2 years ago
If some icon of society wants you to conform to BS beliefs, then the first parts of the indoctrination is to convince you that objective and honest absolute testing and seeing if it is true or not is not part of this pseudoscience of evodelusion. If you want to make a cult member then teach them that the truth doesn't matter. What the cult members believe is all that counts.
Who told you that absolute evidence is not needed to form conclusions? Why did you allow them to take your honesty.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
You just perfectly described religion, good job!
XXL2oo 2 years ago
Religion does not equal truth. Belief in things that cannot be proven is in Evodelusionism, which is a faith based religion. All beliefs in things that have no absolute proof is idiotic and causes war, hate, fear, and pretty much all that is wrong with our world. If you want to be free, then stop believing in crap. Follow your doubts, they are your friend.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
There is proof, some people are just too blind to see it. Try watching the video again, or actually researching it. Evolution isn't a religion, there are no rules to follow. I stopped believing in crap the day I stopped believing in God.
XXL2oo 2 years ago
Try, not surrendering up one messed up belief for another.
You DO NOT NEED ANY BELIEFS to get through this mess. All beliefs that have no evidence of objective proof are crap.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"All beliefs in things that have no absolute proof is.. "
Very few things have any measureable about of proof/evidence, let alone 'absolute proof' which outside of math & predicate logic doesn't really occur.
"Follow your doubts, they are your friend."
General doubt is healthy, but the amount of doubt you're asking for is to suggest all that evidence means nothing, which is abusrd.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Another excellent video. Sometimes the simple presentation is the best one. And there are more of our ancestors coming out of the Afar every year.The ones I'm hoping to see are the Miocene transitional forms before A. anaemesis (when we were still mostly arboreal).
magick205 2 years ago
darwanism is a lie,very stupide theory whale became cows my ass!
sodasoap 2 years ago
no one believes whales became cows. Creationists believe that evolutionists believe its the other way around, but evolutionists know they have a common ancestor, and do not descend from one another, as they are both artiodactyla. Asses are perissodactyla, another mammal group, so your ass is still less related to them, or did you mean something else?:)
agnat86 2 years ago
Get real.
evolution is a well demonstrated fact.
It is backed by tons of cientific EVIDENCE.
a word not familiar to religion.
GolfWings 2 years ago
GolfWings @
** "Get real. evolution is a well demonstrated fact. It is backed by tons of cientific EVIDENCE. a word not familiar to religion." **
'Evolution' only means 'change' and thus is the normal function of life and reproduction. Yes there is plenty of scientific evidence to confirm 'evolution which everyone accepts.
What the majority of people do not accept on our planet is the idea that over a vast period of time - manKIND descended from a pond full of bacteria. Your ToE.
hume1947 2 years ago
2/2
And the comparison does not end there, as both were disbelieved during their lives, while about a century later most people were convinced of their ideas, as both ideas passed all thinkable tests of credibility. People accept evolution because it has proven to work in fields like medicine, petrology, biology and sedimentology. People find oil using the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. How many people find oil using flood geology?
agnat86 2 years ago
agnat86 @
** "People find oil using the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. How many people find oil using flood geology?" **
If they use the alleged evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record - no wonder we are running out of oil.
This must be why we have to design & manufacture 'Hybrid' automobiles - New suggestion for their Modern Evolutionary SynthesiS (MESS).
I say: No bail out for their theories.
Note - Re flood - plenty of oil rigs in the oceans.
hume1947 2 years ago
Comment removed
agnat86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm sorry, are you actually a YEC or just pretending to be so to ridiculize them?
"If they use the alleged evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record - no wonder we are running out of oil."
No wonder indeed, evolution enabled us to find oil so effectively that it simply can't be found anymore. You're so right about that!
Nevertheless, this prediction is made by evolutionary scientists, and as you don't believe other stuff they're saying, why believe this?
agnat86 2 years ago
2 / 2
Google: BBC History Louis Pasteur
Quote:
"Pasteur then undertook experiments to find where these bacteria came from, and was able to prove that they were introduced from the environment. This was disputed by scientists who believed they could spontaneously generate. In 1864, the French Academy of Sciences accepted Pasteur's results."
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
agnat86 @
** "People accept evolution because it has proven to work in fields like medicine, petrology, biology and sedimentology" **
The theory of evolution has keep manKIND from progressing in these fields. WHY? Because scientists have had this dogma around their collar for the last 200 years.
Just a few years after Darwin published his Origin of the Species every evolutionist believed that life generated spontaneously. It took one man to prove them all wrong.
(cont)
hume1947 2 years ago
"The theory of evolution has keep manKIND from progressing in these fields. WHY? Because scientists have had this dogma around their collar for the last 200 years."
Are you actually saying petrology has suffered from this "dogma?" Can you please give me ONE name of a petrologist who finds oil using flood geology?
The origin of life is still unexplained, but the models proposed for its origin are rather more advanced that mice soming from dirty cloths. Please dont use strawmen.
agnat86 2 years ago
agnat86 @
** "Are you actually saying petrology has suffered from this "dogma?" Can you please give me ONE name of a petrologist who finds oil using flood geology?" **
Why do evolutionists always discuss the flood geology when the Great flood only lasted one year? Plus it never affected the sea creatures.
hume1947 2 years ago
Uh...what are you trying to say? It's only lasted one year, so petrologists don't use flood geology? We shouldn't discuss events that lasted only one year? Is that a logical explanation of some kind?
It never affected the sea creatures? What about coral reefs? Have you any idea about how sensitive they are to environmental changes? A worldwide flood would have wiped them all out. Did Noah have a coral reef on the ark or something?
agnat86 2 years ago
1/2
"The Pope's last words to Galileo - after the Pope had been advised by all of his science advisors that they had the empiric evidence, and that 98.5% of scientists were against Galileo."
Funny example. Religious people tried to discredit Darwin just like they discredited Galileo, not because of any sensible argument against their theories, but because they didn't want to lose their position as teachers of the common people. Pure selfish shortsightedness.
agnat86 2 years ago
agnat86 @
** "Religious people tried to discredit Darwin just like they discredited Galileo, not because of any sensible argument against their theories, but because they didn't want to lose their position as teachers of the common people. Pure selfish shortsightedness." **
All of Galileos peers came out against him - it is very similar today - 98.5% of the scientists oppose the truth to support the theory of evolution because to do otherwise would risk their grants & salaries.
hume1947 2 years ago
I'm not denying that Galileo found heavy opposition. However, 99,999 % of the scientists accept the round world hypothesis. According to your logic, that would mean the earth is flat because the scientists "conspire" to hide the "truth." Scientists accept evolution for a reason (better said, several thousands of them). Don't believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, but watch the video again. It's creationism which can't accept the truth, because it threatens their medieval, childish worldviews.
agnat86 2 years ago
2 / 2
..... our solar system and was FLAT did not conspire to hide the truth. It was like the theory of evolution they THOUGHT they were right and everyone else was wrong. The scientists read the signs wrong.
Since Darwin published his origin of the Species 95% of the material arguments have been rejected by modern evolutionists and the other 5% is under investigation.
hume1947 2 years ago
95%? Where did you get that number? You're getting boring when you're talking nonsense, you know. Can you name some material "truths" which are willfully rejected by evolutionists?
Galilei's theory was accepted because it explained phenomena better than previous models, just like Darwin's theory. If you want to replace evolution, provide a better working model. No one has managed to get even near.
agnat86 2 years ago
2 / 2
If you cannot get this right what hope do you have?
Quote:
There is no unanimity among paleoanthropologists as to the classification of human fossil forms preceding the classical Neanderthal in Europe.
Google:
TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN*
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
agnat86 @
** "95%? Where did you get that number? You're getting boring when you're talking nonsense, you know. Can you name some material "truths" which are willfully rejected by evolutionists?" **
First let's look at your alleged fossil evidence. If you locked 100 evolutionists in a room, and asked them to draw up a list of the alleged human ancestry from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of chimp / man you would get 100 different lists
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
1/2
Typical creationist cop-out. You can't support your numbers when I ask you to, so you start another subject. However, to show you that I can answer your challenges, I will do so.
The most important reaon that scientists do not agree on hominid classification is because paleoanthropology is science, where different insights coexist, not religion, where people are persecuted for alternating opinions.
agnat86 2 years ago
Furthermore, of the 100 scientists, I think no one will put H erectus before A afarensis, for example. The disagreements are about very closely linked fossils, like, for example, H. heidelbergensis and erectus, or A. africanus and boisei. Discussion makes good science, people mindlessly agreeing with each other doesn't.
Now please answer me: Where did you get your numbers, and which material truths are rejected by evolutionists?
agnat86 2 years ago
The only thing those fossils have in common is your belief. Not one single person on this earth knows what they are. For all you know they were genetic experiments from space aliens, dropped of in ancient times and none of them are related. The only thing you have is guessing and belief. Sideways logic is where belief destroys all logic and reason, so you project what you want to believe on those fossils, on yourself and others. It is intellectual dishonesty, making all of you HEMG liars.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
What is your explanation, then, for the trends observed in fossil records? Why can we see changes in fossil assemblages when looking at different strata? I say an observable process (evolution) is responsible for this, space aliens or non-human designers haven't been observed. That's why my hypothesis is more valid than the one you describe. Everything in science is belief according to your logic, except for mathematics.
agnat86 2 years ago
The only thing you have is fossils and opinions of humans who have agendas and emotional problems with objective reason. Humans project beliefs on the universe, have from the beginning. It is called mythology.
Those fossils are almost all, just extinct species that did not continue according to the fossil record. Those that remain are still the same species today.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
In functional science you can perform experiments to test a theory. In evodelusion you can't. There is no way to project the study of genetics over millions of years and do any experiments that take that long. So, it is wide open to religious fanatics and believers in mythology. ERV's mean nothing as well. There is no way to know how they got there when and why. Conjecture by believers is not science it is religion.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"In functional science you can perform experiments to test a theory. In evodelusion you can't"
Sure we can gramps, the model predicts that we aught to find evidence in many independent fields which all point to the same model, & what do you know, genetics, paleontology, embryology, etc. & what do you know, we find just that.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Common genetics is not proof of any creature ever changing morphology ever. As a matter of fact all of the genetic experiments show just the opposite. The creatures, plants, do not change shape and the hybrids are predictable according toe the laws of genetics.
The study of embryos, has nothing to do with the fact that no creature has ever changed morphology or jumped species.
Get real.
The only thing shown in the physical world is no proof of evolution. Just crap beliefs systems, HEMG.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
'Common genetics is not proof of any creature ever changing morphology ever. "
The worlds biologists would disagree.
"The creatures, plants, do not change shape"
Those fossilized in the geological strata obviously have, & its odd in their order of succession that we find unique body plans appearing only in succession.
agentorange20 2 years ago
" appearing only in succession." There is nothing odd about it at all. There is no tie between creatures. There are no transitional features on any fossils, just complete creatures; no partial legs or partial fins or partially developing anything that would show a slowly changing morphology as you fools believe.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Explain why snakes have a hip bone & in the case of some like the Boa the remnants of hind limb & hip bones???????????
bodyrocks1on1 2 years ago
"There is no way to project the study of genetics over millions of years and do any experiments that take that long."
We don't project it, there is no need to, we refer to the genomes as biological track records for hereditary relationships, just like a big extended paternity tests.
agentorange20 2 years ago
" Humans project beliefs on the universe, have from the beginning. It is called mythology."
Not quite, when we have mountains of evidence which is consistent, it's reasoned logic they're related & its true.
"Those that remain are still the same species today."
O Rly? why in the fossil record do we only find certain animals & certain types of animals in certain strata? Where are the mamals in the Devonian?
agentorange20 2 years ago
"we have mountains of evidence which is consistent" In 40 years I have looked at "mountains of your evidence" and there is no proof of evolution. That is a PERIOD.
Only a closed minded, indoctrinated, weak willed fool can "see" evolution where there is no evidence to back it up.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"In 40 years I have looked at "mountains of your evidence""
Can you even name 5 recent books you've read on the subject? After naming them, explain your objections to each, & in detail. Thanks!
agentorange20 2 years ago
Hypothesis, with out being able to do empirical testing is not a good choice for a scientist. When I realize that, I chose to pursue real science, physics, math, electronics and led to me developing the best hot tubs in the world. To the owners of these hot tubs, they benefit and rave about them. I chose hot tubs because it has the least amount of negative results possible and the most positive results for health and well being. It is my yogic, yama and niyama stance.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"Hypothesis, with out being able to do empirical testing is not a good choice for a scientist."
The evolutionary theory is tested & continues to be so every day in the lab.
"and led to me developing the best hot tubs in the world."
O Rly? Do tell... where can I find your brands that you've invented? I should bust out the ROFL copter on that one.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"ERV's mean nothing as well. There is no way to know how they got there when and why"
How: Being inserted via a virus, hence the name endogenous retroVIRUS. When: we can deduce which were inserted prior to others based on relationships & nested hierarchy. Where: this is easily identified as we find them in identical genomic locations across numerous species, again, genetic relationships via descent w/ modification explain why this is so.
agentorange20 2 years ago
1 / 2
agnat86 @
** "According to your logic, that would mean the earth is flat because the scientists "conspire" to hide the "truth." Scientists accept evolution for a reason (better said, several thousands of them). Don't believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, but watch the video again. It's creationism which can't accept the truth, because it threatens their medieval, childish worldviews." **
The many scientists who believed the planet Earth was the centre of .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
it has been observed that tall people are somehow more atractive than short people.
the average highth today is much taller than a couple centuries ago.
That is EVOLUTION
josebuezas 2 years ago
2 / 2
2) You must be joking - ay? Evolutionists do not know what a poor dead disabled pygmy looks like. Six years ago - they found a dead pygmy and said he must be a new sub-species and called him Homo floresiensis aka the Hobbit.
Google:
Were Homo floresiensis just a population of myxoedematous endemic cretin Homo sapiens?, anthropology
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
josebuezas @
** "it has been observed that tall people are somehow more atractive than short people. the average highth today is much taller than a couple centuries ago. That is EVOLUTION." **
1) So the scientists are wrong to say it's because: "We eat more nourishing food"?
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
No, scientists are not wrong, they are right. that's way the support evolution...
we eat better, and that contributes have taller children than their parents...
again: that is EVOLUTION
josebuezas 2 years ago
josebuezas @
** "we eat better, and that contributes have taller children than their parents...
again: that is EVOLUTION." **
A particular species eating better may do lots of good things for that species - but in a million years or two - it will not make that species evolve into a different species - THUS you have no evidence for your theory of evolution.
hume1947 2 years ago
josebuezas @
** "it has been observed that tall people are somehow more atractive than short people." **
I guess you are 7 foot tall.
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
jigoku66 @
** That article says the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove (were you trying to prove something?).
"Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths."
OK if you accept this alleged fact
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant. I quoted the article because you hadn't understood what it was about, so I thought that would clarify things. Obviously, I was wrong, you still don't understand.
As for the humans-elephants-chimps example, I'd like to know what the purpose of this game of yours is, if you don't mind.
jigoku66 2 years ago
jigoku66 @
** "As for the humans-elephants-chimps example, I'd like to know what the purpose of this game of yours is, if you don't mind" **
You argue that I do not understand the New Scientist article with reference to your alleged TREE OF LIFE. I contend that there is not one person on the planet Earth who understands the alleged evidence offered up. You are suddenly told that: "there is no TREE - it is now a web or bush."
Plus you must now accept GHT & Hybridization on pain of death.
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 2
Please give me one example from the following: (1) humans; (2) elephants; (3) gorillas; (4) chimps; (5) giraffes and (6) dogs.
WHERE have they allegedly gained additional genes from a completely different species?
hume1947 2 years ago
Great video.
I can't believe there are people who refuse to accept all this evidence.
I gess the reason is it throws the bible to the toilet...
josebuezas 3 years ago 4
Actually there a tons of OTHER reasons to throw that bad novel down the drain!
Salmo77 2 years ago
I agree, the reasons are so many...
religion teaches having faith, even against strong evidence, is a virtue...
dangerous, dangerous...
josebuezas 2 years ago 2
josebuezas @
** "religion teaches having faith, even against strong evidence, is a virtue...
dangerous, dangerous... " **
Whereas evolutionists have faith that that everyone will accept their hypothesis as correct with zero evidence and 150 years of continuous falsehoods and deception.
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
hume1947 2 years ago
If it wasn't for scientists you couldn't be writing your wrong ideas on line.
you couldn't watch TV.
you couldn't use electricity, medicine, cars, etc...
And evolution is not a hypothesis, is a solid, well demonstrated theory, reafirmed with tons of evidence.
but, go ahead and continue to be a blind fanatic.
josebuezas 2 years ago
josebuezas @
** "If it wasn't for scientists you couldn't be writing your wrong ideas on line.
you couldn't watch TV. you couldn't use electricity, medicine, cars, etc.. And evolution is not a hypothesis, is a solid, well demonstrated theory, reafirmed with tons of evidence. but, go ahead and continue to be a blind fanatic." **
Why do evolutionists grab hold of the skirt of science? To give the impression to the world that their theory has something to do with true science - it doesn't.
hume1947 2 years ago
why does more than 99% of scientists accept and support the theory of evolution then?
maybe because it is true science...
what is your scientific theory of the origen of species?
josebuezas 2 years ago
josebuezas @
** "what is your scientific theory of the origen of species?" **
Well Darwin did not answer that question in his book - 'Origin of the Species' did he? Remember all evolutionists falsely believed that life generated spontaneously. That was a bad start for his book published in 1859 was it not?
Science is knowledge - The big and exciting things are the discoveries of God's creations. In the race of discovery - the race is 1,000 miles and science has taken just one step.
hume1947 2 years ago
while religion has taken only steps backwards
GolfWings 2 years ago
I gess by evolutionists you mean geologists, fisicysts, paleontologists, biologists, scintists in general...
We have a lot more knowledge now than Darwin, but he was in the right track.
Science is a lot more than knowledge, is the understanding of reality.
GolfWings 2 years ago
3 / 3
..... bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
Dagan dubbed Bork's result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the tree-of-life concept was redundant.
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 3
WHY did they make up evidence for 150 years - when we told them all along it was false?
Quotes from two top evolutionists:
A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That .......
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 3
GolfWings @
** "We have a lot more knowledge now than Darwin, but he was in the right track." **
If he was on the right track - why did it take 150 years before you realised that your alleged TREE OF LIFE was just a mirage?
AND worse - How was it possible to produced alleged peer reviewed papers, essays and books for your alleged empirce evidence when your alleged TREE OF LIFE did not exist?
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
so, you accept evolution for every other living thing, exept humans....???
mmm. ok. that's a good step.
but what about humans? the Adam and Eve story???
I would advise anyone to get their eyes off the bible and take a look at reality.
GolfWings 2 years ago
3 / 3
If you placed 100 evolutionists in a locked room and requested them to draw up a list of the alleged ancestry line of humans from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp / man they would give you 100 different lists.
Quote:
++There is no unanimity among paleoanthropologists as to the classification of human fossil forms preceding the classical Neanderthal in Europe.++
Google:
TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN*
hume1947 2 years ago