Absolute misinformation. A terribly deceptive business and a deliberate distortion of evolutionary science and the knowledge on which our culture is based. Shame on the creationists. The coelocanth is an offshoot at best in a very bushy evolutionary tree showing the kinship between the lobe-finned fishes and the earliest land-based amphibians. Makers of these videos have no interest in truth, only a desire to impose their false ideology on unsuspecting people. A shameful business, indeed.
@charadester "evolutionary science" is an oxymoron and not real science. The "tree" is invented and you wouldn't dare bring that up in a public debate. Unlike you people we allow both sides of real science to be presented and discussed. The problem is for your side is the lack of real science so your only option is to brain wash students and not allow them to question it.
@charadester Shameful? Really you dare to impose that you are right and there is no way to refute evolution? The problem with evolution is that I do understand it and it is a common sense killer. Stop thinking in the box and get to the realization that you dont know how but we are.The fossils are very clear to us, we see hundreds of animals and thousands of insects that have not changed in millions of years.Genetic mutation that increased the info. in the genome?
@clawedification 98% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. There are no dinosaures, no trilobites, no Cambrian Marine Creatures, no sabertooth tigers, etc. Evolution does not say thing have to change, most of them did.
ceolocanth is along the path that fish would have taken in evolution to amphibians. unfortunately not very far advanced and still very close to its ray finned fish predecessors.
when the news of its discovery arrived scientists hoped it would have been the missing link. and something very similar in the past would have been, although more likely a fresh water species.
still frickin cool though, you know they give birth to live young!
@haz020190 - These guys really don't understand evolutionary theory. I wish that I could get a job at ICR; it would be much easier than having to think for a living.
Do they not realize that evolutionary theory is so much more beautiful, more fascinating and more awe-inspiring than any "godunnit" explanation that they can come up with? It is so sad that they miss out on how extremely magnificent nature really is. What a bland life they lead.
@CamW30 I agree, but the story of our descent from other life forms removes them from the exclusive pedestal they want for humanity over all other species. All we can do is spotlight their deceptive practices in the hope that some people will start to dig a little deeper and see the real evolutionary story. Thanks for your comment.
Why do people that do not believe go out of there way to ridicule and dismiss...if u don't believe fine. Go on about your business. I always see the same trolls on pages like this. It affirms my faith to see the attacks on God and his creation. This was written long ago. Keep on attacking the Lord and his creation.....it just makes us stronger.
In the tradition of good science, the record regarding the extant status of the coelocanth was revised immediately after the discovery of this lobe-finned fish in the Pacific. Similarly, recent discoveries in human evolution continue to revise what we know about the path humans have taken since the split from a common ancestor with modern apes about 7-8 million years ago. This is in stark contrast to the death threats to Copernicus and Galileo by church leaders when confronted with new data.
@gregrutz Living fossils may demonstrate something observable about "change over time". Too, some fossils, I think this species, were taught to be intermediate of fish and amphibians. Though not necessarily "proving" evolution wrong, it may show something about how quickly people take up and transmit information under the theory, as true, and that "true" in evolution today ("scietists's have discovered, now know") is not necessarily true at all. (Not that creationist's don't do likewise.)
I lean more towards intelligent design rather than natural selection when it comes to the evolutionary process, so by no means am I "anti-creationist". Its just people who polarize themselves on the issue of evolution vs creationism seem to be either too closed minded to try and understand, or too ignorant to want to. The fact is there is evidence to support parts of both theories.
@lucky322113 It's usually one side's stretchig of the truth that grants the other side ammunition to discredit one another. This video is a stretch of the truth. Not all members of a genus make an evolutionary change. Evolution most oftn happens when a few members of a genus or even a species move to new regions and have to adapt to new food sources adn new threats. Life's ability to do this, to me, can only be explained by some form of intelligent design at the genetic level.
@lucky322113 this video doesn't mention the fact that intelligent design and evolution can exist simultaneously. Its the polarization of these theories i.e. darwinism and creationism that has hidden this fact. For a very small example, humans have driven the adaptation of dogs for thousands of years. It's hard to believe that the Chihuahua actually decsends from the much larger wolf, but in this case it was mans intelligent design that caused it.
@lucky322113 You are indeed correct that both are theories and are based on faith. Shouldn't both sides have an opprotunity to present what is observed today in an open forum and then who is really "stretching of the truth" could be determined. Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo have a Life Science Prize offer to all evolutionists to present what they have in a court of law and so far after 8 years none have come forward. If you know of someone who will do it, he will pay you $1000.
1) Usually those contests are asking scientists to find things that evolution doesn't even state
2) The fact that population allelic frequencies change over time is an observed phenomenon meaning it isn't faith, the theory merely explains how it happens over successive generations in a population
Intelligent design is the idea that every animal was magically created in their current form with no precursors, thus why you find ID proponents rejecting common descent. Some assert that they think that the random changes in genes are magically guided, but that isn't a scientific theory, nor is there any evidence indicating it as you have to take into account all of the negative mutations we observe arising and say that was the designer to.
In the case of selective breeding all that is being done is using the same ideas present in the theory of evolution and merely removing the natural selection in favor of an artificial one where breeders select which phenotypes they want to breed into the next generation out of the random phenotypes they get from each generation.
"Not all members of a genus make an evolutionary change"
Yet we know that every division at it's base is only at the species level, the taxonomic divisions are more or less only for our convenience for common traits that were inherited by later progeny
"Life's ability to do this, to me, can only be explained by some form of intelligent design at the genetic level"
Would this include all of the negative mutations and extinctions via natural means?
The problem is in reality you have to make notice of the hits and misses, over 99% of all the species that ever existed are extinct and we observe many negative mutations that never get passed on to later generations due to natural selection, if you feel that all of that is designed, I fail to see why since we know what causes mutations and the fact that organisms in a population don't survive as well with given phenotypes is easily apparent and is what natural selection is.
@garith21I agree that many "negative" mutations have happened in the history of evolution. But this fact alone does not disprove some form of intelligence behind life. I consider myself to be intelligent, and i can tell from your postings you seem to be intelligent aswell, this does not mean we don't make mistakes or sometimes get things wrong in the process of making improvements. I dont make the claim that this intelligence is some kind of divine omnicience, merely that it exists at some level
"But this fact alone does not disprove some form of intelligence behind life."
Nothing can disprove an imaginary being, the whole point is that the assertion that there is one is untestable and as such it isn't scientific. The whole point is that there's no justification for belief of separate intelligence guiding evolution.
Besides the observations I pointed out in fact indicate no intelligence, or a team of incompetent designers all trying to compete against each other. You can't assert "I think there's intelligence behind all of evolution" and watch it make the same mistakes over and over again that result in early death or even death upon birth with currently a 99% failure rate in relation to extinct species and expect to be taken seriously.
If we can indicate how the mutations happen, how they're selected, passed and how it propagates throughout a population then where is a designer even needed? Its like understanding how a computer works every step of the way and then asserting that magic pixies do the calculations in the processor even though that process is well understood.
@garith21 To suggest that the human race has any where near the understanding of our universe as we do the workings of a computer is propastrous. Any respected scientist could tell you that. There is much about the universe science is not yet able to explain, yet the lack of factual support for these undiscovered phenomenon does not mean they don’t exist.
1) So what, ignorance of phenomenon doesn't validate belief in something we don't know exists.
2) Evolution is very well understood in every step as to how it happens much like the workings of a computer.
3) Actually they're dismissed because they violate so many known laws and accepted theories in science that explain must of the universe in elegant and brilliant detail without explaining with evidence how the violations are validated.
@garith21 Many creation scientist have discovered many interesting facts, though they are often dismissed because of the use of those facts to try and support outlandish theories like young earth theory. I don’t believe the intelligence driving evolution is caused by some fairytail god, but instead could be as simple as genetic intelligence.
@garith21 How is it that genetics know when to raise or lower the next generations metabolism based on based on the lack or abundance of food in the parent (or in the case of mothers, the grandparent) generation. This ability to respond to outside influence suggest some form of intelligence. Even Carl Sagan believed in a “genetic memory,” once again suggesting SOME type of intelligence.
How does genetics know to make a single individual in a litter have similar genes to what a selective breeder wants?
Answer: It doesn't, they're random mutations in a generation and if the random mutation is good it gets selected for future generations. If it never occurs and it's required for survival then the species eventually goes extinct if it's in nature.
Carl Sagan's genetic memory could be something as simple as heritability.
@garith21 This intelligence I refer to could just be a genetic one. How is it that when a cell replicates it knows to create more receptors for a certain chemical based on previous amounts of that chemical it received?
@garith21 Even in your posted video about Einstein he admits there must be something behind the energy that drives our universe and that the universe operates “with the beauty of a craftsmans wrist watch” at the atomic level. He also mentions how it angers him when people use his words to disprove the existence of god.
He also talks about how he doesn't believe in a personal god and to him god is more of a poetic statement of the operations of the universe, for most intents and purposes Einstein could be qualified as a pantheist which believes the universe is god, or believes the mysteries of the universe is god.
Both of which have their own concepts without tagging on the word god.
@garith21 As for the existence of a “god,” I don’t even pretend to know if there is or not. I just want people to stop using evolution to “disprove” the existence of god, and for those who believe in god to stop using that belief to ignorantly discredit evolution. When people do this they loose each others respect.
1) Even if we knew everything there is to know about the universe and it's origins it couldn't ever disprove an imaginary being such as god any more than it could disprove that invisible pink unicorns exist, this is known as the burden of proof fallacy.
2) People that begin this sort of conversation only start it because their dogma that they attribute to god says evolution is wrong and of course people that accept science have to respond to that.
I don't understand why you would believe such assertions of a higher power that's untestable, undetectable and unverifiable, it's like believing in any other sort of fantasy. Seeing if there is, is one thing, believing there is before there's sufficient evidence is another entirelly and asserting "you can't disprove it" is a childish logical fallacy.
@garith21 I guess where we differ is you’re the type of person who needs hard facts and things to be practically spelled out for you in order to understand them, both logical and understandable. However, I tend to recognize and admit that science hasn’t yet explained all it can, and I have the imagination capable of understanding what may yet to be discovered along with the reason to accept what has.
"However, I tend to recognize and admit that science hasn’t yet explained all it can"
That's a given, if we did then we'd stop doing science and research wouldn't be something that we do any longer, it's why researchers still have a job.
@garith21 Not to say it isn’t possible, but the odds of life coming together by chance in this manner is equivalent to a single person winning the lottery every day for 10 years straight. This seems to be much less likely than some type of outside influence driving this process
This argument is a miserable assumption that life formed as it is from complete randomness, nothing in abiogenesis says this. Try examining what abiogenesis says rather than looking at ID proponent sites from people that don't even have a knowledge on the topic telling you the probability of something they don't understand.
@garith21 The one and only aspect of evolution I have doubts about is primordial soup theory. We do know amino acids can come together under these conditions and from that proteins can easily assimilate. But after that no one can explain how the jump was made to RNA, going against your philosophy that things must be fact in order to believe them. This jump to me is the true missing link.
Um, again examining abiogenesis it indicates many hypothesis as to how it could have happened based upon the evidence we do have that is consistent with what we do know.
Also abiogenesis isn't evolution and saying "we don't know exactly which way it happened" is irrelevant since there's nothing to indicate an intelligence would even be required.
@garith21 I think you have my thoughts on this issue confused. I don’t argue against evolution at all. I don’t even really argue that there is a “god” I admit that I don’t know as everyone else should. I don’t believe in a personal god either, at least not in any form that its been described as of yet. I definitely lean more towards Einstein’s belief in “god” being the universe and its workings. There are obviously too many flaws with institutionalized religion both in practice and theory.
Again, he believed it in a more of a poetic sense, you are claiming that it's an actual intelligence and just now you claimed it's an intelligence that interacts with reality. You believe in nothing remotely close to the poetic god of Einstein. You literally believe in the god of the gaps and an intervening god.
Besides if you didn't notice, you're still trying to use the same tactics of trying to justify a belief based upon ignorance and I'm addressing that as well since it's a complete logical fallacy. I don't say it's not possible, merely that it's unjustifiable to believe something like that which cannot be tested or verified in any meaningful way. You still may as well plug in god, gods, interdimentional universe creating pixies or the FSM with the exact same argument.
@garith21 We don’t need things to be spelled out before us in a scientific journal or holy book in order to understand them. We admit that we don’t know the entire truth behind life. Though we do accept most if not all that science tells us, it’s the unknown that intrigues us however. Maybe its your minds inability to reach beyond the personification of a “god” that keeps you from seeing even a “poetic” form of “god” as just that--god.
Only because you're not referring to Einstein's god or the deist god and insist that it's more then discarding the baggage when you use the word god when it's most convenient to you.
@garith21 You atheists are as bad if not worse than creationists in your persistent need to prove or disprove a “god”. This conversation only leads to childish bickering. As you and I have already stated its ridiculous to try as the conversation will go nowhere because it is impossible to do so. If atheists and creationist were the democrats and republicans of the theoretical world, me and the few like me would be considered the independents.
"in your persistent need to prove or disprove a “god”"
And apparently you can't read that you can't disprove an imaginary concept, all that can be indicated is that there's insufficient evidence to believe that some separate entity exists. If you just want to say 'god is the universe" then just say "the universe". Otherwise it's just as meaningless if I said "god is my cup".
Actually people redefine god all the time, "god is nature", "god is the universe", "god is mystery" etc etc. If I attributed my existence to natural formation I wouldn't personify it and call it god. If I attributed it to another made up being like a universe creating pixie or FSM then it doesn't mean it's god either.
@garith21 I have listened to many creation scientists, and I often laugh at 99% of their conclusions. The only reason I entered this conversation is to get you to admit its possible, which you did. Much as I try and get creationists to admit genesis could possibly be wrong, which it is.
"I entered this conversation is to get you to admit its possible"
Back to my position, where I will admit that nearly anything is possible, but what's important is what's reasonable to believe. It's always possible that someone can defy the laws of physics and fly around by flapping their arms, but there's no good reason to believe it.
Right so you'll lean on the ignorance of science to believe in some "higher power" that's "required for life" but then you'll lean on science to indicate what's not possible, though you can probably achieve such a feat within scientific means under a different context and not "only" by flapping one's arms.
The reason why you're so hard to pin down is because you use the same words in different contexts so you can cling to the creator jive.
Also you validated my point of "is it reasonable to believe" you indicated my example is not likely a good thing to believe because of everything we know and given the current context. I'm much the same way about a god in any meaningful sense.
Also you originally fought for the idea of some form of ID indicating intelligence and personification yet again which is most definitely not in line with Spinoza's god
@garith21 I don’t make the claim that my Ideas are directly in line with Einstein’s, but instead more like his than that of institutionalized religion’s fairy tail god. Maybe I’m so hard to “pin down” on this topic because I admit I don’t know one way or the other of the existence of higher power. Maybe if I had a life time to learn and write down my ideas they would be slightly more clear.
*palms face* atheism and theism is about beliefs, agnosticism is regarding knowledge.
For example. I don't believe the claim that a theistic god exists so I'm an Atheist, however I don't claim to know with absolute certainty so I'm also an agnostic.
@garith21 I don’t really try to “cling” to any kind of “creator jive” as you suggest. In fact my views are constantly changing as my opened mind learns more from various sources. I didn’t grow up religious at all, I actually started my philosophical life much more in line with Darwinism; as I’ve learned more, my belief in some type of intelligence greater than our own developed.
@garith21 And if it’s those pulses that give us thought and consciousness, then it’s entirely plausible that the universe too could have some form of consciousness. The things being discovered in this area are pretty interesting stuff. If you haven’t already, you really should look more into it. Many of the scientists who study it, tend become more spiritual through these discoveries.
@garith21 The small piece of evidence that to me suggests that there could be some type of intelligence behind it all is in what quantum physics is starting to understand about multiple dimensions and in studies being done on the human mind’s ability to influence matter. If our meager human mind, with its very small amount of electro magnetic pulses can influence matter on a small scale, then imagine ,if you can, what the universe’s pulses could do to influence matter.
"on the human mind’s ability to influence matter."
Oh geesh, you took a misunderstanding of heizenburg's uncertainty principle and misunderstanding of the double slit experiment to a whole different level that it doesn't even states.
@garith21 I don’t really see how the conjunction of my belief in scientific fact, and my understanding of some ignorance in science is truly all that contradictory. Again even the most respected scientists understand this. I really only stop believing in the possibility of something when science disproves it, rather than ONLY believing in what science proves.
"I really only stop believing in the possibility of something when science disproves it, rather than ONLY believing in what science proves. "
Indicating you don't even know how logic and science works, science never allows something to be "proved" that's why the highest level any idea in science can achieve is a theory.
Secondly you're using the burden of proof fallacy, by your logic you should believe in invisible unicorns or dragons because science can't disprove those.
My stance is I do not simply discard a claim because it lacks evidence, however I do not believe a claim until it has demonstrable evidence. I do not believe any proposed god (in any meaningful sense of the word) exists because those claiming that one exists fail to provide sufficient evidence to justify belief, always relying on logical fallacies or relabeling god to something else and discarding and picking up baggage of the word whenever they want.
@garith21 well then you can replace my words of "prove" or "disprove" if you'd like with the words"demonstrable evidence" and my thoughts are still the same, maybe I stated it in a rather vague way, I don't mean to say I believe in ALL things possible. You manage to blow my statements out of proportion, bringing back that arrogant condescending natue (though I have to admit its more tolerable than the ingorance of creationism).
@lucky322113 As for the heizenburg double slit experiment, I wasn't referring to that at all. His only suggests that how you observe matter can effect it. Many more experiments have been done since that suggest the observer can affect matter in much more direct fashions, like how thought can change water molocules. I forget the scientists name but he's the one in the film "what the Bleep Do We Know:Down the Rabbit Hole"
""what the Bleep Do We Know:Down the Rabbit Hole""
OMG I don't think I can stop laughing at this one, I watched this movie not too long ago, it has grains of truth and stretches them to conclusions which aren't validated by evidence. Dude, if you want to get your science from films and people commenting out of their field or outside of science you go for it, I prefer peer reviewed literature.
Tell ya what, if you want to be lazy, you can look up "Debunked!! - What the bleep do we know" on youtube and see a few claims addressed in regards to this completely fallacious movie.
If you want to do actual research, why not examine the claims?
@garith21 I've watched "Debunked" and i find it very interesting aswell, once again your taking my statement to another level. I don't claim the whole film to be true, especially not the crazy blonde chick. I'm only pointing out one study that has been repeated. I realize what the bleep is a film put together, as so many are, in a way that uses some facts to support a conclusion that a person (or gruops of people) want you to come to.
@garith21 Granted one of his peer reviewed tests didnt go so well, but another in 2006 did. When doing a study that deals with controls of conciousness and intent many things can go wrong, providing a bad result. Until i see some evidence in my life time suggesting this to be impossible, I'd have to say that there is more evidence suggesting that it is possible.
Yet his "test" wasn't peer reviewed, it wasn't double blind, it wasn't even dealing with scientific controls, he admittedly cherry picked and altered the pictures to get the results he wanted. Secondly trying to rationalize it despite all that is actually rather funny.
"Until i see some evidence in my life time suggesting this to be impossible"
There are hundreds upon hundreds of studies dealing with intercessory prayer, statistically speaking if you do enough studies you are bound to get at least one study that is statistically significant out of mere chance even though nearly all studies show that there is no effect. The only thing that can be done is show there's no evidence to the claim for effect when making such claims.
Lastly, you saw how dishonest those people had to be with their "studies" and that's what they presented for their movie, that was the best they had. Are you really so gullible as to continue believing based upon complete hogwash? Just about anyone will say "sure it's possible" but I see no reason to believe that the claims are true, if anything the dishonest tactics indicate it's nothing but a fraud.
@garith21 Emoto's study in 2006 was in fact peer reviewed and was double blind, the later one he did, that wasn't very successfu,l was also peer reviewed and triple blind. The photos he selected weren't part of the studies, they were part of his initial experiment. I'm open to all possibilities.
1) back to the statistical probability from pure chance bit.
2) The triple blind study also failed to yield positive results
3) Positive thinking is virtually the same as intercessory prayer, it was merely an example and pointing out that even if you get 1 positive result out of studies that you will out of sheer statistical anomalies get a statistically significant result
@garith21Emoto could be wrong. However, his study really didn't have anything to do with intercessory prayer. It's not about the act of praying for another person's well being, though that is what the producers of the film want you to conclude. Rather his study deals with how ones positive, or negative thoughts can effect some elements. This is what scientology, the most ridiculous religion of all, tries to take advantage of in converting people to their side by using their "e meters".
Right, back to the whole bit of why you think there's "more positive evidence" even though there's so much null evidence or do you cherry pick to come to that conclusion as the people you tout did. Heck you earlier touted him as a scientist when he's nothing of a sort, he's a business man and an author. You might as well buy into magic sandwiches that prevent cancer as long as you think positively.
Also, as far as your claim regarding the 2006 article
It was reviewed as a photo article posted in a peer reviewed journal. However it was not presented as a study, nor was it peer reviewed.
Lastly this study was very flawed, as they use statistical tricks to lower the requirements for what is considered a statistically significant result. Basically they took low numbers of samples and individual biases which results in a high noise rate and lowered a bar for a "positive" result.
There's a reason why results have to be replicable, because if I attempted so many subjective experiments with high noise rates and only published the ones with favorable outcomes then I can "prove" nearly anything I want. You can't pay attention to such studies while ignoring all of the other cases of null results. Not to mention the many other scientific protocols broken in the study you can read yourself.
I merely applied your words with your use of the burden of proof fallacy. The fact that you want to justify belief in some higher intelligence based upon ignorance and the fact that science hasn't disproved the belief you claim to believe based upon no evidence.
I merely applied the same reasoning to something you believe is completely absurd to show you how absurd the statement is.
@garith21 What gets me is the condescending approach that atheists and religious fanatics use when arguing your points of view. I identify more with agnosticism because of its ability to overlap various belief structures while still admitting a lack of knowledge about deities and higher powers.
@garith21 I’m not sure how you can tell me what I believe. This is where you lose my respect I’ve had for you on this issue. I don’t believe in dogma so my thoughts can’t originate from that. The numbers I give on the odds didn’t come from creationists, they actually came from biology teachers and professors I’ve had through out my education, and I’ve never actually been to a “ID proponent site”, so your wrong again.
Yet it's the exact same argument that William Dempsky states and it can be found on creationist websites. It completely takes it out of the context of the fact that the laboratory is the size of the earth performing millions upon millions of said experiments, and the fact that it already happened means that the probability automatically goes to 1:1.
Your argument is like telling a lottery winner their odds of winning were so improbable that they needed a god to intervene.
@garith21 The “god” I speak of is much like Einstein’s because for me it is the universe and its laws and principles, life in fact does need a creator, and it’s the universe. The universe created us, whether intelligently or not, it is still true. Our reality exists in this universe, meaning that “god” (or the universe) has definitely had a direct affect in reality.
Yet you're giving it a personification right now in talking about how it's a creator, creator denotes consciousness and personification not a poetic sense of viewing existence and the mystery of the universe.
@garith21 I’ve never tried to justify any ignorant belief system at all. I admit the generally accepted idea of “god” is an ignorant one due to the fact that it requires people to ignore facts that have been proven. I’ve also made the claim that the atheistic point of view is a hard headed one due to denial of possibilities of not yet discovered facts, or the inability to recognize things that cant be tested or proven.
"I’ve also made the claim that the atheistic point of view is a hard headed one due to denial of possibilities of not yet discovered facts, or the inability to recognize things that cant be tested or proven."
Yet all that atheism is, is a disbelief in the claim of the theistic god, Einstein himself stated that he was for most intents and purposes an atheist in this regard.
@garith21I find it very unfortunate that people feel the need to polarize themselves on this issue. Its obvious evolution happened the people who deny it are to hard headed to want to believe. Even the pope a few decades ago admiteed that evolution is no longer just a theorie. But that doesnt disprove some form of god or higher being. Nor would the existence of a god disprove evolution. To only accept one and not the other is to ingore scientific facts and intriguing questions from the opposer
"Nor would the existence of a god disprove evolution."
of course not, the general amount of people that accept evolution and god either think he works through evolution or he merely created the universe and it's how it happened.
"To only accept one and not the other is to ingore scientific facts and intriguing questions from the opposer"
Yet only one has scientific facts and "intriguing questions" can be addressed rather easily when taken in context with all of the evidence that we possess. Back to the whole point however, is there any objective evidence that doesn't resort to a logical fallacy to justify the belief that an intelligence is behind evolution?
There is however nothing wrong with questions, but you can't get from ignorance to believing any given proposition is true based upon that ignorance. I may as well make up a monster, a interdimensional universe creating pixie, aliens or many gods for the same arguments from ignorance. Science deals with reality and as the saying goes, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
evidence?... okay.. would u mind telling me what evidence you have for evolution on the macro scale? im not talking about giving me fossils that appear to be transitions. i need evidence on the genetic level that proves macro evolution.
The fact that we've observed speciation, which is all that "macro" evolution is. We've observed the genetic makeup of a distant parent population and compared it to the genetic make up of a distant daughter population and what you want to do is ignore all of the evolutionary steps in between and say "I can't see how that population became this population in one step" because you're ignoring data and what evolution even says and fighting your own strawman of evolution.
Even if we had zero fossil evidence despite the fact that we can find fossils in predicted geographical locations and in appropriate strata using the theory of evolution the genetic evidence is more than enough to indicate common dissent. Whether it be ERVs, the vast amount of dna that does nothing in a genome, the genes that are inactivated in us that have a function that is easily explainable via common descent, but not if it were magically created unrelated to one another.
The Coelacanth is an order, saying that this order of fish is the same species of Coelacanth is the same as saying that all primates are of the same species, ie we're the same species of ape as every other primate that exists in the world. This video can't be described as anything more than utter fail.
@garith21 what about other living fossils like the nautilus, or the horse shoe crab, or Sturgeons. the reason these arguments are brought up, is because the fossil record shows more stasis than anything else. one would think all the animals existed at one point and then slowly become extinct; which is what we observe.
@garith21 because we are observing stasis. and not evolution garith. were is the evidence of macro evolution? here's a new theory. animals we find today wither it be in the order or family of its species has existed along side every other animal that has gone extinct. and if this is what science suggests then evolution is built off of speculation and not evidence.
1) Evolution, which is that population allelic frequencies change over time is an observed phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains how it happens over time which has been observed, we also observe the emergence of new species both in the lab and in the wild indicating that macro evolution does happen since that's all that macro evolution is.
3) Something you need to know about taxonomy is that it's based upon clades of what each organism is discendent from, evolution only ever predicts that what comes after will only ever be a slightly modified version of what came before it. Much of what creationists claim that evolution says would in fact falsify evolution indicating you know nothing about what evolution even is.
Indicating that you have no idea what a scientific theory is, you don't even match the requirement for hypothesis since you don't make an observation first and are making assertions while ignoring all of the existing evidence we do have.
How ridiculous. Coelacanth is an order of fish, not a specific species. It contains some 4 dozen species.
The modern coelacanth, latimeria chalumnae, does not appear in the fossil record. It's a new species. If anything, the modern discovery of a fish under the order coelacanth that's not in the fossil record reinforces evolution.
fossils are associated with a particular span of geological time.
Almost every stratum contains fossils that seem to be the same type.
Evolutionists study the stratum and determine what "index" fossils are contained in it. They date the stratum from the index fossils they find. :-/
Okay, now think about this: if the date of the fossil is wrong, then the date of the stratum is also wrong. Remember that geologists tell us that the stratum have been laid down over millions of years!
well its actually not. You see the modern coelocanth is very different and bigger than its fossil ancestors. In fact it proves evolution! Fossil Coelocanths are similar, but not the same as the modern fish.
Same with birds, theyre evolved dinosaurs, arguably a genus that never became extinct. The common sparrow has a very similar bone structure to the T-rex and Velocoraptor.
First of all, coelacanth is a genus of fish, not a species. Second, the one found in 1938 was a NEW speices called Latimeria, and this fish was never found in the fossil records to begin with, which means it evolved AFTER the cretaceous period. Sorry about that. ;)
Utter misinformation and propaganda. Many 'missing links' are still alive today, and it should be noted the the Coelocanths we find today are in fact very different from the fossil Coelocanths we find.
if all this ppl clame to be so clever, why does the world look like it does? everybody thinks they have right, atheists and evo and religius ppl. Your all crap if u belive u have right. everything changes in time...poor ppl and poor human kind...blä Inte konstigt världen ser ut som den gör, alla tror att dom har rätt. ingen respeckt för någonting :_(
Hahaa creationists are so desperate! Who are they trying to convince? Sorry guys but wrong species- even though it wouldn't be evidence for anything anyway.
A living fossil proves the animal didn't die. That is all. Evolution is a branching tree, not a ladder. But since creationist don't understand evolution they think this proves something. It does not.
@GodlessHippie Hey, I cant help it if science (Evidence) points yowards the creation Model & if they immplies God, then so be it, all archeoptyix (9) of them are the same stage, all 20 t-rexes & millions of trilobits, & if evolution were true, it would be more random like drawing cards outta a deck, as it is, it's as if the whole deck is 10's, there should be more 1-9's&(gradual transitions) & some j q k's (more evolved) if evolution were true
@GodlessHippie Typo on the word "Towards: not yowards lol,
people keep implying that Creation is religion & evolution is science, I cant help it if the bible account happens to give a creation account instead of an evolutionary account, if it did, I have to say it was inaccurate because the evidence of science & Observation aliegns w/ Creation, NOT evolution, so it just happens to line up w/ the bible, that doesnt make it religion, it just confirms the bible aliegns w/ the observable evidence
Creationism - the hypothesis that GOD/s created the universe.
(any concept with GOD in it IS religious/theology)
And evolution is a field of study in biology, a science. Which again by definition makes evolution science.
And i hate to break it to you but the bible is quite inaccurate. =P
If creationism, as you say, is so observable that YOU (a non-scientist) can see it's truth, than why is it that only 0.15% of Biologists and Geologists (trained professionals) are creationists?!
Furthermore, it would only take ONE reliable fossil in the wrong strata that can't be explained to disprove evolution to everyone in the scientific community. So, name ONE observation that aligns with creationism, or at least one that doesn't align with evolution. Creationists have had since the beginning of history to find observable evidence of creationism but science still won that race even with religion having a few centuries head start. =P
they have trees going up through ALL the stratum's in Yellowstone & elsewhere, Theirs Hammerheads found in stratum's their shouldn't be, if they found a rabit next to a trilobite, you just say someone buried the rabbit, Common, plus theirs not even anywhere, where all the stratum's are in order w/ fossils at every level in the same place proving your hypothesis
so called scientist said it was 80 Million yrears old !!!
wheres all the fossils in the layers leading to the live one today ?????
its because they date the layer by the fossil & the fossil by the layer
it's Bullshit , every creature is the same as all the rest found 9 archeptryix 20 t-rexes millions of trilobites & NONE more or less evolved ! thats the creation model !
You need to understand that not every bone can become fossilized, only a minuscule percentage of specimens are buried in the right conditions to fossilize them.
And so what if that's alive? that just means that it hasn't evolved much since the time of the oldest fossil (80 mill yrs old i assume) of that species.
NO, they date both by radiometric dating. scientists use many different dating methods and they don't make a conclusion until multiple methods converge on the same answer.
@ncwdane Furthermore; Uranium-lead, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, and Radiocarbon are just a few of the dozens of different dating methods scientists use to make a hypothesis on an objects age. And most of the time more than one dating method is used on fossils and these DIFFERENT tests yield the SAME RESULTS. These techniques have been shown to have a margin of error of less than 1%.
so do some research, get to know how evolution works.
"They" have tested Live Snails at 4,000 to 6,000 yrs old
I have seen scientist testify that when they send a Fossil in or a sample, they wanna know what it was(not just a sample w/o the creature) & what layer it should be in & they twist & turn the knobs till they get the desired result.
(margin of error of 1% my azz) !!!!
I noticed how you cahnged the subject once I pointed out THE ONE sample alls it would Take" is staring you rt in the Face
@ncwdane im sorry but you are the one spewing nonsense.
if you knew ANYTHING about radiometric dating, you'd know that first of all not EVERY method will give you an accurate reading on EVERY thing. You have to be a chemist to know what dating methods can reliably be used on what. And second, about those snails, thats why scientists don't use radiometric dating on living things, DUH.
" they twist & turn the knobs till they get the desired result."
think about what you're claiming here. your trying to say that we can't trust scientists because they have some kind of desired result or a bias. WHY? WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE DESIRE TO KNOWINGLY LIE ON BEHALF OF EVOLUTION?!?!?!? look, YOU'RE not a geologist, a chemist, or a biologist. So i am EXTREMELY confident that thousands of experts know better than you.
if your so smart, go publish a scientific paper. XP
Most them will always make some outrageous claim to bypass the truth
& their are many Science Journals published , but Evolutionist wont listen to truth if their soul depended on it (which it does btw)
& yur the one that said only ONE fossil needs to be found outta place
& here it is , a Live Coelacanth found in strtums supposedly 80 million yrs ago, & why arnt they in every strtum if a live ones here, cause they been Bullshitting
people, like you and me, make up the scientific community.
and either of us could make it into the scientific community.
It's not like you stop being a normal person when you become a scientist, so what in the world makes you think that 100% of the people entering the study of (let's say) biology would accept to keep quiet about the conspiracy of evolution?
@ncwdane Just get it through your head that this fish can stay around without evolving for millions of years! Thats much more likely than a magically invisible sky daddy coming over and POOF we and all the billions of other species exist fully formed and is already a functioning cycling environment. Try finding a modern animal in a younger layer, like a human among dinos, or a dog among trilobites. THAT would work.
Oh and my "soul depends on it". OOOH, threats of damnation!
if we found this Modern fish Coelacanth or a Dog or a rabbit then,
this fish is around now !
here's one for ya, its hard to always draw a 10 outta a deck of cards, yet all t-Rex's (20) are 10's or the same, & so is all brontosaurus & archeopteryx,(9) of them, so if I bet you 100 Dollars you couldn't draw something other than a 10 outta a deck of cards, you'd have a 13 to one advantage every time, but you wont bet me the next fossil is a different level
@ncwdane "yet all t-Rex's (20) are 10's or the same, & so is all brontosaurus & archeopteryx" sooo, you're trying to say that you personally have examined all 29 of these fossils to conclude that they're all the same? :O
what are you talking about?!?!?
why does it matter if fossils of the same species are similar or even exactly the same?!
"but you wont bet me the next fossil is a different level". Different level? so are you saying that all these fossils came from the same strata/layer? idk.
@GodlessHippie It's pretty common Knowledge & not disputed that the finds are all at "the same stage" OF DEVELOPMENT, none ore more or less evolved than the others, I have seen pics & video fottage of many of the finds especially the archeoptryx, but not tyhe millions of Trilobites, I dont know if they were found at the same statum levels nor could I know for sure, cause they mach the fossil w/ the stratum & visa versa, circular reasoning, whers partials in earlier statums
@ncwdane do YOU even have a clue what you're talking about?!?!
Look, evolution is simply mutation within the genome (which occur during conception) and the process of elimination by survival of the fittest. So animals with more advantageous mutations and less detrimental ones are more likely to survive to reproduce, thus passing their new genomic traits to their offspring.
We KNOW mutation occurs; you ever worry about a virus like avian-flu becoming airborne? THATS an example of evolution.
the nexr archeoptryix/T-Rex/trillobite/or brontasaurous found, will be as all the others found so far, Like drawing a 10 outta a deckm of cards everytime, Never ever a 1-9 less evolved pulled outta the deck & never a J/Q or King drawn, more evolved , odds are over 10 to 1 you'd draw a different stage each find IF evolution were true, but it's as if only 10's are in the Deck, bet me or STFU !!!!
@ncwdane ok, what does it mean to be this 10? am i an evolutionary 10? what animal that can survive to reproduce isn't a successful 10? And what you're not seeing is, if an animal is born "more evolved" to the extent that it could be said that evolution had taken place, then it would NOT be the same species. Thus, expecting the fossils of the SAME species to be varied enough to be considered "more/less evolved" is just stupid. XP
Fossils are like snapshots into the past. 3d pictures of the bones (and sometimes soft tissues, those are harder to fossilize) of creatures past.
To say that because we find a creature alive that is in the fossil record proves that evolution is wrong..
I'm sorry it is just stupid.
It is just like saying "We assumed your grandmother wasn't alive cause we didn't have any other evidence proving so, but because she is alive, you her grandchild shouldn't be."
Sharks are still alive too and no one even notices?!?
gregrutz 7 months ago
Absolute misinformation. A terribly deceptive business and a deliberate distortion of evolutionary science and the knowledge on which our culture is based. Shame on the creationists. The coelocanth is an offshoot at best in a very bushy evolutionary tree showing the kinship between the lobe-finned fishes and the earliest land-based amphibians. Makers of these videos have no interest in truth, only a desire to impose their false ideology on unsuspecting people. A shameful business, indeed.
charadester 8 months ago
@charadester "evolutionary science" is an oxymoron and not real science. The "tree" is invented and you wouldn't dare bring that up in a public debate. Unlike you people we allow both sides of real science to be presented and discussed. The problem is for your side is the lack of real science so your only option is to brain wash students and not allow them to question it.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 The DNA Tree of life also matches Darwin's tree of life. More proof of evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@charadester Shameful? Really you dare to impose that you are right and there is no way to refute evolution? The problem with evolution is that I do understand it and it is a common sense killer. Stop thinking in the box and get to the realization that you dont know how but we are.The fossils are very clear to us, we see hundreds of animals and thousands of insects that have not changed in millions of years.Genetic mutation that increased the info. in the genome?
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification 98% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. There are no dinosaures, no trilobites, no Cambrian Marine Creatures, no sabertooth tigers, etc. Evolution does not say thing have to change, most of them did.
gregrutz 7 months ago
ceolocanth is along the path that fish would have taken in evolution to amphibians. unfortunately not very far advanced and still very close to its ray finned fish predecessors.
when the news of its discovery arrived scientists hoped it would have been the missing link. and something very similar in the past would have been, although more likely a fresh water species.
still frickin cool though, you know they give birth to live young!
haz020190 9 months ago
@haz020190 - These guys really don't understand evolutionary theory. I wish that I could get a job at ICR; it would be much easier than having to think for a living.
Do they not realize that evolutionary theory is so much more beautiful, more fascinating and more awe-inspiring than any "godunnit" explanation that they can come up with? It is so sad that they miss out on how extremely magnificent nature really is. What a bland life they lead.
CamW30 9 months ago
@CamW30 I agree, but the story of our descent from other life forms removes them from the exclusive pedestal they want for humanity over all other species. All we can do is spotlight their deceptive practices in the hope that some people will start to dig a little deeper and see the real evolutionary story. Thanks for your comment.
charadester 8 months ago
Why do people that do not believe go out of there way to ridicule and dismiss...if u don't believe fine. Go on about your business. I always see the same trolls on pages like this. It affirms my faith to see the attacks on God and his creation. This was written long ago. Keep on attacking the Lord and his creation.....it just makes us stronger.
nscastaneda 10 months ago
@nscastaneda We are correcting the lies. This was never an Index fossil. They thought it was extinct but it wasn't, so what?
gregrutz 10 months ago
This species of fish was never used an an ''Index fossil'', there were way too rare.
gregrutz 1 year ago
In the tradition of good science, the record regarding the extant status of the coelocanth was revised immediately after the discovery of this lobe-finned fish in the Pacific. Similarly, recent discoveries in human evolution continue to revise what we know about the path humans have taken since the split from a common ancestor with modern apes about 7-8 million years ago. This is in stark contrast to the death threats to Copernicus and Galileo by church leaders when confronted with new data.
charadester 1 year ago
No, paleontologists have found enough 'missing links' to prove evolution. DNA is now the best proof for evolution.
Whoever made this video does not know what an 'INDEX' fossil is.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Why do religious people think 'living fossils' prove evolution wrong?
It still has bones in it's fins unlike other fish.
It was thought [not declaired] that is was extinct. they were wrong, it didn't go extinct.
So what?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Living fossils may demonstrate something observable about "change over time". Too, some fossils, I think this species, were taught to be intermediate of fish and amphibians. Though not necessarily "proving" evolution wrong, it may show something about how quickly people take up and transmit information under the theory, as true, and that "true" in evolution today ("scietists's have discovered, now know") is not necessarily true at all. (Not that creationist's don't do likewise.)
59arkady 1 year ago
owned
hotlanta35 1 year ago
I lean more towards intelligent design rather than natural selection when it comes to the evolutionary process, so by no means am I "anti-creationist". Its just people who polarize themselves on the issue of evolution vs creationism seem to be either too closed minded to try and understand, or too ignorant to want to. The fact is there is evidence to support parts of both theories.
lucky322113 1 year ago 2
@lucky322113 It's usually one side's stretchig of the truth that grants the other side ammunition to discredit one another. This video is a stretch of the truth. Not all members of a genus make an evolutionary change. Evolution most oftn happens when a few members of a genus or even a species move to new regions and have to adapt to new food sources adn new threats. Life's ability to do this, to me, can only be explained by some form of intelligent design at the genetic level.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113 this video doesn't mention the fact that intelligent design and evolution can exist simultaneously. Its the polarization of these theories i.e. darwinism and creationism that has hidden this fact. For a very small example, humans have driven the adaptation of dogs for thousands of years. It's hard to believe that the Chihuahua actually decsends from the much larger wolf, but in this case it was mans intelligent design that caused it.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113 You are indeed correct that both are theories and are based on faith. Shouldn't both sides have an opprotunity to present what is observed today in an open forum and then who is really "stretching of the truth" could be determined. Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo have a Life Science Prize offer to all evolutionists to present what they have in a court of law and so far after 8 years none have come forward. If you know of someone who will do it, he will pay you $1000.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1
1) Usually those contests are asking scientists to find things that evolution doesn't even state
2) The fact that population allelic frequencies change over time is an observed phenomenon meaning it isn't faith, the theory merely explains how it happens over successive generations in a population
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Intelligent design is the idea that every animal was magically created in their current form with no precursors, thus why you find ID proponents rejecting common descent. Some assert that they think that the random changes in genes are magically guided, but that isn't a scientific theory, nor is there any evidence indicating it as you have to take into account all of the negative mutations we observe arising and say that was the designer to.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
In the case of selective breeding all that is being done is using the same ideas present in the theory of evolution and merely removing the natural selection in favor of an artificial one where breeders select which phenotypes they want to breed into the next generation out of the random phenotypes they get from each generation.
garith21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lucky322113
"Not all members of a genus make an evolutionary change"
Yet we know that every division at it's base is only at the species level, the taxonomic divisions are more or less only for our convenience for common traits that were inherited by later progeny
"Life's ability to do this, to me, can only be explained by some form of intelligent design at the genetic level"
Would this include all of the negative mutations and extinctions via natural means?
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
The problem is in reality you have to make notice of the hits and misses, over 99% of all the species that ever existed are extinct and we observe many negative mutations that never get passed on to later generations due to natural selection, if you feel that all of that is designed, I fail to see why since we know what causes mutations and the fact that organisms in a population don't survive as well with given phenotypes is easily apparent and is what natural selection is.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21I agree that many "negative" mutations have happened in the history of evolution. But this fact alone does not disprove some form of intelligence behind life. I consider myself to be intelligent, and i can tell from your postings you seem to be intelligent aswell, this does not mean we don't make mistakes or sometimes get things wrong in the process of making improvements. I dont make the claim that this intelligence is some kind of divine omnicience, merely that it exists at some level
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"But this fact alone does not disprove some form of intelligence behind life."
Nothing can disprove an imaginary being, the whole point is that the assertion that there is one is untestable and as such it isn't scientific. The whole point is that there's no justification for belief of separate intelligence guiding evolution.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Besides the observations I pointed out in fact indicate no intelligence, or a team of incompetent designers all trying to compete against each other. You can't assert "I think there's intelligence behind all of evolution" and watch it make the same mistakes over and over again that result in early death or even death upon birth with currently a 99% failure rate in relation to extinct species and expect to be taken seriously.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
If we can indicate how the mutations happen, how they're selected, passed and how it propagates throughout a population then where is a designer even needed? Its like understanding how a computer works every step of the way and then asserting that magic pixies do the calculations in the processor even though that process is well understood.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 To suggest that the human race has any where near the understanding of our universe as we do the workings of a computer is propastrous. Any respected scientist could tell you that. There is much about the universe science is not yet able to explain, yet the lack of factual support for these undiscovered phenomenon does not mean they don’t exist.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
1) So what, ignorance of phenomenon doesn't validate belief in something we don't know exists.
2) Evolution is very well understood in every step as to how it happens much like the workings of a computer.
3) Actually they're dismissed because they violate so many known laws and accepted theories in science that explain must of the universe in elegant and brilliant detail without explaining with evidence how the violations are validated.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Many creation scientist have discovered many interesting facts, though they are often dismissed because of the use of those facts to try and support outlandish theories like young earth theory. I don’t believe the intelligence driving evolution is caused by some fairytail god, but instead could be as simple as genetic intelligence.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@garith21 How is it that genetics know when to raise or lower the next generations metabolism based on based on the lack or abundance of food in the parent (or in the case of mothers, the grandparent) generation. This ability to respond to outside influence suggest some form of intelligence. Even Carl Sagan believed in a “genetic memory,” once again suggesting SOME type of intelligence.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"How is it that genetics know"
How does genetics know to make a single individual in a litter have similar genes to what a selective breeder wants?
Answer: It doesn't, they're random mutations in a generation and if the random mutation is good it gets selected for future generations. If it never occurs and it's required for survival then the species eventually goes extinct if it's in nature.
Carl Sagan's genetic memory could be something as simple as heritability.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 This intelligence I refer to could just be a genetic one. How is it that when a cell replicates it knows to create more receptors for a certain chemical based on previous amounts of that chemical it received?
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Because that's how chemistry and receptors works. This question is absurd as asking how acids know how to interact with other materials
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Even in your posted video about Einstein he admits there must be something behind the energy that drives our universe and that the universe operates “with the beauty of a craftsmans wrist watch” at the atomic level. He also mentions how it angers him when people use his words to disprove the existence of god.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
He also talks about how he doesn't believe in a personal god and to him god is more of a poetic statement of the operations of the universe, for most intents and purposes Einstein could be qualified as a pantheist which believes the universe is god, or believes the mysteries of the universe is god.
Both of which have their own concepts without tagging on the word god.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 As for the existence of a “god,” I don’t even pretend to know if there is or not. I just want people to stop using evolution to “disprove” the existence of god, and for those who believe in god to stop using that belief to ignorantly discredit evolution. When people do this they loose each others respect.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
1) Even if we knew everything there is to know about the universe and it's origins it couldn't ever disprove an imaginary being such as god any more than it could disprove that invisible pink unicorns exist, this is known as the burden of proof fallacy.
2) People that begin this sort of conversation only start it because their dogma that they attribute to god says evolution is wrong and of course people that accept science have to respond to that.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
I don't understand why you would believe such assertions of a higher power that's untestable, undetectable and unverifiable, it's like believing in any other sort of fantasy. Seeing if there is, is one thing, believing there is before there's sufficient evidence is another entirelly and asserting "you can't disprove it" is a childish logical fallacy.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21
We just, as people, need to stop using evolution to argue for or against god, as you said there is no way to prove one way or the other
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Again, this argument originates in people referring to their dogma for their belief in a god and people defending scientific ideas.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I guess where we differ is you’re the type of person who needs hard facts and things to be practically spelled out for you in order to understand them, both logical and understandable. However, I tend to recognize and admit that science hasn’t yet explained all it can, and I have the imagination capable of understanding what may yet to be discovered along with the reason to accept what has.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"However, I tend to recognize and admit that science hasn’t yet explained all it can"
That's a given, if we did then we'd stop doing science and research wouldn't be something that we do any longer, it's why researchers still have a job.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Not to say it isn’t possible, but the odds of life coming together by chance in this manner is equivalent to a single person winning the lottery every day for 10 years straight. This seems to be much less likely than some type of outside influence driving this process
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
This argument is a miserable assumption that life formed as it is from complete randomness, nothing in abiogenesis says this. Try examining what abiogenesis says rather than looking at ID proponent sites from people that don't even have a knowledge on the topic telling you the probability of something they don't understand.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 The one and only aspect of evolution I have doubts about is primordial soup theory. We do know amino acids can come together under these conditions and from that proteins can easily assimilate. But after that no one can explain how the jump was made to RNA, going against your philosophy that things must be fact in order to believe them. This jump to me is the true missing link.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Um, again examining abiogenesis it indicates many hypothesis as to how it could have happened based upon the evidence we do have that is consistent with what we do know.
Also abiogenesis isn't evolution and saying "we don't know exactly which way it happened" is irrelevant since there's nothing to indicate an intelligence would even be required.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I think you have my thoughts on this issue confused. I don’t argue against evolution at all. I don’t even really argue that there is a “god” I admit that I don’t know as everyone else should. I don’t believe in a personal god either, at least not in any form that its been described as of yet. I definitely lean more towards Einstein’s belief in “god” being the universe and its workings. There are obviously too many flaws with institutionalized religion both in practice and theory.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Again, he believed it in a more of a poetic sense, you are claiming that it's an actual intelligence and just now you claimed it's an intelligence that interacts with reality. You believe in nothing remotely close to the poetic god of Einstein. You literally believe in the god of the gaps and an intervening god.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Besides if you didn't notice, you're still trying to use the same tactics of trying to justify a belief based upon ignorance and I'm addressing that as well since it's a complete logical fallacy. I don't say it's not possible, merely that it's unjustifiable to believe something like that which cannot be tested or verified in any meaningful way. You still may as well plug in god, gods, interdimentional universe creating pixies or the FSM with the exact same argument.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 We don’t need things to be spelled out before us in a scientific journal or holy book in order to understand them. We admit that we don’t know the entire truth behind life. Though we do accept most if not all that science tells us, it’s the unknown that intrigues us however. Maybe its your minds inability to reach beyond the personification of a “god” that keeps you from seeing even a “poetic” form of “god” as just that--god.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Only because you're not referring to Einstein's god or the deist god and insist that it's more then discarding the baggage when you use the word god when it's most convenient to you.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 You atheists are as bad if not worse than creationists in your persistent need to prove or disprove a “god”. This conversation only leads to childish bickering. As you and I have already stated its ridiculous to try as the conversation will go nowhere because it is impossible to do so. If atheists and creationist were the democrats and republicans of the theoretical world, me and the few like me would be considered the independents.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"in your persistent need to prove or disprove a “god”"
And apparently you can't read that you can't disprove an imaginary concept, all that can be indicated is that there's insufficient evidence to believe that some separate entity exists. If you just want to say 'god is the universe" then just say "the universe". Otherwise it's just as meaningless if I said "god is my cup".
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Your cup didnt have any part in your creation, and the generally accepted thought of god is a creator so this analogy is ridiculous.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Actually people redefine god all the time, "god is nature", "god is the universe", "god is mystery" etc etc. If I attributed my existence to natural formation I wouldn't personify it and call it god. If I attributed it to another made up being like a universe creating pixie or FSM then it doesn't mean it's god either.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I have listened to many creation scientists, and I often laugh at 99% of their conclusions. The only reason I entered this conversation is to get you to admit its possible, which you did. Much as I try and get creationists to admit genesis could possibly be wrong, which it is.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"I entered this conversation is to get you to admit its possible"
Back to my position, where I will admit that nearly anything is possible, but what's important is what's reasonable to believe. It's always possible that someone can defy the laws of physics and fly around by flapping their arms, but there's no good reason to believe it.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 we can prove that people cant fly around by flapping their arms because it defies many laws of physics again ridiculous analogy
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Right so you'll lean on the ignorance of science to believe in some "higher power" that's "required for life" but then you'll lean on science to indicate what's not possible, though you can probably achieve such a feat within scientific means under a different context and not "only" by flapping one's arms.
The reason why you're so hard to pin down is because you use the same words in different contexts so you can cling to the creator jive.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Also you validated my point of "is it reasonable to believe" you indicated my example is not likely a good thing to believe because of everything we know and given the current context. I'm much the same way about a god in any meaningful sense.
Also you originally fought for the idea of some form of ID indicating intelligence and personification yet again which is most definitely not in line with Spinoza's god
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I don’t make the claim that my Ideas are directly in line with Einstein’s, but instead more like his than that of institutionalized religion’s fairy tail god. Maybe I’m so hard to “pin down” on this topic because I admit I don’t know one way or the other of the existence of higher power. Maybe if I had a life time to learn and write down my ideas they would be slightly more clear.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
*palms face* atheism and theism is about beliefs, agnosticism is regarding knowledge.
For example. I don't believe the claim that a theistic god exists so I'm an Atheist, however I don't claim to know with absolute certainty so I'm also an agnostic.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I don’t really try to “cling” to any kind of “creator jive” as you suggest. In fact my views are constantly changing as my opened mind learns more from various sources. I didn’t grow up religious at all, I actually started my philosophical life much more in line with Darwinism; as I’ve learned more, my belief in some type of intelligence greater than our own developed.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@garith21 And if it’s those pulses that give us thought and consciousness, then it’s entirely plausible that the universe too could have some form of consciousness. The things being discovered in this area are pretty interesting stuff. If you haven’t already, you really should look more into it. Many of the scientists who study it, tend become more spiritual through these discoveries.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@garith21 The small piece of evidence that to me suggests that there could be some type of intelligence behind it all is in what quantum physics is starting to understand about multiple dimensions and in studies being done on the human mind’s ability to influence matter. If our meager human mind, with its very small amount of electro magnetic pulses can influence matter on a small scale, then imagine ,if you can, what the universe’s pulses could do to influence matter.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"on the human mind’s ability to influence matter."
Oh geesh, you took a misunderstanding of heizenburg's uncertainty principle and misunderstanding of the double slit experiment to a whole different level that it doesn't even states.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I don’t really see how the conjunction of my belief in scientific fact, and my understanding of some ignorance in science is truly all that contradictory. Again even the most respected scientists understand this. I really only stop believing in the possibility of something when science disproves it, rather than ONLY believing in what science proves.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"I really only stop believing in the possibility of something when science disproves it, rather than ONLY believing in what science proves. "
Indicating you don't even know how logic and science works, science never allows something to be "proved" that's why the highest level any idea in science can achieve is a theory.
Secondly you're using the burden of proof fallacy, by your logic you should believe in invisible unicorns or dragons because science can't disprove those.
garith21 1 year ago
My stance is I do not simply discard a claim because it lacks evidence, however I do not believe a claim until it has demonstrable evidence. I do not believe any proposed god (in any meaningful sense of the word) exists because those claiming that one exists fail to provide sufficient evidence to justify belief, always relying on logical fallacies or relabeling god to something else and discarding and picking up baggage of the word whenever they want.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 well then you can replace my words of "prove" or "disprove" if you'd like with the words"demonstrable evidence" and my thoughts are still the same, maybe I stated it in a rather vague way, I don't mean to say I believe in ALL things possible. You manage to blow my statements out of proportion, bringing back that arrogant condescending natue (though I have to admit its more tolerable than the ingorance of creationism).
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113 As for the heizenburg double slit experiment, I wasn't referring to that at all. His only suggests that how you observe matter can effect it. Many more experiments have been done since that suggest the observer can affect matter in much more direct fashions, like how thought can change water molocules. I forget the scientists name but he's the one in the film "what the Bleep Do We Know:Down the Rabbit Hole"
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
""what the Bleep Do We Know:Down the Rabbit Hole""
OMG I don't think I can stop laughing at this one, I watched this movie not too long ago, it has grains of truth and stretches them to conclusions which aren't validated by evidence. Dude, if you want to get your science from films and people commenting out of their field or outside of science you go for it, I prefer peer reviewed literature.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Tell ya what, if you want to be lazy, you can look up "Debunked!! - What the bleep do we know" on youtube and see a few claims addressed in regards to this completely fallacious movie.
If you want to do actual research, why not examine the claims?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I've watched "Debunked" and i find it very interesting aswell, once again your taking my statement to another level. I don't claim the whole film to be true, especially not the crazy blonde chick. I'm only pointing out one study that has been repeated. I realize what the bleep is a film put together, as so many are, in a way that uses some facts to support a conclusion that a person (or gruops of people) want you to come to.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@garith21 Granted one of his peer reviewed tests didnt go so well, but another in 2006 did. When doing a study that deals with controls of conciousness and intent many things can go wrong, providing a bad result. Until i see some evidence in my life time suggesting this to be impossible, I'd have to say that there is more evidence suggesting that it is possible.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Yet his "test" wasn't peer reviewed, it wasn't double blind, it wasn't even dealing with scientific controls, he admittedly cherry picked and altered the pictures to get the results he wanted. Secondly trying to rationalize it despite all that is actually rather funny.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"Until i see some evidence in my life time suggesting this to be impossible"
There are hundreds upon hundreds of studies dealing with intercessory prayer, statistically speaking if you do enough studies you are bound to get at least one study that is statistically significant out of mere chance even though nearly all studies show that there is no effect. The only thing that can be done is show there's no evidence to the claim for effect when making such claims.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Lastly, you saw how dishonest those people had to be with their "studies" and that's what they presented for their movie, that was the best they had. Are you really so gullible as to continue believing based upon complete hogwash? Just about anyone will say "sure it's possible" but I see no reason to believe that the claims are true, if anything the dishonest tactics indicate it's nothing but a fraud.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Emoto's study in 2006 was in fact peer reviewed and was double blind, the later one he did, that wasn't very successfu,l was also peer reviewed and triple blind. The photos he selected weren't part of the studies, they were part of his initial experiment. I'm open to all possibilities.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
1) back to the statistical probability from pure chance bit.
2) The triple blind study also failed to yield positive results
3) Positive thinking is virtually the same as intercessory prayer, it was merely an example and pointing out that even if you get 1 positive result out of studies that you will out of sheer statistical anomalies get a statistically significant result
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21Emoto could be wrong. However, his study really didn't have anything to do with intercessory prayer. It's not about the act of praying for another person's well being, though that is what the producers of the film want you to conclude. Rather his study deals with how ones positive, or negative thoughts can effect some elements. This is what scientology, the most ridiculous religion of all, tries to take advantage of in converting people to their side by using their "e meters".
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Right, back to the whole bit of why you think there's "more positive evidence" even though there's so much null evidence or do you cherry pick to come to that conclusion as the people you tout did. Heck you earlier touted him as a scientist when he's nothing of a sort, he's a business man and an author. You might as well buy into magic sandwiches that prevent cancer as long as you think positively.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Also, as far as your claim regarding the 2006 article
It was reviewed as a photo article posted in a peer reviewed journal. However it was not presented as a study, nor was it peer reviewed.
Lastly this study was very flawed, as they use statistical tricks to lower the requirements for what is considered a statistically significant result. Basically they took low numbers of samples and individual biases which results in a high noise rate and lowered a bar for a "positive" result.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
There's a reason why results have to be replicable, because if I attempted so many subjective experiments with high noise rates and only published the ones with favorable outcomes then I can "prove" nearly anything I want. You can't pay attention to such studies while ignoring all of the other cases of null results. Not to mention the many other scientific protocols broken in the study you can read yourself.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
I merely applied your words with your use of the burden of proof fallacy. The fact that you want to justify belief in some higher intelligence based upon ignorance and the fact that science hasn't disproved the belief you claim to believe based upon no evidence.
I merely applied the same reasoning to something you believe is completely absurd to show you how absurd the statement is.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 What gets me is the condescending approach that atheists and religious fanatics use when arguing your points of view. I identify more with agnosticism because of its ability to overlap various belief structures while still admitting a lack of knowledge about deities and higher powers.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@garith21 I’m not sure how you can tell me what I believe. This is where you lose my respect I’ve had for you on this issue. I don’t believe in dogma so my thoughts can’t originate from that. The numbers I give on the odds didn’t come from creationists, they actually came from biology teachers and professors I’ve had through out my education, and I’ve never actually been to a “ID proponent site”, so your wrong again.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Yet it's the exact same argument that William Dempsky states and it can be found on creationist websites. It completely takes it out of the context of the fact that the laboratory is the size of the earth performing millions upon millions of said experiments, and the fact that it already happened means that the probability automatically goes to 1:1.
Your argument is like telling a lottery winner their odds of winning were so improbable that they needed a god to intervene.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 The “god” I speak of is much like Einstein’s because for me it is the universe and its laws and principles, life in fact does need a creator, and it’s the universe. The universe created us, whether intelligently or not, it is still true. Our reality exists in this universe, meaning that “god” (or the universe) has definitely had a direct affect in reality.
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
Yet you're giving it a personification right now in talking about how it's a creator, creator denotes consciousness and personification not a poetic sense of viewing existence and the mystery of the universe.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I’ve never tried to justify any ignorant belief system at all. I admit the generally accepted idea of “god” is an ignorant one due to the fact that it requires people to ignore facts that have been proven. I’ve also made the claim that the atheistic point of view is a hard headed one due to denial of possibilities of not yet discovered facts, or the inability to recognize things that cant be tested or proven.
lucky322113 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lucky322113
"I’ve also made the claim that the atheistic point of view is a hard headed one due to denial of possibilities of not yet discovered facts, or the inability to recognize things that cant be tested or proven."
Yet all that atheism is, is a disbelief in the claim of the theistic god, Einstein himself stated that he was for most intents and purposes an atheist in this regard.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21I find it very unfortunate that people feel the need to polarize themselves on this issue. Its obvious evolution happened the people who deny it are to hard headed to want to believe. Even the pope a few decades ago admiteed that evolution is no longer just a theorie. But that doesnt disprove some form of god or higher being. Nor would the existence of a god disprove evolution. To only accept one and not the other is to ingore scientific facts and intriguing questions from the opposer
lucky322113 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"Nor would the existence of a god disprove evolution."
of course not, the general amount of people that accept evolution and god either think he works through evolution or he merely created the universe and it's how it happened.
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
"To only accept one and not the other is to ingore scientific facts and intriguing questions from the opposer"
Yet only one has scientific facts and "intriguing questions" can be addressed rather easily when taken in context with all of the evidence that we possess. Back to the whole point however, is there any objective evidence that doesn't resort to a logical fallacy to justify the belief that an intelligence is behind evolution?
garith21 1 year ago
@lucky322113
There is however nothing wrong with questions, but you can't get from ignorance to believing any given proposition is true based upon that ignorance. I may as well make up a monster, a interdimensional universe creating pixie, aliens or many gods for the same arguments from ignorance. Science deals with reality and as the saying goes, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
garith21 1 year ago
Watdh.. watch?v=rMa9icQlP-o For the TRUTH
gregrutz 1 year ago
evidence?... okay.. would u mind telling me what evidence you have for evolution on the macro scale? im not talking about giving me fossils that appear to be transitions. i need evidence on the genetic level that proves macro evolution.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 DNA markers show a nested hierarchy which matches Dawin's tree of life. Proof of evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
The fact that we've observed speciation, which is all that "macro" evolution is. We've observed the genetic makeup of a distant parent population and compared it to the genetic make up of a distant daughter population and what you want to do is ignore all of the evolutionary steps in between and say "I can't see how that population became this population in one step" because you're ignoring data and what evolution even says and fighting your own strawman of evolution.
garith21 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
Even if we had zero fossil evidence despite the fact that we can find fossils in predicted geographical locations and in appropriate strata using the theory of evolution the genetic evidence is more than enough to indicate common dissent. Whether it be ERVs, the vast amount of dna that does nothing in a genome, the genes that are inactivated in us that have a function that is easily explainable via common descent, but not if it were magically created unrelated to one another.
garith21 1 year ago
The Coelacanth is an order, saying that this order of fish is the same species of Coelacanth is the same as saying that all primates are of the same species, ie we're the same species of ape as every other primate that exists in the world. This video can't be described as anything more than utter fail.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 what about other living fossils like the nautilus, or the horse shoe crab, or Sturgeons. the reason these arguments are brought up, is because the fossil record shows more stasis than anything else. one would think all the animals existed at one point and then slowly become extinct; which is what we observe.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
1) This is known as moving the goal posts "the Coelacanth doesn't count? Lets move to something else"
2) Except there are many species that exist today that didn't exist anywhere else in the fossil record, still waiting on the cambrian bunnies.
3) Note: These examples are at the Family level not the species level your examples would akin to stating that all hominids are the same.
garith21 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
4) How is your ignorance of taxonomy, what evolution even says or what the fossil record is even like a problem for evolution.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 because we are observing stasis. and not evolution garith. were is the evidence of macro evolution? here's a new theory. animals we find today wither it be in the order or family of its species has existed along side every other animal that has gone extinct. and if this is what science suggests then evolution is built off of speculation and not evidence.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
1) Evolution, which is that population allelic frequencies change over time is an observed phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains how it happens over time which has been observed, we also observe the emergence of new species both in the lab and in the wild indicating that macro evolution does happen since that's all that macro evolution is.
2) still waiting on the Cambrian bunnies.
garith21 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
3) Something you need to know about taxonomy is that it's based upon clades of what each organism is discendent from, evolution only ever predicts that what comes after will only ever be a slightly modified version of what came before it. Much of what creationists claim that evolution says would in fact falsify evolution indicating you know nothing about what evolution even is.
garith21 1 year ago
@Gods0n1
"here's a new theory"
Indicating that you have no idea what a scientific theory is, you don't even match the requirement for hypothesis since you don't make an observation first and are making assertions while ignoring all of the existing evidence we do have.
garith21 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct, no dinos, no trilobites, etc.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 Correct, things don't have to change, which is part of the theory of evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
How ridiculous. Coelacanth is an order of fish, not a specific species. It contains some 4 dozen species.
The modern coelacanth, latimeria chalumnae, does not appear in the fossil record. It's a new species. If anything, the modern discovery of a fish under the order coelacanth that's not in the fossil record reinforces evolution.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
fossils are associated with a particular span of geological time.
Almost every stratum contains fossils that seem to be the same type.
Evolutionists study the stratum and determine what "index" fossils are contained in it. They date the stratum from the index fossils they find. :-/
Okay, now think about this: if the date of the fossil is wrong, then the date of the stratum is also wrong. Remember that geologists tell us that the stratum have been laid down over millions of years!
ncwdane 1 year ago
Why do crationists think a ''living fossil'' can't live on or stay a ''missing link''?
Fish evolved into 'whatever' and we still have fish, they did not go away.
They really don't understand what they are trying to prove wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
what a mother fucker video!!! every fucking word is just bullshit!!!
raulcogelon 1 year ago
well its actually not. You see the modern coelocanth is very different and bigger than its fossil ancestors. In fact it proves evolution! Fossil Coelocanths are similar, but not the same as the modern fish.
Same with birds, theyre evolved dinosaurs, arguably a genus that never became extinct. The common sparrow has a very similar bone structure to the T-rex and Velocoraptor.
ste309w 1 year ago 3
Creationists never seem to learn. It's such a shame to waste a human mind by clinging to superstition and myth.
smilodon1 1 year ago
First of all, coelacanth is a genus of fish, not a species. Second, the one found in 1938 was a NEW speices called Latimeria, and this fish was never found in the fossil records to begin with, which means it evolved AFTER the cretaceous period. Sorry about that. ;)
SkydanceShinigami 2 years ago 4
Utter misinformation and propaganda. Many 'missing links' are still alive today, and it should be noted the the Coelocanths we find today are in fact very different from the fossil Coelocanths we find.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago 3
if all this ppl clame to be so clever, why does the world look like it does? everybody thinks they have right, atheists and evo and religius ppl. Your all crap if u belive u have right. everything changes in time...poor ppl and poor human kind...blä Inte konstigt världen ser ut som den gör, alla tror att dom har rätt. ingen respeckt för någonting :_(
WritingMotor 2 years ago
Hahaa creationists are so desperate! Who are they trying to convince? Sorry guys but wrong species- even though it wouldn't be evidence for anything anyway.
kinkykirby 2 years ago
Dr. Gentry has been published, reviewed and pretty much been dismissed by the scientific community as silly. You fail.
cowburn28 2 years ago
The two extant coelacanths are entirely different species than those found in the fossil record.
All this tells us is that some still exist. This is no better than the "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument.
Leehofooks 2 years ago 3
A living fossil proves the animal didn't die. That is all. Evolution is a branching tree, not a ladder. But since creationist don't understand evolution they think this proves something. It does not.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
i can only describe this video as FAIL.
GodlessHippie 2 years ago 9
@GodlessHippie
When theirs No Scientific explination
just Deny,
why let solid evidence make you believe in God
or realize evolutions not true
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane
no denial,
i'm simply unconvinced of the existence of any god, not just yours.
and i'm overwhelmingly convinced that evolution is the origin of the diversity of lifeforms.
God and science have nothing to do with one another.
Gods are early man's attempts at explaining the origins of existence.
Science is the process by which we discover truths about existence.
and since no god has ever been scientifically demonstrable, then it's easy to say (for me, at least) that they aren't real. =P
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie Hey, I cant help it if science (Evidence) points yowards the creation Model & if they immplies God, then so be it, all archeoptyix (9) of them are the same stage, all 20 t-rexes & millions of trilobits, & if evolution were true, it would be more random like drawing cards outta a deck, as it is, it's as if the whole deck is 10's, there should be more 1-9's&(gradual transitions) & some j q k's (more evolved) if evolution were true
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane
none of what you just said made an iota of sense to me. =P
"(Evidence) points yowards the creation Model & if they immplies God"
i think that says it all. XD
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie Typo on the word "Towards: not yowards lol,
people keep implying that Creation is religion & evolution is science, I cant help it if the bible account happens to give a creation account instead of an evolutionary account, if it did, I have to say it was inaccurate because the evidence of science & Observation aliegns w/ Creation, NOT evolution, so it just happens to line up w/ the bible, that doesnt make it religion, it just confirms the bible aliegns w/ the observable evidence
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane
Creationism - the hypothesis that GOD/s created the universe.
(any concept with GOD in it IS religious/theology)
And evolution is a field of study in biology, a science. Which again by definition makes evolution science.
And i hate to break it to you but the bible is quite inaccurate. =P
If creationism, as you say, is so observable that YOU (a non-scientist) can see it's truth, than why is it that only 0.15% of Biologists and Geologists (trained professionals) are creationists?!
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@ncwdane
Furthermore, it would only take ONE reliable fossil in the wrong strata that can't be explained to disprove evolution to everyone in the scientific community. So, name ONE observation that aligns with creationism, or at least one that doesn't align with evolution. Creationists have had since the beginning of history to find observable evidence of creationism but science still won that race even with religion having a few centuries head start. =P
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
What are you talking about,
they have trees going up through ALL the stratum's in Yellowstone & elsewhere, Theirs Hammerheads found in stratum's their shouldn't be, if they found a rabit next to a trilobite, you just say someone buried the rabbit, Common, plus theirs not even anywhere, where all the stratum's are in order w/ fossils at every level in the same place proving your hypothesis
ncwdane 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie Bwahhhhhhaaaaa hahahahaha !!!!!
Look at the Video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Creature is ALIVE !!!!
so called scientist said it was 80 Million yrears old !!!
wheres all the fossils in the layers leading to the live one today ?????
its because they date the layer by the fossil & the fossil by the layer
it's Bullshit , every creature is the same as all the rest found 9 archeptryix 20 t-rexes millions of trilobites & NONE more or less evolved ! thats the creation model !
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane
You need to understand that not every bone can become fossilized, only a minuscule percentage of specimens are buried in the right conditions to fossilize them.
And so what if that's alive? that just means that it hasn't evolved much since the time of the oldest fossil (80 mill yrs old i assume) of that species.
NO, they date both by radiometric dating. scientists use many different dating methods and they don't make a conclusion until multiple methods converge on the same answer.
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@ncwdane Furthermore; Uranium-lead, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, and Radiocarbon are just a few of the dozens of different dating methods scientists use to make a hypothesis on an objects age. And most of the time more than one dating method is used on fossils and these DIFFERENT tests yield the SAME RESULTS. These techniques have been shown to have a margin of error of less than 1%.
so do some research, get to know how evolution works.
then come back to me.
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie What a bunch of BS on your Part !!
"They" have tested Live Snails at 4,000 to 6,000 yrs old
I have seen scientist testify that when they send a Fossil in or a sample, they wanna know what it was(not just a sample w/o the creature) & what layer it should be in & they twist & turn the knobs till they get the desired result.
(margin of error of 1% my azz) !!!!
I noticed how you cahnged the subject once I pointed out THE ONE sample alls it would Take" is staring you rt in the Face
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane im sorry but you are the one spewing nonsense.
if you knew ANYTHING about radiometric dating, you'd know that first of all not EVERY method will give you an accurate reading on EVERY thing. You have to be a chemist to know what dating methods can reliably be used on what. And second, about those snails, thats why scientists don't use radiometric dating on living things, DUH.
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@ncwdane
" they twist & turn the knobs till they get the desired result."
think about what you're claiming here. your trying to say that we can't trust scientists because they have some kind of desired result or a bias. WHY? WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE DESIRE TO KNOWINGLY LIE ON BEHALF OF EVOLUTION?!?!?!? look, YOU'RE not a geologist, a chemist, or a biologist. So i am EXTREMELY confident that thousands of experts know better than you.
if your so smart, go publish a scientific paper. XP
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie Thats RIGHT BUDDY
YOU CAN NOT TRUST THEM
Most them will always make some outrageous claim to bypass the truth
& their are many Science Journals published , but Evolutionist wont listen to truth if their soul depended on it (which it does btw)
& yur the one that said only ONE fossil needs to be found outta place
& here it is , a Live Coelacanth found in strtums supposedly 80 million yrs ago, & why arnt they in every strtum if a live ones here, cause they been Bullshitting
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane just stop.
what are you smokin' buddy?
the government isn't out to get you or me.
people, like you and me, make up the scientific community.
and either of us could make it into the scientific community.
It's not like you stop being a normal person when you become a scientist, so what in the world makes you think that 100% of the people entering the study of (let's say) biology would accept to keep quiet about the conspiracy of evolution?
when not even 100% of biologists BELIEVE in it?!
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@ncwdane Just get it through your head that this fish can stay around without evolving for millions of years! Thats much more likely than a magically invisible sky daddy coming over and POOF we and all the billions of other species exist fully formed and is already a functioning cycling environment. Try finding a modern animal in a younger layer, like a human among dinos, or a dog among trilobites. THAT would work.
Oh and my "soul depends on it". OOOH, threats of damnation!
I REPENT, MASSA!
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie whats the difference,
if we found this Modern fish Coelacanth or a Dog or a rabbit then,
this fish is around now !
here's one for ya, its hard to always draw a 10 outta a deck of cards, yet all t-Rex's (20) are 10's or the same, & so is all brontosaurus & archeopteryx,(9) of them, so if I bet you 100 Dollars you couldn't draw something other than a 10 outta a deck of cards, you'd have a 13 to one advantage every time, but you wont bet me the next fossil is a different level
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane "yet all t-Rex's (20) are 10's or the same, & so is all brontosaurus & archeopteryx" sooo, you're trying to say that you personally have examined all 29 of these fossils to conclude that they're all the same? :O
what are you talking about?!?!?
why does it matter if fossils of the same species are similar or even exactly the same?!
"but you wont bet me the next fossil is a different level". Different level? so are you saying that all these fossils came from the same strata/layer? idk.
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie It's pretty common Knowledge & not disputed that the finds are all at "the same stage" OF DEVELOPMENT, none ore more or less evolved than the others, I have seen pics & video fottage of many of the finds especially the archeoptryx, but not tyhe millions of Trilobites, I dont know if they were found at the same statum levels nor could I know for sure, cause they mach the fossil w/ the stratum & visa versa, circular reasoning, whers partials in earlier statums
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane do YOU even have a clue what you're talking about?!?!
Look, evolution is simply mutation within the genome (which occur during conception) and the process of elimination by survival of the fittest. So animals with more advantageous mutations and less detrimental ones are more likely to survive to reproduce, thus passing their new genomic traits to their offspring.
We KNOW mutation occurs; you ever worry about a virus like avian-flu becoming airborne? THATS an example of evolution.
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
@GodlessHippie Put your money where you mouth is....
it is not that complicated !!!!!!!!!!
the nexr archeoptryix/T-Rex/trillobite/or brontasaurous found, will be as all the others found so far, Like drawing a 10 outta a deckm of cards everytime, Never ever a 1-9 less evolved pulled outta the deck & never a J/Q or King drawn, more evolved , odds are over 10 to 1 you'd draw a different stage each find IF evolution were true, but it's as if only 10's are in the Deck, bet me or STFU !!!!
ncwdane 1 year ago
@ncwdane ok, what does it mean to be this 10? am i an evolutionary 10? what animal that can survive to reproduce isn't a successful 10? And what you're not seeing is, if an animal is born "more evolved" to the extent that it could be said that evolution had taken place, then it would NOT be the same species. Thus, expecting the fossils of the SAME species to be varied enough to be considered "more/less evolved" is just stupid. XP
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
Fossils are like snapshots into the past. 3d pictures of the bones (and sometimes soft tissues, those are harder to fossilize) of creatures past.
To say that because we find a creature alive that is in the fossil record proves that evolution is wrong..
I'm sorry it is just stupid.
It is just like saying "We assumed your grandmother wasn't alive cause we didn't have any other evidence proving so, but because she is alive, you her grandchild shouldn't be."
See the logic? I hope so..
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 2
Here's a theory for anyone who buys into this...
I have a theory that someone has a great great great grandmother. I can give my proof via various articles of clothing and things that she owned.
We go about proving that this person existed with records documents and the like.
Now we have assumed this person to be dead.
However it turns out that the old buzzard is still alive and kicking.
That is the same exact thing we have with "living fossils."
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 2
So, Sorry, But latimeria is not the same coelacanth found in the fossil record,
= fail .
Cnidarious 2 years ago 2
Funnily enough, one of these fish, was NOT found.
DieChavScum 2 years ago
the latimeria found is not the same that is in fossil records, cause it evolved! lol
there are no latimeria fossils...lol sorry!
texabara 2 years ago 2
This video is so full of straw man arguments my palm is fully now attached to my face.
sidelingscroll 2 years ago 3