the best way to win a creationnist ask him if he belive bacterial resistance to antibiotic if he say yes well tell him it come from genetic mutation and it is evolution in progress right under is noose
i always win on that part and i enjoy to see creationist stumble on that
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
Creationists are the new flat Earthers. It's mainly a fundamentalist protestant thing. Early church fathers like St Augustine believed in evolution. Even he said that he didn't believe that the world was created in six days.
It's SO FRUSTRATING that they ALWAYS dodge the question. Why? Why???? They must be aware that they are doing it. Why does it not bother them that there are all these clear questions they can't answer for others OR FOR THEMSELVES?
@iliveon "over 40 thousand species of spiders. did those all survive during the flood? evolution ftw". Shows you don't even know what evolution is. That's natural selection, not macro-evolution.
Arrg does she not understand the concept of feedback? Note to those who may not grasp the basic rule of call-in shows - Turn off or turn down the tv or radio that is broadcasting the show you are calling into.
You want your kids to get taught creationism then send them to a Christian highschool. All the bad troubled kids are in the public highschools mostly.
@Imaginefree69 for the most part private school is better. the school doesnt have to tolerate bad behaviour and will expel bad kids. parents will still have to pay tuition for the rest of the semester. the parents encourage their kids to behave more in class and the teachers have an easier time teaching. its all common sense. open your mind to everything and you will understand both sides rather thatn to keep close minded dogmas. i encourage people on both sides to do so. that is enlightenment
@timmarquez50 "for the most part private school is better" Yes, so the ACE promoters keep telling me. I have seen no independent stats to support the claim, nor have my personal observations confirmed it. There are a LOT of former private school students and MANÁ Christian private school students living on the street as guilt-and-fear-filled junkies and whores. Fact. You keep accusing me of not seeing both sides, but I was a pastor and Bible teacher for over 40 years. I've seen both sides.
@Imaginefree69 if u dont believe me u can check at you local states data base for the facts on independent schools. thanks to the no child left behind act, which hurt more then it helps, we have tests scores to show if students are up to par. both private and public schools should be listed. it will tell you the percentage that passed. and i see 2 many flaws in the theory to make it believabe. it is not fact nor law. maybe in the future it will be law and i may accept it but till then i cant
@timmarquez50 "i see 2 many flaws in the theory to make it believable." Please show us these flaws. "we should be allowed to question" And so you are. Science, unlike religion, welcomes questions. What it does NOT welcome is ignorant stone-throwing. Your questions about the development of sexual reproduction, for instance, have been thoroughly answered long ago. You refuse to trouble yourself to actually learn about the biology, yet you expect your question to negate the theory. Education!
@Imaginefree69 maybe online but in a classroom these questions are supressed and the people asking the questions are considered idiots. and as for the evolution of sexual reproduction there is no evidence for it. also i have done research and it goes off topic, a usual defence for evolution is to go around the subject. kinda like what u r doing. the biology is full of theory that cant be proven correct, evidence may suggest something but it does not make a theory factual.
@timmarquez50 No, no. You may have read a few articles, probably by creationists, but you have NOT researched evolution. Your words make that very clear. I have a degree in Developmental Biology and NEVER have I seen questions suppressed. Of course, when ignorant and hostile people try to argue without the facts, they are corrected on ANY legitimate science class.
@Imaginefree69 well what state do u live in. if i can find any info i will state the fact and give u a url wich is more than what u have given me while trying to either prove me wronge or give fact to support ur claims.
@timmarquez50 "what state do u live in. " Use your vaunted research skills, youngster. Not that I am interested in the stats for any particular state; you did not limit your claims to any one state. Try to find some national or international stats. That would be much more valid. Supporting your claims is your job. What claims have I made that you want evidence for?
@Imaginefree69 i want to know how sexual reproduction evolved. u say there is evidence and research out that is factual i have found nothing but theories that make no sense. besides a theory cant b used as evidence for another theory. please send me a url or a book anything that with solid science and facts not theories or assumptions that support the evolution of sex.
@timmarquez50 As I have said, it is not realistic to try to teach you a six-credit Biology course in these comments. You are responsible for your own education, and for getting the facts before spouting nonsense in public. Your local community college will surely offer evening courses in Biology. "unless external forces are placed on it " Exactly. In this case that external force is called the SUN.
@Imaginefree69 i am starting to think u dont have sufficient evidence for ur claims. u cant provide a url with an existing fossil record because there is not a complete fossil record. second u cant provide any evidence on the evolution of sexual reproduction. i expected as much, u just keep beating around the bush because u r losing the argument. I have given a url in every instance when i was asked to produce info yet u wont give me any info to support ur claims.
@timmarquez50 "i am starting to think u dont have sufficient evidence for ur claims." All you have to do is ask. Which of my assertions would you like to see evidence for? I'll do much better than URLs. But it is absurd to expect an entire course, as I keep saying. I explained your closed-system error, though you chose not to acknowledge it. I asked yo to make sense, such as your ":2% of amino acids" statement, but you chose to avoid the request.
@Imaginefree69 Evidence is evidence no matter where it comes from. u have 2 options 1) u can find evidence to disprove mine or 2) u can accept it. calling me uneducated doesnt offend me it just proves that u dont know what u r talking about. u have no evidence for ur claims and u are losing so u resort to insults. and as for answering questions thisis3d has done a remarkable job in answering what i ask him. i still c flaws but he knows what he is talking about.
@timmarquez50 "Evidence is evidence" Exactly. I keep posting evidence and you keep pretending to not see it. How about addressing the evidence of the fairy tales and scientific nonsense and contradictions I have shown you in the Bible? Why do you refuse to address the evidence, yet hypocritically lie and complain that I have no evidence? Just respond to my most recent post, please, rather than dishonestly pretending it is not there?
@Imaginefree69 Logically come to the conclusion that evolution is true. as an intelligent community we should be allowed to question in the classroom without being classified as a bible junkie. or post comments online without being called morons and uneducated. i dont care if people dont want to believe in the bible but they should allow criticism for a theory that has missing facts.
@timmarquez50 "I can't Logically come to the conclusion that evolution is true." Of course not. You cannot logically conclude ANYTHING about it until you first study it and find out what it says. If there are "missing facts", please tell us what they are. But please don't just parrot Ray Comfort and the gang. As for believing the Bible, I have already posted here some of the absurdities such as unicorns, talking beasts, and a flat earth which debar that book from serious consideration.
@Imaginefree69 i have done research and i have thought about it 4 a long time. it makes no sense that life can come from chemicals that produce toxic substances for amino acids, such as tar. logically i cannot conclude that life can come from nothing without external forces upon it. i would need to believe certain things can occur with no scientific facts, by the way that is kinda religous if u ask me. another thing evolution cant provide us with is a at least semi complete fossil record.
@Imaginefree69 it is proven with the experiments that created 2% of amino acids and lots of piosonis chemicals such as tar. every experement will fail unless external forces are placed on it and as for the fossil record it is not there. sure we have bits and pieces. not enough to prove without a doubt that evolution is fact. if evolution was on trail with the amount of evidence missing it would get away with murder evey single time please send me evidence if any that the fossil record is comp.
@timmarquez50 Your expectation of a "complete fossil record" is naive in the extreme. Not only is it unrealistic, it is ignorant and unnecessary. Take a few college courses and you will learn about scientific tools and techniques, such as the use of SAMPLES, which use realistic amounts of data to explore and study the whole. Just as I can discredit the entire Bible by showing the errors and contradictions and lies contained in SAMPLES of the book.
@Imaginefree69 u have explained nothing. i have been debating with others on youtube that give some evidence sufficient or not. u on the other hand have given me nothing that explains sexual reproduction or shows a complete fossil record. u call me uneducated yet u cant give me evidence to prove ur case. if u have evidence show me, if not tell me u dont. just dont call me uneducated because u lack the evidence 4 ur side.
@timmarquez50 You are confusing different issues. 1- you ARE uneducated, the evidence is in your words. 2- It is irrational to expect the origins of sexual reproduction to be explained in these comments. You have been handed a cute little cliché which you imagine to prove something, but it does not. The fossil record is not complete, of course, if by that you mean containing examples of every species. Only the uneducated would expect it to.
@timmarquez50 How about taking a look at the evidence showing the Bible to be a rotten source of scientific information? The Bible says that humans are made of dust. And that snakes and donkeys talk. And that the earth is flat. And that the sun revolves around the earth. And that breeding goats in front of striped sticks will cause them to give birth to striped kids. And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman. And that all land species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
@Imaginefree69 to see facts about private schools go to c a p e n e t . o r g / f a c t s . h t m l thats where i got this information. in 2003 the basic knowlage for the naep for 8th graders was 53% were proficient for privete schools and only 30% were proficient for public schools there is my information. privite schools are better, most of the time.
@Imaginefree69 this is the first i have heard of u presenting evidence for ur case. i have never seen it. i will give u the benefit of the doubt but y have u not answered or at least acknowledge my questions or data that i have sent u?
@timmarquez50 "this is the first i have heard of u presenting evidence " Wow. You finally heard that, did you? Cool! Now go back and read the evidence I have posted, please. For instance, all those fairy tales in the Bible about unicorns and talking animals and the flat earth. I have also responded to your statements, but you refuse to address my questions. For instance, I asked you to explain your ":2% of amino acids" statement, but you chose to avoid the request. Care to try again?
@Imaginefree69 i didnt say it was accurate or sufficaint evidence but i will accept any and all evidence research on it and c what i find out. and about the amino acids, in the experement they did not use oxygen which is abondent now and there is no proof that it wasnt free oxygen "4 billion years ago". also on wiki pedia it stated that "Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing
@Imaginefree69 continue "atmosphere.[15]" that means that no living thing can come from this process. and if it did than the oxygen would oxidize b4 anything usefull could happen. under perfect it might produce amino acids but what about real life can they survive in primordial soup? 99.99999% chance they wont. and if amino acids are created, if u know any biology at all, its still not life u need multiples of 22 types of protiens to produce 1 protien. its a real long shot.
@Imaginefree69 by the way i am still waiting for any inofmation on the origins of sexual reproduction or at least the answer to which came first in reptials and mammals the heart to pump blood to the brain or the brain to tell the heart to pump? if u dont already know there has been no species to ever b found in the incomplete fossil record or anywhere else that can explain this. n dont say cuz it evolved super fast, that still wont explain how it was perfect the 1st time.
@RockBanned what designed all matter in the universe? was ir always there? cuz God was. he has no bounds. time has no power on God. just think about it for a min if there was an all powerfull being everything makes sense, in the terms of how we got here. if not, how did everthing get started? what started the thing that started us and where did all the matter come from. it turns out that u need more faith in ur religion than i do.
@timmarquez50 Again, just because science doesn't exactly know how the big bang started doesn't mean God wins by default. You're telling me that because science can't tell you everything about how the universe started, that means God did it.
Well, then you need to tell me where God came from then. You make assertions like "God has no bounds, time has no power on God"..do you have any EVIDENCE for your claims (like I have with mine) or are you just making bald assertions again?
@RockBanned i am not saying that evolution is wronge therefor believe in my god. i am saying evolution is wronge so stop teaching it as if it were law. if u dont want to believe in a god their is nothing i can do or say to convince u. many people dont want to believe in a god so they never will with all the evidence around them. my evidence is the eco-system. everything relays on each other, bees need flowers,flowers need bees. everything needed to be here just the way it is.
@RockBanned other evidences are our bodies. for all these organs to work together can just happen. it needs something that knows what it is doing to place everything just the way it needs to be placed. the muscles need to be placed in certain areas hooked up at the right spot or no movement will be made. and the brain well that is so complex. each nueron has a billion connection to other nuerons. that is evidence for a creator.
@timmarquez50 Natural selection explains how organs work together and how the brain is so complex, how muscles are attached the way they are etc etc etc etc. It also explains how the bee/flower relationship works too. Try picking up a science book sometime.
Evolution is NOT wrong, sorry that you've never actually examined the evidence.
@RockBanned im sorry but u r wronge on that. the cell cant think to itself and say "i need to grow into something else" or an orginism say "i need to evolve some limbs so i can move around". that is non-science it is non-sense to think that can happen. their is no scientific evidence that proves macro-evolution is possible. believe me i have looked for solid evidence, there is none. if u do have some evidence i would like to see it. people have tried to show me some but never find any.
@timmarquez50 Go to talkorigins (dot)org (put a real dot), and they can answer every question you have. Look at the faq there and everything is sourced and cited. IF you can find something wrong with the evidence there, then get back to me.
Cells don't "say to themselves" hey I need to grow into something else. Mutations happen and beneficial ones are passed down and organs and organisms and eyes and everything else works better in the particular environment. Srsly, go to that website
@RockBanned i will check it out now. n keep this in mind the odds of life apearing on a planet that can support life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. now lets say that the mutation is bad, there is a high chance that the mutatuion is bad, in the first and only 3 cells odds are that all of them will die. the odds say all those cells would die.
@timmarquez50 What makes you think that only 3 (or 1) cell was evolving? Also, even if you're right about the odds of life appearing, it is still well within the bounds of the universe. There are billions and billions of galaxies out there all with billions of stars and planets, so those odds aren't as overwhelming as you seem to think there are.
Also, God is much more improbable and complex than life, so using your logic, he can't exist either.
@RockBanned well even though it is impossibe for at least 250 genes being created all at once. with the odds of a cell even coming to being aside and the cell being able to servive long enough to reproduce. the mutations will only occur in 1 cell i gave u the benifit of the doubt that 3 mutations can occur. as for the probability of planets having the ability to maintian life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then u multiply that that by the odds of an accedent occurring that will cuase
@RockBanned life which is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. those odds pretty crush your theory by itself. there are less planets found then the odds. all this data is found on numerous documentries found on sceince channel and history channel. on the big bang theory. to multiply them together to c how lucky we are. we are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. very unlikly and u need alot of faith to belive this.
@timmarquez50 And no matter how long the odds you want to make life forming or the universe or anything like that, God will be infinitely more improbable and complex than that. So, are you sure you really want to go down that road? If the odds of the universe or life coming into being are so high to make them be NECESSARILY designed, then with God being infinitely more complex and improbable than the universe or life, he would also need a designer. Who is it?
@RockBanned ok God is ever preseant here before time here after, in fact time has no hold on him he can travel to and fro with ease. seeing as how this will not please u i will let u know that u believe in the same thing. all matter and time and gravity created itself. i must let u know i am not having a religuos debate here i am trying to tell every1 that macro-evolution is not science it is a belief. and the odds of a god are a lot more probible. i think it was 67% chance.
@timmarquez50 What is your evidence for saying that God is timeless? You always just baldly assert things without providing any sound reasoning. If God is outside of time, then how can he travel anywhere? You do realize that time and motion are tied together, right?
You say "macro" evolution (which is properly called speciation) is not science, but biologists...you know..the SCIENTISTS who actually study the SCIENCE of biology disagree with you.
@RockBanned this is my lst post 4 today the computer lab is closeing but i will respond asap. many statements in the bible like for God a 1,000 years is like a day. and God say I AM(past preasent future no limits) he said he knew u while u were in the womb and he knows who will follow him. it is appearent from these paraphrases in the bible that he says he is not bound by time, n y would a god b bound by time if he is all powerfull he cant b bound by time.
Animals talk, unicorns are common, every species of bird and animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's desert boat shop, men walk on water, men ride around in fish bellies for three days, Friday evening to Sunday dawn equals "three days and three nights", virgins give birth to gods, Christians cannot sin, and a prince on a white horse will take you to live happily ever after in his mansion in the sky.
@RockBanned and just becuase scientist say something it doesnt make it fact. i try to give urls on non-common knowlage to prove my point. u must remember that people are baise. their position does not clear their baise. and position does not over rule fact. never has never will.
@Imaginefree69 well if u read and carefully study the bible u would understand. God states that he is I AM. which is past preasent and future.God also talks about Jesus as if he was already crusified and reserrected in the old testiment some 2,000 years b4 Jesus. i am also waiting for some explanations for your far fetched theories. like where is the evidence macro-evolution occured and scientifically documented, if u cant find it thats becuase its impossible and none existant.
@Imaginefree69 well i gave u facts everytime u ask me a question. yet u have not given me any evidence other than calling me stupid or uneducated. u r the 1 than has no clue what u believe in. u cant defend it with science or pprovide any evidence.
You make all these absurd claims about having studied biology and Ancient Hebrew, but your ignorance refutes your claims.
I showed you scriptures to support my every assertion about the Bible, but you dismiss them with a wave of your hand and then claim I brought no evidence.
There is no rational way to have a meaningful discussion with an habitual liar, sir, so I won't keep trying.
@Imaginefree69 u have not answered my questions becuase there are no answers for them. evolution is flawed and has no aplications in the biological and scientific world. call me stupid, call me uneducated and suggest i am mentally insaine, but it still cant rid the fact that i am right and u know it but cant find a small peice of evidence that i am wronge. if u find some good solid evidence that macro-evolution is 100% fact then show me it. if not ur gonna have to throw the theory out.
@timmarquez50 You obviously don't know what Macro evolution is. I can tell by your comments that you aren't worth wasting time on but I can reccomend a video to you, it's called 65,000 years with a creationist, and it's by Philhellenes.
If you actually knew what Macro evolution was you would know that it's just micro evolution on a larger scale. Micro evolution being something that we have observed about 50 bazillion times and is heavily documented.
@Averagegamer100 really so what would quilify for macro-evolution? the way its tuaght is that a bird came from a lizard thats false and has no SCIENTIFIC backing. thats macro-evolution. micro-evolution is changes in a species like a birds beak size changing. or a horse breeding a larger horse. we have never seen anything likethe claims in every evolution book ever written about a dino becoming a bird yet its tuaght as fact.
@timmarquez50 We haven't seen a dinosaur turn into a bird because dinosaurs are now extinct.
You say these things have no scientific backing, you sound like someone who has spent literally no time looking this up. We actually have a complete set of transitional forms of dinosaur to bird.
As for things like a birds beak size changing, we observe that kind of thing all the time. You just haven't done any research.
@timmarquez50 Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale. So over billions and billions of years, the changes from micro evolution add up and that is macro evolution. Macro evolution will never be observed, for the reasons demonstrated in that video I told you to go watch in my first reply.
They have a page called 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and a book you should look into is "The greatest show on earth" by richard dawkins. The book goes through the evidence for evolution.
I'm not going to keep replying to you and end up giving you biology lessons because 1) I'm not qualified because I'm not a biologist and 2) I don't really want to use my time in such a way. It's all there on talkorigins, do the research yourself.
@Averagegamer100 yes assuming that the earth and universe is billions of years old. also the bird to dino evolution could not have taken place if the meatoroid killed off all the dinos right? the theory makes no sense it states one thing then double backs to another. its to flimsy. thats y i have no faith in it. and thats what u need. other sciences are proven time n time again like gravity. if i drop something gravity will pull it down. but we cant c evolution. so we must believe it is excists.
@timmarquez50 Our dating methods show the earth is billions of years old.
Evolution is a 100% fact. It's been observed. We have seen things evolve. The only theory in relation to evolution, is natural selection. Again, there are countless examples of evolution being observed all the time, you just don't care to look them up.
@Averagegamer100 WOW know i belive it 4 sure. jk lol. even richard dawkins says that he could b wronge but that he is about 95% sure that evolution is correct. dawkins says that any1 who says "evolution is 100%" fact is unlogical. the dating methodes were created with the mindset that the earth is billions of years old when it hasnt hit equalibruim yet, it takes 25,000yr for equal. ALL DATING METHODES ARE GUILTY OF CIRCULAR REASONING. if u dont believe me read Ronald R. West qoute
@Averagegamer100 how can u correctly date anything when the methodes for dating objects are based on a theory that u are trying to prove wit the objects u r dating? if u do this it will corrolate with the evolution theory but it is not sound science. many scientists today have failed peer reveiw if they allow this to be in place. this is a perfect example of evolutionists creating false data, in this case false timelines, to prove a theory that has no evidence.
@Averagegamer100 What would you take? The aforementioned dating methods which were created by scientists who spend their lives studying the world, or the word of someone who counted through all the generations in the bible back to Adam and then added them and came with a number that is about 6000 years old? The bible being a collectiong of books written hundreds of years ago by stupid medieval types that has not even been proven to be reliable in what it says.
@Averagegamer100 what u just wrote goes againts all sceince. i am shocked that a person who believes in science so much would falsify evidence to prove a theory.
@timmarquez50 "what u just wrote goes againts all sceince. i am shocked that a person who believes in science so much would falsify evidence to prove a theory."
You didn't present any evidence. You took a quote from Hoyle out of context, made a lie about Dawkins and said something about the ice age that is completely false and only goes to show your ignorance when it comes to anything scientific.
@timmarquez50 We have multiple dating methods. We use them on the same bit of soil and they will all come up with a number that is roughly the same as one another. The fact that we have so many dating methods that give roughly the same number makes it reliable.
@Averagegamer100 2 problems with dating methodes. they are created with the baise/assumption that the earth is billions of years old so no matter what the true age is weather it b 6,000 or 100 billion the age will never b right. also many factors such as sunspot radiation could change the outcome and make the object being dated come up million if not billions of years old.
@timmarquez50 I already refuted everything you said one month ago, why are you replying now?
"they are created with the baise/assumption that the earth is billions of years old so no matter what the true age is weather it b 6,000 or 100 billion the age will never b right."
The opinions of the people testing it, will not effect what the tools used to date the Earth show. Tools do not have a bias, people do.
@Averagegamer100 yes it does the methode that gives a closer to the acceptible age is a baise and a fact. and it does show that there is a baise. also the inventers of these dating methodes had a baise that the earth was a certain age. and radiation does affect every dating methode becuase it increases the rate of decay from the atoms used for the methodes please argue with facts and stop making stuff up.
@theaceofspades39 of coarse u r missunderstanding what my point was. i was being sarcastic to prove a point. but i didnt missuse the word. u can believe in sceince. u have confidence in it so u put backing into it(faith/beleif). as found in the dictionary.reference . com website
@theaceofspades39 i meant it sarcastically. n the word beleif can m used in the way i used it. beleif is a confadence in something. look it up in any dictionary.
@timmarquez50 Sunspots do not effect all dating methods, and the ones it does effect, it does not have too much of an effect on. Seriously, you should just stop now. Go to your room, read up on this stuff on talkorigins, and read books that aren't written by know nothing creationists.
@Averagegamer100 "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record." rest of qoute on next comment i ran out of room.
@Averagegamer100 (continue) Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
@timmarquez50 You do realize that dinosaurs were around for a REALLY long time before the asteroid hit right? There were flying dinosaurs which would not have been killed by an asteroid impact which then evolved into birds.
@Averagegamer100 well the after effect killed em off, or thats what is tuaght in the text books. the asteroid sent large amounts of dust that covered the intire atmosphere and sent the earth into a dry iceage, no sunlight which killed off all plants n then everyhting else. therefor all dinos died off. also evolution does not go backwards. at least thats what the theory states, so winged dinos wouldnt lose their wings and turn into walking creatures.
You also took the entire quote from West out of context. Dawkins also says evolution is a fact. He said as much in an article he wrote for the guardian.
guardian . co . uk /science/2005/sep/01/schools. research
@ma049 every1 is a scientist weather u have a degree or not. science is the exploration or the process of testing something we use science every day on things that we dont even know could b science so yes i am and so are u. macro-evolution needs belief becuase it cannot b seen and tested and repeated so it not science on the grounds that u cannot use the scientific methode.
@RockBanned i have recently checked talkorigins and i found, from the q nad a portan that i read, that it is baise and unfactual. being a creationist i c the false statements they argue that we say. such as the woodpeckers tongue is anchored in the nostril. in several videos and documentries creationists state that it starts at the throat, jawbown area. i suggest checking the references, they are also missquoting the articles in creationist arguements. the creationists are trying to prove a
@RockBanned point that evolution theory avoids and talk origins has turned it around. by the way does talkorigins have a creationist view? i didnt read too much into it after the 5th or 6th false statment that was made in respons to a question from the Q and A portian.
@Imaginefree69 "Arguing from ignorance is irrational and pointless" i know thats y i am trying to help u. it must b difficult to understand from a sceintific and mathmatic aproach how evolution is impossible. but let me break it down for u. the odds of a planet to have perfect conditions 4 life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. the odds that life will occure on that planet is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. this information was gathered on sceince chanels big bang documentry.
@Imaginefree69 i have argued with facts and data. u on the other hand armed with a degree have nothing to say. u are stumped thats y u insult me. has the thought that i might b right ever crossed ur mind? ignorance is bliss. n if u r a sceince major than u should know that facts determin the outcome in science. not theories that have not and never will b proven fact. argue with logic not insult.
"Intelligent Design" is of course, thinly disguised Creationism. It is part of the "wedge strategy" of theists to gradually get Christian religion taught in the schools in place of science. At first, they want it taught in the science class, and claim that they just want to "present all viewpoints". The theists realize that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion--both make specific claims about the universe--science relies on evidence, religion on "faith".
Ill tell you why it is supernatural. Because something coming from nothing isnt natural, and something existing eternally needs to transcend space, time, matter, and all the universal laws we have.
There is only 1 proof for the existence of god, it is the universe and that is all.
If you believe it was a small dense ball, that was spinning and eventually exploded and created the complexity of the universe, then im sorry, you believe in a fairy tale
I sense that someone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe, logic, and the big bang theory, not to mention an affinity for cheese.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one agreed that the universe was proof of the existence of a god, where is your evidence that that god is YOUR god and not someone else's god, or that it's not actually MULTIPLE gods? There wouldn't be any.
Besides, the universe is proof of the existence of the universe, not of the existence of a god.
who says creationism and evolution dont go hand and hand?
see evolution doesn't make "god" not exist, it only proves that a personal god doesn't exist and that humans aren't special
the "god" situation doesn't derive from evolution, that would only get a religious person mad
but the origins of the universe, need a supernatural cause that is outside of our universal laws, because nothing in this universe could have created this universe.
@steptocheese Why does it need a supernatural cause? Why can't it have had a natural cause? Everything there exists today in the physical world has a natural cause. So because you don't know you insert magic? It's an argument from ignorance seeing God in every gap science has yet to explain. If science can't explain it, it must be God! It doesn't work that way. God is not the default hypothesis. It's a false assumption based on a fallacy that man makes things so the universe must be 'made' too.
@steptocheese the thing is that evolution is a theory and creationism is a hypothesis, unproven and discredited time over time.
would you like to teach students the "theory" that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, and then teach them real astronomy and cosmology and ask them to decide?
you can't introduce unproven stupid ignorant speculations along with proven scientific theories in a science class in school.
@steptocheese "1.the bible says the earth is a sphere" Sorry, but it does not. If it did, I'm sure you would have provided the reference. "3.you believe humans came from dirt also in a way?" Nope. Science tells us that the ocean is the womb of life on earth. As neither of us was there to observe the process, let's look and see what humans are really made of: Hmmm... Nearly all salt water and a few minerals. Sea water.
@steptocheese The Bible says "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to his place where it rose." Ecclesiastes 1:5 and then it says THAT means the sun went UP by ten degrees. "Isaiah.. cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." 2 Kings 20:9 - 11 "I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees..." Isaiah 38:1-8
@steptocheese@steptocheese "4.that is suppose to be "god" or "satan" talking through them..." No, it does NOT say that. It says the animals spoke. Read your Bible. Could you provide some EVIDENCE for talking beasts? What with the flat earth and all I'm not prepared to accept the unsupported testimony of scripture. My grandpa once had a pet turtle that played Edelweiss on the trombone, but never with witnesses present. It really frustrated Pops that no one believed him.
One explanation: shes watching them on the tv, which has a slight delay, loudly enough for the phone to pick up. Not sure why they don't echo the same way, on some clips they do... there may be some sort of switch that mutes the phone when they talk into their mics.
If creationism is taught which God is going to get credit for it? Could it even just be a superior alien intelligence that had a few hundred million to billion years of head start over us? If we teach creationism can we say that Zeus is the one who did it?
Christianity and Creationism are two completely different topics.
If you DO prove Creationism to be correct you have still proven Jack and Shit about who gets credit for the Creation.
OPEN UR EYES
McSmYtHuRs 1 month ago
Guys! Ask her to mute the tv, the echo hurts!
Mimi2591 2 months ago
the best way to win a creationnist ask him if he belive bacterial resistance to antibiotic if he say yes well tell him it come from genetic mutation and it is evolution in progress right under is noose
i always win on that part and i enjoy to see creationist stumble on that
mystisme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
She is calling from a spaceship.
Fangalatic 6 months ago 6
Creationists are the new flat Earthers. It's mainly a fundamentalist protestant thing. Early church fathers like St Augustine believed in evolution. Even he said that he didn't believe that the world was created in six days.
Alexthegreat8907 7 months ago
Gah bitch, turn off your sound no one likes feedback XD
KittyzKatterz 10 months ago
It's SO FRUSTRATING that they ALWAYS dodge the question. Why? Why???? They must be aware that they are doing it. Why does it not bother them that there are all these clear questions they can't answer for others OR FOR THEMSELVES?
GuacamoleKun 11 months ago 8
Its astonishing religious events still pull a croud. Just damn embarrassing how much power superstition still has in this world.
bary1234 11 months ago
Fucking creationists! Stop trying to hold us back!
Zentz29 11 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
over 40 thousand species of spiders. did those all survive during the flood? evolution ftw
iliveon 1 year ago
over 40 thousand species of spiders. did those all survive during the flood? evolution ftw
iliveon 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@iliveon "over 40 thousand species of spiders. did those all survive during the flood? evolution ftw". Shows you don't even know what evolution is. That's natural selection, not macro-evolution.
LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn the truth about 'God' and what he and many other 'Gods' actually represent...
w w w . zeitgeistmovie . c o m
w w w . thezeitgeistmovement . c o m
TZMJohnDoe 1 year ago
don't teach creationalism to us kids!! we don't want to hear bullcrap!!!
hahajodog 1 year ago
@hahajodog lol. you cracked me up, little dude
lzoli18B 1 year ago
Arrg does she not understand the concept of feedback? Note to those who may not grasp the basic rule of call-in shows - Turn off or turn down the tv or radio that is broadcasting the show you are calling into.
jklein17 1 year ago
I'm bleeding from my ears. Tell her to switch off the TV already!
yvranx 1 year ago 85
art bell would of hung up on her in about 1.3 seconds.
skippydeenice 1 year ago
I never say I don't believe in god rather I say there is no god to believe in.
sage0857 1 year ago
"Turn off the TV, Ndnd!"
Roland1232 1 year ago
oh the stupid caller cliché who doesn't mute his receiver...
if u want to record ur call, u can do it with "mute" on, tards...
thedayitriedtodie 1 year ago
This is why people need headphones when they call in or turn down the tv :-)
bwrightau 1 year ago
it could maybe be brought up as for foood for thought but to actually teach it? no
lulumousie 1 year ago
You want your kids to get taught creationism then send them to a Christian highschool. All the bad troubled kids are in the public highschools mostly.
TYLERJB777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TYLERJB777
"All the bad troubled kids are in the public highschools mostly."
I'm sure you wish that were true.
Please show us evidence to support your claim.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 for the most part private school is better. the school doesnt have to tolerate bad behaviour and will expel bad kids. parents will still have to pay tuition for the rest of the semester. the parents encourage their kids to behave more in class and the teachers have an easier time teaching. its all common sense. open your mind to everything and you will understand both sides rather thatn to keep close minded dogmas. i encourage people on both sides to do so. that is enlightenment
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 if u dont believe me u can check at you local states data base for the facts on independent schools. thanks to the no child left behind act, which hurt more then it helps, we have tests scores to show if students are up to par. both private and public schools should be listed. it will tell you the percentage that passed. and i see 2 many flaws in the theory to make it believabe. it is not fact nor law. maybe in the future it will be law and i may accept it but till then i cant
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 maybe online but in a classroom these questions are supressed and the people asking the questions are considered idiots. and as for the evolution of sexual reproduction there is no evidence for it. also i have done research and it goes off topic, a usual defence for evolution is to go around the subject. kinda like what u r doing. the biology is full of theory that cant be proven correct, evidence may suggest something but it does not make a theory factual.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
"u can check at you local states data base for the facts"
No thanks.
YOU made the claim,
YOU come up with the "facts."
I have no intention of doing your research for you,
nor do I accept as evidence
your vague and unsupported claim.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 well what state do u live in. if i can find any info i will state the fact and give u a url wich is more than what u have given me while trying to either prove me wronge or give fact to support ur claims.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 i want to know how sexual reproduction evolved. u say there is evidence and research out that is factual i have found nothing but theories that make no sense. besides a theory cant b used as evidence for another theory. please send me a url or a book anything that with solid science and facts not theories or assumptions that support the evolution of sex.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 i am starting to think u dont have sufficient evidence for ur claims. u cant provide a url with an existing fossil record because there is not a complete fossil record. second u cant provide any evidence on the evolution of sexual reproduction. i expected as much, u just keep beating around the bush because u r losing the argument. I have given a url in every instance when i was asked to produce info yet u wont give me any info to support ur claims.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Evidence is evidence no matter where it comes from. u have 2 options 1) u can find evidence to disprove mine or 2) u can accept it. calling me uneducated doesnt offend me it just proves that u dont know what u r talking about. u have no evidence for ur claims and u are losing so u resort to insults. and as for answering questions thisis3d has done a remarkable job in answering what i ask him. i still c flaws but he knows what he is talking about.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Logically come to the conclusion that evolution is true. as an intelligent community we should be allowed to question in the classroom without being classified as a bible junkie. or post comments online without being called morons and uneducated. i dont care if people dont want to believe in the bible but they should allow criticism for a theory that has missing facts.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 i have done research and i have thought about it 4 a long time. it makes no sense that life can come from chemicals that produce toxic substances for amino acids, such as tar. logically i cannot conclude that life can come from nothing without external forces upon it. i would need to believe certain things can occur with no scientific facts, by the way that is kinda religous if u ask me. another thing evolution cant provide us with is a at least semi complete fossil record.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
In no case does science claim that
"life can come from nothing without external forces upon it."
This is an ignorant misrepresentation of reality.
Your comment about the fossil record, too,
demonstrates your bias and your lack of education.
The completeness of the fossil record
is one of the natural wonders of the world.
Seriously, Tim, get an education
before attempting to discuss scientific facts.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 it is proven with the experiments that created 2% of amino acids and lots of piosonis chemicals such as tar. every experement will fail unless external forces are placed on it and as for the fossil record it is not there. sure we have bits and pieces. not enough to prove without a doubt that evolution is fact. if evolution was on trail with the amount of evidence missing it would get away with murder evey single time please send me evidence if any that the fossil record is comp.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmarquez50
You keep repeating your questions,
yet you refuse to answer mine.
Please address some of the absurdities
such as unicorns, talking beasts, and a flat earth
which debar the Bible from serious consideration.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 u have explained nothing. i have been debating with others on youtube that give some evidence sufficient or not. u on the other hand have given me nothing that explains sexual reproduction or shows a complete fossil record. u call me uneducated yet u cant give me evidence to prove ur case. if u have evidence show me, if not tell me u dont. just dont call me uneducated because u lack the evidence 4 ur side.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imaginefree69 to see facts about private schools go to c a p e n e t . o r g / f a c t s . h t m l thats where i got this information. in 2003 the basic knowlage for the naep for 8th graders was 53% were proficient for privete schools and only 30% were proficient for public schools there is my information. privite schools are better, most of the time.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 this is the first i have heard of u presenting evidence for ur case. i have never seen it. i will give u the benefit of the doubt but y have u not answered or at least acknowledge my questions or data that i have sent u?
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 i didnt say it was accurate or sufficaint evidence but i will accept any and all evidence research on it and c what i find out. and about the amino acids, in the experement they did not use oxygen which is abondent now and there is no proof that it wasnt free oxygen "4 billion years ago". also on wiki pedia it stated that "Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 continue "atmosphere.[15]" that means that no living thing can come from this process. and if it did than the oxygen would oxidize b4 anything usefull could happen. under perfect it might produce amino acids but what about real life can they survive in primordial soup? 99.99999% chance they wont. and if amino acids are created, if u know any biology at all, its still not life u need multiples of 22 types of protiens to produce 1 protien. its a real long shot.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 by the way i am still waiting for any inofmation on the origins of sexual reproduction or at least the answer to which came first in reptials and mammals the heart to pump blood to the brain or the brain to tell the heart to pump? if u dont already know there has been no species to ever b found in the incomplete fossil record or anywhere else that can explain this. n dont say cuz it evolved super fast, that still wont explain how it was perfect the 1st time.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Who designed your God then?
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned what designed all matter in the universe? was ir always there? cuz God was. he has no bounds. time has no power on God. just think about it for a min if there was an all powerfull being everything makes sense, in the terms of how we got here. if not, how did everthing get started? what started the thing that started us and where did all the matter come from. it turns out that u need more faith in ur religion than i do.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Again, just because science doesn't exactly know how the big bang started doesn't mean God wins by default. You're telling me that because science can't tell you everything about how the universe started, that means God did it.
Well, then you need to tell me where God came from then. You make assertions like "God has no bounds, time has no power on God"..do you have any EVIDENCE for your claims (like I have with mine) or are you just making bald assertions again?
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned i am not saying that evolution is wronge therefor believe in my god. i am saying evolution is wronge so stop teaching it as if it were law. if u dont want to believe in a god their is nothing i can do or say to convince u. many people dont want to believe in a god so they never will with all the evidence around them. my evidence is the eco-system. everything relays on each other, bees need flowers,flowers need bees. everything needed to be here just the way it is.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@RockBanned other evidences are our bodies. for all these organs to work together can just happen. it needs something that knows what it is doing to place everything just the way it needs to be placed. the muscles need to be placed in certain areas hooked up at the right spot or no movement will be made. and the brain well that is so complex. each nueron has a billion connection to other nuerons. that is evidence for a creator.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Natural selection explains how organs work together and how the brain is so complex, how muscles are attached the way they are etc etc etc etc. It also explains how the bee/flower relationship works too. Try picking up a science book sometime.
Evolution is NOT wrong, sorry that you've never actually examined the evidence.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned im sorry but u r wronge on that. the cell cant think to itself and say "i need to grow into something else" or an orginism say "i need to evolve some limbs so i can move around". that is non-science it is non-sense to think that can happen. their is no scientific evidence that proves macro-evolution is possible. believe me i have looked for solid evidence, there is none. if u do have some evidence i would like to see it. people have tried to show me some but never find any.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Go to talkorigins (dot)org (put a real dot), and they can answer every question you have. Look at the faq there and everything is sourced and cited. IF you can find something wrong with the evidence there, then get back to me.
Cells don't "say to themselves" hey I need to grow into something else. Mutations happen and beneficial ones are passed down and organs and organisms and eyes and everything else works better in the particular environment. Srsly, go to that website
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned i will check it out now. n keep this in mind the odds of life apearing on a planet that can support life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. now lets say that the mutation is bad, there is a high chance that the mutatuion is bad, in the first and only 3 cells odds are that all of them will die. the odds say all those cells would die.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 What makes you think that only 3 (or 1) cell was evolving? Also, even if you're right about the odds of life appearing, it is still well within the bounds of the universe. There are billions and billions of galaxies out there all with billions of stars and planets, so those odds aren't as overwhelming as you seem to think there are.
Also, God is much more improbable and complex than life, so using your logic, he can't exist either.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned well even though it is impossibe for at least 250 genes being created all at once. with the odds of a cell even coming to being aside and the cell being able to servive long enough to reproduce. the mutations will only occur in 1 cell i gave u the benifit of the doubt that 3 mutations can occur. as for the probability of planets having the ability to maintian life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then u multiply that that by the odds of an accedent occurring that will cuase
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@RockBanned life which is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. those odds pretty crush your theory by itself. there are less planets found then the odds. all this data is found on numerous documentries found on sceince channel and history channel. on the big bang theory. to multiply them together to c how lucky we are. we are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. very unlikly and u need alot of faith to belive this.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 And no matter how long the odds you want to make life forming or the universe or anything like that, God will be infinitely more improbable and complex than that. So, are you sure you really want to go down that road? If the odds of the universe or life coming into being are so high to make them be NECESSARILY designed, then with God being infinitely more complex and improbable than the universe or life, he would also need a designer. Who is it?
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned ok God is ever preseant here before time here after, in fact time has no hold on him he can travel to and fro with ease. seeing as how this will not please u i will let u know that u believe in the same thing. all matter and time and gravity created itself. i must let u know i am not having a religuos debate here i am trying to tell every1 that macro-evolution is not science it is a belief. and the odds of a god are a lot more probible. i think it was 67% chance.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 What is your evidence for saying that God is timeless? You always just baldly assert things without providing any sound reasoning. If God is outside of time, then how can he travel anywhere? You do realize that time and motion are tied together, right?
You say "macro" evolution (which is properly called speciation) is not science, but biologists...you know..the SCIENTISTS who actually study the SCIENCE of biology disagree with you.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned this is my lst post 4 today the computer lab is closeing but i will respond asap. many statements in the bible like for God a 1,000 years is like a day. and God say I AM(past preasent future no limits) he said he knew u while u were in the womb and he knows who will follow him. it is appearent from these paraphrases in the bible that he says he is not bound by time, n y would a god b bound by time if he is all powerfull he cant b bound by time.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
Oh, yes, those Bible teachings:
Animals talk, unicorns are common, every species of bird and animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's desert boat shop, men walk on water, men ride around in fish bellies for three days, Friday evening to Sunday dawn equals "three days and three nights", virgins give birth to gods, Christians cannot sin, and a prince on a white horse will take you to live happily ever after in his mansion in the sky.
Incredible.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@RockBanned and just becuase scientist say something it doesnt make it fact. i try to give urls on non-common knowlage to prove my point. u must remember that people are baise. their position does not clear their baise. and position does not over rule fact. never has never will.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
" time has no hold on him he can travel to and fro with ease."
Just because a Creationist says something doesn't make it fact.
Where do you GET these magical assertions, anyway?
Have you personally seen YHVH's Frequent Flier card, or what?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 well if u read and carefully study the bible u would understand. God states that he is I AM. which is past preasent and future.God also talks about Jesus as if he was already crusified and reserrected in the old testiment some 2,000 years b4 Jesus. i am also waiting for some explanations for your far fetched theories. like where is the evidence macro-evolution occured and scientifically documented, if u cant find it thats becuase its impossible and none existant.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
" if u read and carefully study the bible u would understand."
Nice attempt at evasion.
Why can you never just answer the question?
You make these absurd claims for magical powers,
but you have no sources or support for them.
Do you imagine that your delusional spew is changing anyone's opinions?
Who cares how "god talks about jesus.."?
That has nothing to do with time travel.
I can talk about you as if you were already dead and buried, but that doesn't make me a time traveller.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 well i gave u facts everytime u ask me a question. yet u have not given me any evidence other than calling me stupid or uneducated. u r the 1 than has no clue what u believe in. u cant defend it with science or pprovide any evidence.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
Lies and yet more lies.
You make all these absurd claims about having studied biology and Ancient Hebrew, but your ignorance refutes your claims.
I showed you scriptures to support my every assertion about the Bible, but you dismiss them with a wave of your hand and then claim I brought no evidence.
There is no rational way to have a meaningful discussion with an habitual liar, sir, so I won't keep trying.
I'll leave you to your delusions and lies.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 u have not answered my questions becuase there are no answers for them. evolution is flawed and has no aplications in the biological and scientific world. call me stupid, call me uneducated and suggest i am mentally insaine, but it still cant rid the fact that i am right and u know it but cant find a small peice of evidence that i am wronge. if u find some good solid evidence that macro-evolution is 100% fact then show me it. if not ur gonna have to throw the theory out.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 You obviously don't know what Macro evolution is. I can tell by your comments that you aren't worth wasting time on but I can reccomend a video to you, it's called 65,000 years with a creationist, and it's by Philhellenes.
If you actually knew what Macro evolution was you would know that it's just micro evolution on a larger scale. Micro evolution being something that we have observed about 50 bazillion times and is heavily documented.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 really so what would quilify for macro-evolution? the way its tuaght is that a bird came from a lizard thats false and has no SCIENTIFIC backing. thats macro-evolution. micro-evolution is changes in a species like a birds beak size changing. or a horse breeding a larger horse. we have never seen anything likethe claims in every evolution book ever written about a dino becoming a bird yet its tuaght as fact.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 We haven't seen a dinosaur turn into a bird because dinosaurs are now extinct.
You say these things have no scientific backing, you sound like someone who has spent literally no time looking this up. We actually have a complete set of transitional forms of dinosaur to bird.
As for things like a birds beak size changing, we observe that kind of thing all the time. You just haven't done any research.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale. So over billions and billions of years, the changes from micro evolution add up and that is macro evolution. Macro evolution will never be observed, for the reasons demonstrated in that video I told you to go watch in my first reply.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Go to talkorigins.
They have a page called 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and a book you should look into is "The greatest show on earth" by richard dawkins. The book goes through the evidence for evolution.
I'm not going to keep replying to you and end up giving you biology lessons because 1) I'm not qualified because I'm not a biologist and 2) I don't really want to use my time in such a way. It's all there on talkorigins, do the research yourself.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 yes assuming that the earth and universe is billions of years old. also the bird to dino evolution could not have taken place if the meatoroid killed off all the dinos right? the theory makes no sense it states one thing then double backs to another. its to flimsy. thats y i have no faith in it. and thats what u need. other sciences are proven time n time again like gravity. if i drop something gravity will pull it down. but we cant c evolution. so we must believe it is excists.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Our dating methods show the earth is billions of years old.
Evolution is a 100% fact. It's been observed. We have seen things evolve. The only theory in relation to evolution, is natural selection. Again, there are countless examples of evolution being observed all the time, you just don't care to look them up.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 WOW know i belive it 4 sure. jk lol. even richard dawkins says that he could b wronge but that he is about 95% sure that evolution is correct. dawkins says that any1 who says "evolution is 100%" fact is unlogical. the dating methodes were created with the mindset that the earth is billions of years old when it hasnt hit equalibruim yet, it takes 25,000yr for equal. ALL DATING METHODES ARE GUILTY OF CIRCULAR REASONING. if u dont believe me read Ronald R. West qoute
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 West was correctly pointing out circular reasoning, but
it is not against the theory of evolution. His argument is that
uniformitarianism should be used to explain the fossil record using the
Darwinian theory. He does not imply that the Darwinian theory is wrong, or
how data is forced into an evolutionary framework. Creationists argue
against the concept of Uniformitarianism, something West supports and
explains in this article.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 how can u correctly date anything when the methodes for dating objects are based on a theory that u are trying to prove wit the objects u r dating? if u do this it will corrolate with the evolution theory but it is not sound science. many scientists today have failed peer reveiw if they allow this to be in place. this is a perfect example of evolutionists creating false data, in this case false timelines, to prove a theory that has no evidence.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmarquez50 "many scientists today have failed peer reveiw if they allow this to be in place"
No they haven't.
"how can u correctly date anything when the methodes for dating objects are based on a theory that u are trying to prove wit the objects u r dating?"
Is english your fifth language? This makes no sense. I would make a bet that you don't even know what the dating methods are or how they are done.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 What would you take? The aforementioned dating methods which were created by scientists who spend their lives studying the world, or the word of someone who counted through all the generations in the bible back to Adam and then added them and came with a number that is about 6000 years old? The bible being a collectiong of books written hundreds of years ago by stupid medieval types that has not even been proven to be reliable in what it says.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 what u just wrote goes againts all sceince. i am shocked that a person who believes in science so much would falsify evidence to prove a theory.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmarquez50 "what u just wrote goes againts all sceince. i am shocked that a person who believes in science so much would falsify evidence to prove a theory."
You didn't present any evidence. You took a quote from Hoyle out of context, made a lie about Dawkins and said something about the ice age that is completely false and only goes to show your ignorance when it comes to anything scientific.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 We have multiple dating methods. We use them on the same bit of soil and they will all come up with a number that is roughly the same as one another. The fact that we have so many dating methods that give roughly the same number makes it reliable.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago 30
@Averagegamer100 2 problems with dating methodes. they are created with the baise/assumption that the earth is billions of years old so no matter what the true age is weather it b 6,000 or 100 billion the age will never b right. also many factors such as sunspot radiation could change the outcome and make the object being dated come up million if not billions of years old.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 I already refuted everything you said one month ago, why are you replying now?
"they are created with the baise/assumption that the earth is billions of years old so no matter what the true age is weather it b 6,000 or 100 billion the age will never b right."
The opinions of the people testing it, will not effect what the tools used to date the Earth show. Tools do not have a bias, people do.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 yes it does the methode that gives a closer to the acceptible age is a baise and a fact. and it does show that there is a baise. also the inventers of these dating methodes had a baise that the earth was a certain age. and radiation does affect every dating methode becuase it increases the rate of decay from the atoms used for the methodes please argue with facts and stop making stuff up.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmarquez50 - Damn, you're all mixed up ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 You sound creationist-butthurt.
sexychrisb 6 months ago
@timmarquez50 there's no such thing as a belief in science
theaceofspades39 1 year ago
@theaceofspades39 Sure there is. Any cognitive content held to be true is a belief.
Meaning, belief is what you hold to be true based on what you know.
I have studied evolution a lot, I can conclude that it is a correct theory. Therefore I believe it is true.
What I don't do is "believe in evolution".
Belief has nothing to do with faith.
supertrinko 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theaceofspades39 well, sure there is. I believe that there is such a thing as science.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@theaceofspades39 of coarse u r missunderstanding what my point was. i was being sarcastic to prove a point. but i didnt missuse the word. u can believe in sceince. u have confidence in it so u put backing into it(faith/beleif). as found in the dictionary.reference . com website
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@theaceofspades39 i meant it sarcastically. n the word beleif can m used in the way i used it. beleif is a confadence in something. look it up in any dictionary.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Sunspots do not effect all dating methods, and the ones it does effect, it does not have too much of an effect on. Seriously, you should just stop now. Go to your room, read up on this stuff on talkorigins, and read books that aren't written by know nothing creationists.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record." rest of qoute on next comment i ran out of room.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 (continue) Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
please look it up if u dont believe me.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 You do realize that dinosaurs were around for a REALLY long time before the asteroid hit right? There were flying dinosaurs which would not have been killed by an asteroid impact which then evolved into birds.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 well the after effect killed em off, or thats what is tuaght in the text books. the asteroid sent large amounts of dust that covered the intire atmosphere and sent the earth into a dry iceage, no sunlight which killed off all plants n then everyhting else. therefor all dinos died off. also evolution does not go backwards. at least thats what the theory states, so winged dinos wouldnt lose their wings and turn into walking creatures.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 The Ice Age didn't kill off all life.
You also took the entire quote from West out of context. Dawkins also says evolution is a fact. He said as much in an article he wrote for the guardian.
guardian . co . uk /science/2005/sep/01/schools. research
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 also didnt u say that u went to a christian college?
timmarquez50 1 year ago
"every1 that macro-evolution is not science it is a belief"
Which specific papers published supporting the theory of evolution do you disagree with and what is the nature of your disagreement?
I assume that you are a scientist yourself.
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049 every1 is a scientist weather u have a degree or not. science is the exploration or the process of testing something we use science every day on things that we dont even know could b science so yes i am and so are u. macro-evolution needs belief becuase it cannot b seen and tested and repeated so it not science on the grounds that u cannot use the scientific methode.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
Are you aware that pressured speech and word salads are symptoms of mental illness?
Just sayin.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"every1 is a scientist weather u have a degree or not. "
So you aren't qualified.
"macro-evolution needs belief"
Sorry you are not answering the question I asked. So let me ask again,
Which specific papers published supporting the theory of evolution do you disagree with and what is the nature of your disagreement?
ma049 1 year ago
@timmarquez50
Tim, I suggest you read this out loud and listen to yourself.
Better yet, print this out and take it to your nearest mental health professional.
Or just show it to your family doctor
and see what he suggests.
I won't be responding to you any more.
It's unkind to tease the handicapped,
and it's immoral to pretend they are making sense.
Adios, and I wish you all the best.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@RockBanned i have recently checked talkorigins and i found, from the q nad a portan that i read, that it is baise and unfactual. being a creationist i c the false statements they argue that we say. such as the woodpeckers tongue is anchored in the nostril. in several videos and documentries creationists state that it starts at the throat, jawbown area. i suggest checking the references, they are also missquoting the articles in creationist arguements. the creationists are trying to prove a
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@RockBanned point that evolution theory avoids and talk origins has turned it around. by the way does talkorigins have a creationist view? i didnt read too much into it after the 5th or 6th false statment that was made in respons to a question from the Q and A portian.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
Comment removed
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmarquez50
You are parroting tired and tattered Creationists clichés
which you do not understand
and which do not prove the points you think they do.
I have no interest in playing your game.
I advise you to go back and finish high school,
and then to take a few biology courses.
Arguing from ignorance is irrational and pointless.
I'll leave you to it.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 "Arguing from ignorance is irrational and pointless" i know thats y i am trying to help u. it must b difficult to understand from a sceintific and mathmatic aproach how evolution is impossible. but let me break it down for u. the odds of a planet to have perfect conditions 4 life is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. the odds that life will occure on that planet is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. this information was gathered on sceince chanels big bang documentry.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 i have argued with facts and data. u on the other hand armed with a degree have nothing to say. u are stumped thats y u insult me. has the thought that i might b right ever crossed ur mind? ignorance is bliss. n if u r a sceince major than u should know that facts determin the outcome in science. not theories that have not and never will b proven fact. argue with logic not insult.
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@imaginefree69
calm down buddy, im not a christian so your not breaking my heart
i make one remark about how you cant just make up shit about the bible to make it 100% wrong because it doesnt make you feel any better
but as a deist. i can tell you, your "faith" is as much as a fairy tale as the bible
so dont go around thinking your mr.wise.
you gotta weigh the pros and cons and not be so biased, or else your just as bad as a christian
steptocheese 1 year ago
@steptocheese
Calm down?
You consider that presenting facts is being excited?
I'm afraid that your objections are far from an exciting level, Cheese.
It is interesting to speculate on your reasons
for ignoring every fact I have offered from the Bible.
BTW, I was a Christian pastor and Bible teacher for over 40 years,
so your silly assumption that I have not "weighed the pros and cons"
merely shows your propensity for uninformed assumptions.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
"Intelligent Design" is of course, thinly disguised Creationism. It is part of the "wedge strategy" of theists to gradually get Christian religion taught in the schools in place of science. At first, they want it taught in the science class, and claim that they just want to "present all viewpoints". The theists realize that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion--both make specific claims about the universe--science relies on evidence, religion on "faith".
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense
Ill tell you why it is supernatural. Because something coming from nothing isnt natural, and something existing eternally needs to transcend space, time, matter, and all the universal laws we have.
There is only 1 proof for the existence of god, it is the universe and that is all.
If you believe it was a small dense ball, that was spinning and eventually exploded and created the complexity of the universe, then im sorry, you believe in a fairy tale
steptocheese 1 year ago
I sense that someone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe, logic, and the big bang theory, not to mention an affinity for cheese.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one agreed that the universe was proof of the existence of a god, where is your evidence that that god is YOUR god and not someone else's god, or that it's not actually MULTIPLE gods? There wouldn't be any.
Besides, the universe is proof of the existence of the universe, not of the existence of a god.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@prnluwolfjarl
who says creationism and evolution dont go hand and hand?
see evolution doesn't make "god" not exist, it only proves that a personal god doesn't exist and that humans aren't special
the "god" situation doesn't derive from evolution, that would only get a religious person mad
but the origins of the universe, need a supernatural cause that is outside of our universal laws, because nothing in this universe could have created this universe.
steptocheese 1 year ago
@steptocheese Why does it need a supernatural cause? Why can't it have had a natural cause? Everything there exists today in the physical world has a natural cause. So because you don't know you insert magic? It's an argument from ignorance seeing God in every gap science has yet to explain. If science can't explain it, it must be God! It doesn't work that way. God is not the default hypothesis. It's a false assumption based on a fallacy that man makes things so the universe must be 'made' too.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
teach both, both as theories, showing evidence on both sides
let the student decide for themselves
steptocheese 1 year ago
@steptocheese the thing is that evolution is a theory and creationism is a hypothesis, unproven and discredited time over time.
would you like to teach students the "theory" that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, and then teach them real astronomy and cosmology and ask them to decide?
you can't introduce unproven stupid ignorant speculations along with proven scientific theories in a science class in school.
OrnluWolfjarl 1 year ago
@steptocheese "teach both, both as theories, showing evidence on both sides"
That would be untrue,
as they are NOT both theories
and there is no evidence for Creationism.
Education is a wonderful tool
for those seeking truth.
And a terrible pain for those wishing to cling to fairy tales.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 your comment was like a haiku...
850kell531 1 year ago
@imaginefree69
im not a christian, but atleast be correct when trying to make fun of a religion
1.the bible says the earth is a sphere
2.nowhere does it say the sun revolves around the earth
3.you believe humans came from dirt also in a way?
4.that is suppose to be "god" or "satan" talking through them...
5.true
steptocheese 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steptocheese
"5.true"
Yes, but only in Genesis chapter 2.
In chapter 1 it says that man and woman were created together,
and AFTER the animals and plants.
The two versions of creation are mutually exclusive.
Please learn about the topic
before attempting to correct those who do know it.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
TURN YOUR TV OFF WHEN YOU CALL IN!!!!!!!
cockroach2 1 year ago
Well I remember..well I remember don't worry (worry worry); how could I ever forget it's the first time, the last time we ever met (met met met met)
RockBanned 1 year ago
the sound blows my gord
shadyreefer69 1 year ago
GGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! My Head is exploding!!!
mfaries42 1 year ago 2
Turn off your TV please...
sartorious56 1 year ago 4
that's your echo sloth, ECHO!!!!
fightinglobo06 2 years ago 3
echo echo echo
keggerous 2 years ago 5
I can't listen to the Lou Gehrig thing happening with the phone.
ianenderson 2 years ago 3
Really? I think it adds a certain amount of gravity to everything she says--like people who speak slowly and deliberately with a foreign accent.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago 2
How I wish a creationist group had visited my high school...A friend and I would have blown them away with every statement they made.
ByTor190 2 years ago 18
@ByTor190 lol yeh when i was in school i would have completely smashed them as would any educated 12 year old
patrickledford420 1 year ago
This message board is a good ole lovefest. Where are the creationist trolls? Is there a convention somewhere?
andmarikis 2 years ago 10
What's with the echo over the phone? Just curious.
jimlynkite 2 years ago
One explanation: shes watching them on the tv, which has a slight delay, loudly enough for the phone to pick up. Not sure why they don't echo the same way, on some clips they do... there may be some sort of switch that mutes the phone when they talk into their mics.
vasagovideo 2 years ago
As someone said, she could have had te television and that would cause a feedback loop with a time delay, hence the echo.
huntmatuk 2 years ago
If creationism is taught which God is going to get credit for it? Could it even just be a superior alien intelligence that had a few hundred million to billion years of head start over us? If we teach creationism can we say that Zeus is the one who did it?
Christianity and Creationism are two completely different topics.
If you DO prove Creationism to be correct you have still proven Jack and Shit about who gets credit for the Creation.
turkeyburgers 2 years ago 4
If they teach creationism in biology class, then it's only fair that they should teach alchemy in chemistry class.
MarowakDidIt 2 years ago 10
MarowakDidIt
... or teach biology in church.
CheesesPeaks2U 2 years ago 6
Don't forget Astrology next to Astronomy and Phrenology along with Neurology!
"Teach the Controversy" should be renamed to "Learn what an Ignorant fool looks like so you can stay the hell away"
BrellK 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
BrianDgreat123 2 years ago
Teaching 'Intelligent Design' in a science class is equivalent to teaching holocaust denial in a history class.
Aethgeir 2 years ago 42
@Aethgeir Actually I'd say it's more like teaching the stork theory of reproduction over what really happens.
RockBanned 1 year ago
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Young)
He lived about 2000 years ago.... Fuck we're slow.
zaziguad 2 years ago 23
a wise Quote indeed
C0ldking 2 years ago 7
Here's another exellent quote:
Nature does all things spontaneously by herself without their (gods) meddling
-Lucretius
BlizBob 2 years ago