If we're nothing but sophisticated animals, we'll soon begin to act like animals. And if you want to see a perfect case study, look in the public schools of America today.
I stopped this the second they brought up the second law of thermodynamics. Why? Because that argument is a tired, old, debunked sham. The second law states and chaos cannot become order in a confined environment. CONFINED ENVIRONMENT. Meaning no input or output. The universe is not confined, so the second law does not apply. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand thermodynamics and is making a fool out of themselves.
@cavemantiger "The universe is not confined" Uhhhhhh yes it is....
all objects in the universe are slowly moving to equilibrium (thats what the second law says) The only way to get things out of equilibrium is to do Work (energy) on an object, the amount of energy required for life to be created (even slowly) would have to be much more than the suns output.
.
The second law says that the entropy of a system is always increasing; its increasing faster than the sun can decreas it
@seeheers No, darling, the Universe is not confined. Do you understand what the universe is? I thought not... No wonder you're so foolish as to go for the long-ago debunked arguments. And no, sweetie, that's not the second law.
""Things don't last" is not a complete or convincing statement of the concept of entropy. Other so-called scientific insights of the Bible are no more convincing.
@Templetonq entropy is basically everything in the universe moving toward equilibrium. Because of this there needs to be something that can spontaneously add energy into a system. Modern Physics says that the energy comes from another dimension, however it doesnt explain where that energy in that unknown dimension came from. A creator? Maybe.
Fine, lets say that there is a being that made everything, who was it. who do we pray to and how can we be sure that we are praying to the right one ?
Hehe, you could tell this was going to bullshit early on when the narrator said "creation theory". As if "creation" has ever been anything but a hypothesis. No one who knows anything about science would dare call creationism a theory, because it has no backing whatsoever. And yes, then came all the fake biologists... But it's very entertaining, at least.
@swisscheesepotatochi How can you say such a definite thing without seeing their view?
I think both theories have a lot of holes in them... but mainly i think debate in the scientific community is a healthy thing, banning creationism or showing evolution's dumb side isn't helping anyone.
If you truly believe in evolution then you shouldnt have a problem with people seeing the other side... sadly this isn't so.
@seeheers How have you come to the conclusion that i have not seen their view? Just curious. My statement does not support the theory of evolution, it simply criticizes creation. As you've claimed that evolutionary theory has holes, it would be great if you could back it up with evidence. Also, you can see the other side, it just doesn't mean its a science.
@swisscheesepotatochi Look at the fossil record, if evolution were true then it should be impossible to find where one species ends and another begins. We dont see this at all! There should be an infinite amount of intermediate species, but we can't even find one (the "intermediate" species we find usually turn out to be another species altogether)
.
Why is it that evolutionists have to make up ape-men? Shouldn't the evidence be there loud and clear? Wheres the science?
@seeheers just to clarify your statements, do you mean infinite as in never ending? Or is it just a figure of speech? 'it should be impossible to find where one species ends and another begins.' By definition, what defines two different species are their ability to reproduce to form fertile offsprings with each other. Therefore, it is not exactly a continuum. You can find where one specie begins and where another ends.
@swisscheesepotatochi Here's some examples: Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) - Just a extinct pig’s tooth . Piltdown Man - Hoax . Barnum’s missing link - Not there . Hervey Leach - Hoax . Peking man - an ape . Lucy - Hoax, [ 1 ] Lucy is simply an extinct ape with no clear connection to humans. . Lionel - A Joke . Dryopithecus - Not enough evidence, just part of a jaw . Ramapithecus - an ape
@seeheers You have not cited any sources for each of the claims that these fossils were false. A basic search of wikipedia for nebraska man, piltdown man tells me that the fossils were not accepted by the scientific community or weeded out through the scientific process. Could you please link me a source to hervey leach. Also, cite source for peking man being fake, as i found no reliable sources for that claim. 'Ramapithecus - an ape' Humans are apes by the way.
almost all of the apemen found that claimed to be the "missing link" turn out to be just missing evidence or hoaxes, Hervey Leach and Lionel were simple blacks that pretended to be the missing link... hoaxes of course, they would walk around stage and claim to be ape-humans.
The truth is there are ANY true links, that's why there are so many hoaxes.
@seeheers Some sources have interpreted that Lucy 'was was not directly ancestral to humans' and some have, scientific controversies exist... Could you provide the scientific name for the fossil 'Lionel'. Now onto your implied claim that creationism is a science. Literal creationism which follows closely the words of the bible, are not factual, it does not form a coherent theory, as genesis is contradictory in itself.
In your view creationism might not seem realistic but when you look at all the scientific theorys that try to explain life they all have serious problems
The public deserves to know about these issues. Kids in Public school are being taught that macro evolution is fact and science and cant be questioned. The fact in the matter is that most people looking for truth assume that evolution is right, so if they find E that contradicts their theory they ignore it because they dont understand it
@gregrutz Micro evolution has been tested, observed and repeated, Macro never has, no scentist can prove it, Darkins has even admitted this! its pure assumption that a creature can keep changing! not science.
We see lab experiments on flies, they zap em with gamma rays and what not, then say a small difference in wing size is evolution?!? thats a JOKE! evolution is NOT proven, no creature can change into something completely different no matter how much time or chance is given, thats fact!
@seeheers Well, speciation has been observed in the laboratory in which two diverging groups of organisms were shown to have descended from one and they are unable to reproduce with each other now...
So far no scientists has seen macro evolution (something evolving into another species) in action. The reason this is impossible is because organisms cannot create new genes. There's something called a "DNA code limit" breeders hit this limit all the time. Race horses cannot survive on their own because these breeders "used up" all the genes to make the horse go faster. Natural selection should help these horses but it doesnt
@seeheers 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct: No Lucy, no large dinosaurs, no sabertooth tigers, no Neaderthals [the other kind of human] no trilobites. That is what we are trying to explain.
If the universe was fine tuned for life, why is most of it hostile to life?
@gregrutz There is a difference between macro and micro evolution though, micro evolution is transition from for example a poodle to a wolf, however, there is no such thing as a poodle changing into a car or a different species altogether.
@seeheers Wolf to poodle is not evolution at all. It is called breeding. It does prove 'variation in species' which is necessary for evolution to work. The 'new information' is already there for natural selection to work on.
Reptiles evolved into mammals and dinosaurs into birds, check the fossil record, the proof is there. DNA proves it
If a dog evolved over millions of years to fly it would still be a flying dog. You can't outgrow your ancestry. Humans are still apes, still mammals.
@gregrutz "the new information is already there for natural selection to work" This is true only to a certain extent, whales have genes for legs... they don't have genes for feathers, there is only a certain amount of genes in a species, some of the genes in dogs are different than cats, therefore making the transition impossible unless new genetic information was provided. Evolution says this new information is created by mutation but it's been proven that mutations only hurt animals...
@seeheers Correct, evolution says whales will never have feathers and dogs will not turn into cats. The 'variation in species' does come from changes in DNA.
@gregrutz No not at all, new changes in DNA has never been seen. it is impossible for a organism to create new DNA sequences, therefore making evolution an impossible joke. Even mutations only change existing genes, never making completely new ones.
@gregrutz If you really examine evolution you will find that all the evolution that supposedly has been "proven" is really just MICRO-evolution, changes within existing genomes, not MACRO-evolution, a change in the gene pool.
@gregrutz no, there is a very large line between mIcro and mAcro evolution macro evolution says that the genome pool can be expanded micro just says that genes can be mixed up... nothing totally new.
The fossil record shows no intermediate's. We dig up dinosaurs all the time, yet most of the fossils we find fit into a species... if evolution (slow gradual change) were true it should be impossible to find two species of dinosaurs exactly the same.
@seeheers Macro evolution does not make ''totally new'' just small changes you call micro evolution. Dogs always make dogs. Dogs and cats have a common ancestor, there is nothing 'totally new'' They both have two eyes, nose, same # teeth, four legs etc. They are not that different but can't interbreed, they are different species.
Every fossils is of a complete species, just like today. There are many transitional fossils, like dinosaurs with feathers.
@gregrutz thats what most people dont understand, they see changes to dogs and finches and they conclude that the changes can keep going. Genetically it doesn't work that way. Micro evolution is just changes (scrambling of DNA). Mutations, macroevolution, is the theory that organisms can INCREASE their gene pool, this we havent seen. Scientists have done thousands of experiments of all types trying to find this "creation" but so far they havent found it.
@gregrutz the archaeopteryx is a bird, we have 6 species today that have claws on their wings and teeth much like it
I dont really believe in evolution just because it doesn't make sense logically; Bombardier beetles mix two different chemicals together causing a chemical reaction which shoots out their butt and can kill predators. How would the evolution work? The first time the chemicals evolved they would mix and explode killing the beetle...
@gregrutz the only really alternative is creation, there aren't any other 'theories' that can explain this sudden explosion of species during the Cambrian period. They had to be created there isn't any other explanation.
@seeheers Please tell me how the evolution of the basic Phyla 530 million years ago and the fact that all life back then was small marine creatures supports your religion creation story?
Evolution says a Cat and a Dog have a common ancestor, the first mammal.
If dogs evolved for a million years and could fly they would still be flying dogs. You can't out grow your ancestry. That is why Humans are still apes and still mammals.
yes, it is from a creation bias but it cites a good chunk of site/sources so its not like they're just making this stuff up.
If evolution were really true it should be hard to tell where one species begins and another ends. This also implys that 99.9% of species should be extinct. Which isn't so.
I hope you can take my word on these things... u can look them up if you hav any doubts
@seeheers ''If evolution were really true it should be hard to tell where one species begins and another ends''. Correct. Paleontologists argue if something it a mammal like reptile or a reptile like mammal. Is it a dinosaur because it has teeth or a bird because it has feathers? Or is just another feathered dinosaur.
@seeheers could you resend link? The link leads to any error page...You'll have to explain what you mean by 'where one species begins and another ends.', because species is the fundamental unit of taxonomy. What's between two species? You'll have organisms with less genetic similarities which are still under the same species, but then there will be a point where they cannot reproduce with their original species but what is between that?
@Nanofuture87 Mathematically for chemicals to separate the way they had to for life to create itself, would require much, much more energy than the sun produces. Scientists cannot even create life in a lab; how can you say that life just created itself?
The only attempts to create life in a lab have required enormous amounts of mechanical energy, thats just attempting, so far all attempts have failed
1) I was specifically talking about evolution (how life changes over time), not abiogenesis (how life started). Science is still working out the details of abiogenesis, but evolution is a well documented fact.
2) As for abiogenesis, there are several competing models that I suggest you read up on to see what they actually entail. At no point is something which is physically impossible proposed.
3) We've been trying for under 100 years. It took nature millions of years.
@Nanofuture87 Science today has been able to synthesize all sorts of chemicals, not to mention new elements that we never even knew existed. Synthesizing life would in some ways be easier since all we need to do is copy it. So far i think the best we've dont is create a couple strands of RNA; but really we're a long way.
As for macro-evolution we really can't say its a fact because we've never seen it happen; if organisms could create new genes then yes, evolution could happen; but it doesnt
@seeheers You seem to be implying that we know exactly what the earliest life forms were like. We don't; we just have general ideas.
There is only one "kind" of evolution. What you are calling "macro-evolution" is simply a series of "micro-evolutions" occurring over a large time scale. I recommend you pick up a reputable textbook on evolutionary biology if you would like details. The evidence supporting it is so overwhelming you may as well try to dispute germ or cell theory.
@seeheers Putting away the first claim, which if you could back up with scientific evidence, would be great, your second line logic that because 'Scientists cannot even create life in a lab...', life could not have created itself is fallacious because we are not analogous to nature in that way. For example, we cannot perform fusion, does that mean that fusion cannot be done in nature or natural bodies? I.e the sun?
7:02 “If the solar system evolved, all planets should spin in the same direction.” I’ll bet that if all planets did spin in the same direction (yes, lets forget about gravity and mechanics), creationists would use that as an argument for creation, irreducible complexity, god’s divine whatever.
Seems people dont understand that the earth is NOT a closed system. It is fed with a consistant heat and light source, THE SUN!! The over all entropy is not changed by seeing order within chaos.
Fucking creationists retard our advancement of knowledge.
They miss the point. Fail creationist! No soup for you. I would have rated this low but the powers that be are afraid to see how bad we think it is. Superstitions are slowly the thing of the past.
I love the end! Typical creationist/ID reasoning. You can't do probability backwards. For example: Take a deck of cards. Pull out 8 cards in random. If you try to do the same again you will find it close to impossible to pull out the same cards in the same order. A creationist would come to the conclusion that God pulled out the cards...
i think why everything is so different as they say is due to other planets and space dust/junk colliding with everything. Also is it impossible that the reason why some planets have more than 1 moon be because it has collided with more than one thing? Who knows maybe at the beginning Saturn and Jupiter were one planet then were split up some 13 billion years ago by something else, after all this time there could be no evidence of any other thing tampering with it. Like the resurrection of Jesus.
@ninoisagod Im just saying we cannot take things as we know it to be. There are many different variables to deal with, time is a big one. After all this time there would be no evidence to look at if we attempted to go and see what happened. There could have been multiple collisions, in which made the planets how they are now. Also things can change quickly, just like life as we know it, one day we can be here, the next we can be gone.
@byScrooby are you fucking high or just extremely retarded? there is NO evidence for any religion, no matter how hard you want to believe it, what so ever and the evolution theory is posibly the most flawless explanation to the evolution of man to date, tell me, what evidence is there for God creating man?
So far, all this video establishes is that the main difference between Creationists and Evolutionists (using it the way it's used here .. more like Non-Creationist) is that Creationists are more inclined to label their ignorance "God" than Evolutionists.
I think my favorite part of this video is the inclusion of Malcolm Bowden to talk about cosmology. Do a search on Malcolm Bowden sometime. He's a proponent of a geocentric universe. Forget Darwin, this guy thinks Galileo was wrong.
Wtf is this? Anti evolutionist? Bullcrrap! Big bang ISNT evolution dumass -.-... And also, you FAIL to prove any single little thing why is evolution is wrong. All you prove is creationism is possible and the big bang is a total bullcrrap. Also, bigbang theory support their idea off electro magnetic pull and forces, and yes they prove that on Earth!
wow seriously just wow i wish scientist did propaganda to the masses like you guys the world would be a better place. there is so many things wrong this this video.
In a time before printing presses, the Bible was "scribed" to produce copies. Many scribes over a long period of time dedicated all their lives to making sure every word was spelled correctly, comas, spaces, etc...If anything was not perfect, they would discard the copies with imperfections-IF something such as this contradicted something else, the scribes would have removed it-
RussianAssassin21- No. But that seems to be a common misunderstanding. If that were the case, ancient scribes would have removed one. One cannot fully understand evolution unless you STUDY it instead of reading through it quickly. The Creation account must also be understood properly. When one actually pays attention to what they are reading, it becomes very clear. There is only one Creation. You are thinking of God planting a garden.
I'm pretty sure there are, it would be great if someone could confirm or deny this. According to genesis all species of animals, or their "kinds" (whatever that means), that have ever lived existed together at the beginning. This is not what we find in the fossil record, we find a particular hierarchy of organisms and a distribution of traits that makes evolutionary sense. There is NO WAY that humans lived with the earlier forms of life, we simply have not existed that long as a species.
Seriously, the whole story of Adam and Eve and the Fall did not happen. It's so obviously a story that it's embarrassing that there are adults that believe it to be literal history.
RussianAssassin21- Well thats what we call an "opinion"- The only way you could say that so definitely, would be if you were there yourself. Whats so "obviously" is the fact you are biased and offer no facts to prove any point at all to the claims you make- It is all only opinion. Can you understand anything you read? Read Creation in Genesis.
I have read it. Facts? It's a fact that there are no modern animal fossils found with earlier organisms where it wouldn't make evolutionary sense. The story of genesis is contradicted by modern science, that's a fact. The bible refers to insects with four legs, which is inaccurate. The sequence of the existence of organisms in Creation is wrong. It claims that grass, land plants, and trees were created before the sun; that birds were created before land animals; etc. Read a science book.
RussianAssassin21- On one hand you speak as to indicate you have enough intelligence to conclude if this is true or not- On the other hand, you are basically saying you need someone to explain it to you and tell you if it's true or not. Did you really read Genesis?- It's only the first two chapters and can be read very quickly-
No, I wasn't absolutely positive that there are two creation accounts because I don't have a bible in front of me. I have read Genesis, though, and I know what it claims. If you think that it's merely my opinion that the creation story of the bible is contradicted by modern scientific understanding then you need to do some research. I assumed that you've taken some science classes in school or have a basic understanding of modern scientific knowledge. If u want me to pull out the raw data I will
RussianAssassin21- Sometimes when we read something a second time we notice things that we missed the first- If you thought there was the slightest chance it contained two Creation accounts, you don't know nearly as much as you say about Creation. Certainly not enough to say it is or is not true. True facts of modern science does not and cannot prove anything in the Bible to be un-true. Know what you are talking about before you talk.
@shotsxxx Forget about what I said regarding two creation stories, it's not central to the point I'm making. I just gave you examples of how the bible contradicts modern science. Did you read them? Noah and the Ark contradicts so much scientific knowledge and understanding that it's laughable anyone could consider it a historical event that actually occurred. Jonah and the whale? He lived in a stomach filled with stomach acid and without oxygen for three days? Come on, dude.
RussianAssassin21- Cool. That is a popular lie going around though. It seems kind of silly to me being anyone can read for 10 minutes and find the truth.I do understand there are some differences between the two theories.That happens to be the case most of the time in science when people are trying to find a truth.
@shotsxxx What two theories? Evolution and what? The creation myth is not a theory, it is supported by ZERO evidence. I just googled it and there does seem to be two creation stories with different orders for the creation of things.
RussianAssassin21- You should read it yourself and see for yourself what Bible says. You only listen to atheist that would deny God existed even if he slapped them in the face. Please prove you did not lie and tell me what these two stories are. I find it interesting. Please tell me.
Even when evolutionist are presented with evidence you always say it's not good enough.(thats not your call,by the way)- What you show me as evidence for your theory is not good enough.
If close enough is good enough for you,good luck with that "smart" thinking. I'm sure you'll go far in life with that attitude. To call "good enough" a fact, Is against scientific method.
@shotsxxx What are you talking about? I just told you that certain species of animals are endemic to certain isolated regions of the world (which is a fact you can google), then asked how Noah could have gotten them to come to his Ark? You don't even address my points and simply change the subject. It's apparent now that you have not done your research. You haven't addressed any of the points I made and simply say they're not good enough. What evidence have you presented, again?
RussianAssassin21.- You've made no points. YOU are trying to change subject. HEY IDIOT...WHAT DOES NOAH HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. You are trying to pull your same old childish nonsense to avoid something stupid you said. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION what does Noah have to do with evolution. YOU started talking about Noah for no reason. You are insane- I don't have time for you. You are just gay and want to pretend God is not real.
@shotsxxx lol, ok kid. You're obviously flustered because you've realize you're out of your element and are becoming desperate to save face. I never said that I was defending evolution, I was challenging the claims that the stories of the bible really happened. I said that they contradict with science in general. If you want to talk about evolution too then that's fine by me, but the original topic was the stories of the bible and their scientific inaccuracies according to certain fields.
@shotsxxx "True facts of modern science does not and cannot prove anything in the Bible to be un-true. Know what you are talking about before you talk. "
LOL, wtf? Are you saying that the bible is 100% scientifically and factually accurate?
RussianAssassin21- I ment just what I said. Science cannot prove anything in the Bible to be untrue, using true facts.Sure you can disagree.--- You have no concern to find any truths. What does Noah and Jonah have to do with abiogenesis or evolution? Absolutely nothing. You only want to rant. It makes you feel better about the bad things you do. That helps you pretend and tell yourself lies. What does Noah have to do with abiogenesis or evolution?
@shotsxxx I was just explaining how there is no way that a guy lived in the stomach of a whale for three days, that has to do with common sense and understanding that one cannot live in stomach acid with no oxygen for three days.
@shotsxxx How did Noah get marsupials and Lemurs from their respective endemic habitats? Not only is there no evidence to support this story as being historically true but there is so much evidence against it that it's obviously not true. Many animals have a very restricted diet that limit their options for food to specific resources of their respective regions. Did they bring lunchboxes, too? They must have brought more than two of each animal because many animals eat other animals.
RussianAssassin21- So what I get from what you are saying is you don't think anything is true unless you understand it. According to your logic, if you don't understand something, it is not true. WHAT DOES that have to do with evolution? You say you are so smart but you can't seem to keep focused and stay on the same subject. A-D-D?
@shotsxxx lol, here we go, putting the focus on me rather than the points I brought up. Do you know what "endemic" means? I'll bring up the inaccuracies of the creation story if you want. It says that grass, land plants, and trees existed before the Sun; that the first forms of life were land plants; that birds existed before land animals; that fruit trees existed before fish; and that the first humans were created from dirt. This has everything to do with evolution.
RussianAssassin21-I must have fell asleep because the only point you made is the fact that you are utterly stupid. You are not even close to being intelligent. Hahahah- What a loser- You are the dumbest person I have ever met. And you say you are smart because you believe evolution.Hahaha- Thats why you say you believe evolution, they tell you, you are smart. We know how a stupid person feels when called stupid, don't we? Hahaha
@shotsxxx How old are you? You're just embarrassing yourself now, not that it matters on YouTube. I made points regarding the inaccuracy of the creation story in its order of existence for organisms, I said that certain animals are endemic to isolated regions that could not have possible gotten to Noah on their own, and that many animals have a restricted diet that forces them to feed off of certain foods that are only found in their respective regions. Care to address these points?
RussianAssassin21- Everything seems to be obvious EXCEPT any answers to any questions I asked you- You are not educated. Thats why you are on youtube to pretend you are more than what you are. I teach evolution you idiot. I don't have time for you. You are too small and unimportant. You are completely uneducated and in no way have the intelligence to understand Creation or evolution to the point to say whats true or not. I am beyond your league.
@Craighill9 Wow, you really are brainwashed, read a science book.
All you hear is, '' fossils on mountains, must be from a flood.''
There are whole sea beds making up the top third of the mountain, made of slow growing corals. Put there through plate tectonic over millions of years.
Creation is not a theory, it is a religious teaching, one for every religion.
@gregrutz No, gregrutz, considering the evidence the most logical conclusion is creation....of course since you haven't posed any evidence that would indicate some other point of origin. And since you haven't posed any evidence for something other than creation, then the logical conclusion is creation.
To prove your point you need to show that something can come from nothing, and you must also show that nothing caused it. What is observed (science) its observed that something cannot come from nothing apart from intelligent input.
@Craighill9 So if God made the Big Bang, then you will accept evolution?
BTW, no one said it started from nothing. They can only trace the universe back to the first Billionith of a second. Time did not exist a billionith of a second before that.
@gregrutz Who is "they?" and what method did "they" use to trace it? Actually all "they" can do is speculate. Of course "they" will tell you that its more likely that space time and energy had a beginning. "They" will also tell you that everything that begins to exist has a cause outside itself. "They" will also tell you that a cause indicates a mind. If this is illogical then tell me what rule of logic I have violated?
@gregrutz Ever think that maybe your the one Brainwashed? I mean... you were raised in a atheist house, atheist school, with atheist book, with an atheist teacher not allowed to question science.
RussianAssassin21- I assumed you have at least average intelligence and common sense. I've done my research, you need to go do a little yourself. If you want ME to pull out the raw data for you I will. Don't crown yourself as higher intelligence than me and pretend you know, what I know and don't know. I'll tell you. Just because someone believes evolution does NOT mean they are smarter than a Creationist.
@shotsxxx I'm not saying I'm more intelligent than you but I am saying that I have done more research than you. PLEASE pull out your research, I want to know where you're getting your information.
"Just because someone believes evolution does NOT mean they are smarter than a Creationist. "
I'm not sure about that one, maybe when evolution was first proposed 150 years ago. One of them has definitely not done their research.
RussianAssassin21- Oh yeah? How much research have I done?- Face the facts No you are not smarter just because you don't believe in God.You lie to yourself.You are not about science.What does Noah have to do with evolution?If you were concerned with science you would have not mentioned something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. (Noah,Jonah)- I can teach you the Bible if thats what you really are asking for.
@shotsxxx Evolution explains the distribution of animals to certain regions and shows how there is no way that Noah could have gotten certain species that are endemic to places such as Madagascar and Australia, to name couple.
It is clear that, in context, the reference is to the noble ones, princes, not the physical earth. Immediately before, the context is people, and immediately after the context is also about people. It is quite clear that this is the meaning-..." He hangs the earth on nothing."-(Job 26:7).
Utter misleading, dishonest, and ignorant propaganda.
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
The 2nd Law does not apply to open systems. The decrease of entropy in life is more than made up for by the drastic increase in the sun. And it should be noted that thermodynamic entropy is NOT the same as 'disorder'.
The Heat Death theory has not been widely accepted, and even if it's true, it doesn't imply that a man 'wound it up'.
The earth free-floats in space, affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the Earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we know true.- " He hangs the Earth on nothing "- (Job 26:7)
RussianAssassin21- The pillars are the power and providence of God.Figuratively,pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world,the supreme rulers of it and civil magistrates-sometimes called cornerstones and The shields of the earth.- Pillars mean cementing,supporting,and protecting,people on earth.The church is the pillar and every good man in the house of God-Especially ministers of the Gospel-(pillars of the earth)-
RussianAssassin21- The pillars are the power and providence of God.Figuratively,pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world,the supreme rulers of it and civil magistrates-sometimes called cornerstones and The shields of the earth.- Pillars mean cementing,supporting,and protecting,people on earth.The church is the pillar and every good man in the house of God-Especially ministers of the Gospel-(pillars of the earth)-
Absolute propoganda. The difference between the Big Bang and an explosion is the first thing you learn when you study the Big Bang.
And that incredibly inane claim about the second law again. "Entropy" does not translate perfectly into "Disorder", and galaxies and stars can form just fine without violating any laws of thermodynamics.
Similarly, as for the evolution of life, the earth is not a closed system, and thus the 2nd theory doesn't apply.
let's see. you start with a religious system: evolution. then you scoff and mock any other belief system and refuse to acknowledge that there are other legitimate theories out there.
then, because you have no definitive proof, you resort to name calling and making fun of those who believe in a Creator.
the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"
some of the comments on this video prove the foolishness of those who refuse to acknowledge their loving Creator.
Jasper God Bless You..I agree with you 100% it seems that atheist resort to name calling and bashing when their claims aren't as valid..There wondering "Why Do Christians Believe in God" and we don't. It's because the Holy Bible out weighs all evidence..It's funny how the Bible explains science so well, when I'm pretty sure 2,000 years ago that people didn't even begin to start thinking about the universe. The Bible was God inspired..
@TheEquipper references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place"
if your going to quote scripture please do it correctly..The Earth spins on its axis, it does not move out of place..Where I am it's 1:22am, no sun, when I wake up..The sun will be out..What are you talking about? If the earth were to move it would be a catastrophic event my friend..The definition of move, to change from one position to another..The earth spins on its axis.I hope you weren't serious trying to quote those scriptures..
The bible was written by men who thought the same as most people, the earth is flat and the center of the universe. No big deal, religious people still don't understand science or logic.
Just listen to this video, these guy have no idea what they are talking about. Asking why science does not answer religious questions.
"First there was nothing and then it Exploded" is creationist propoganda. The Big Bang does not say that at all.
Actually, that's not true...i have seen to many big bang theory videos and evolution videos that state that there was nothing then the universe exploded and started expanding. These videos, also, did not have a THING to do with creation or I.D Science.
Remember the big bang is mostly a math modle to unite the forces of nature. They can't go all the way back to the point of 'NO TIME' because the math breaks down.
Lolage
WAZZA1235 2 weeks ago
The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time dummies.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
The Big Bang was an Expansion of space-time not an explosion.
The universe is 'running down', less ordered. That does not keep life from functioning and children from growing.
The sun is the outside source for life. Chlorophil is the chemical that captures the energy.
The question is not 'Who" The question is 'What'
There was nothing before time started.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
If we're nothing but sophisticated animals, we'll soon begin to act like animals. And if you want to see a perfect case study, look in the public schools of America today.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
I stopped this the second they brought up the second law of thermodynamics. Why? Because that argument is a tired, old, debunked sham. The second law states and chaos cannot become order in a confined environment. CONFINED ENVIRONMENT. Meaning no input or output. The universe is not confined, so the second law does not apply. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand thermodynamics and is making a fool out of themselves.
cavemantiger 1 month ago
@cavemantiger "The universe is not confined" Uhhhhhh yes it is....
all objects in the universe are slowly moving to equilibrium (thats what the second law says) The only way to get things out of equilibrium is to do Work (energy) on an object, the amount of energy required for life to be created (even slowly) would have to be much more than the suns output.
.
The second law says that the entropy of a system is always increasing; its increasing faster than the sun can decreas it
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers No, darling, the Universe is not confined. Do you understand what the universe is? I thought not... No wonder you're so foolish as to go for the long-ago debunked arguments. And no, sweetie, that's not the second law.
Fail.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
""Things don't last" is not a complete or convincing statement of the concept of entropy. Other so-called scientific insights of the Bible are no more convincing.
Templetonq 2 months ago
@Templetonq entropy is basically everything in the universe moving toward equilibrium. Because of this there needs to be something that can spontaneously add energy into a system. Modern Physics says that the energy comes from another dimension, however it doesnt explain where that energy in that unknown dimension came from. A creator? Maybe.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
Fine, lets say that there is a being that made everything, who was it. who do we pray to and how can we be sure that we are praying to the right one ?
look at this her eon youtube
The "Evolution" Of Religion
Pginnerup 3 months ago
or maybe all the polluting that human are doing is what is really detrimental to the "wind down" of the universe
worthdyingfor7465 5 months ago
Ah, yet more wankers on the internet. Who knew. And if only they actually knew what entropy was....
dave28lax 6 months ago
Hehe, you could tell this was going to bullshit early on when the narrator said "creation theory". As if "creation" has ever been anything but a hypothesis. No one who knows anything about science would dare call creationism a theory, because it has no backing whatsoever. And yes, then came all the fake biologists... But it's very entertaining, at least.
antiHUMANDesigns 7 months ago
before time began was a metaphor, wow. yes, they will grow old, thats because everything that exist if it exists long enough will grow old.
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
creation scientist, the ultimate oxymoron.
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi How can you say such a definite thing without seeing their view?
I think both theories have a lot of holes in them... but mainly i think debate in the scientific community is a healthy thing, banning creationism or showing evolution's dumb side isn't helping anyone.
If you truly believe in evolution then you shouldnt have a problem with people seeing the other side... sadly this isn't so.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers How have you come to the conclusion that i have not seen their view? Just curious. My statement does not support the theory of evolution, it simply criticizes creation. As you've claimed that evolutionary theory has holes, it would be great if you could back it up with evidence. Also, you can see the other side, it just doesn't mean its a science.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Look at the fossil record, if evolution were true then it should be impossible to find where one species ends and another begins. We dont see this at all! There should be an infinite amount of intermediate species, but we can't even find one (the "intermediate" species we find usually turn out to be another species altogether)
.
Why is it that evolutionists have to make up ape-men? Shouldn't the evidence be there loud and clear? Wheres the science?
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers just to clarify your statements, do you mean infinite as in never ending? Or is it just a figure of speech? 'it should be impossible to find where one species ends and another begins.' By definition, what defines two different species are their ability to reproduce to form fertile offsprings with each other. Therefore, it is not exactly a continuum. You can find where one specie begins and where another ends.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Could you cite the source of 'evolutionists making up ape-men'?. Also, can you please define evolution as it is extremely broad.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers You have not cited any sources for each of the claims that these fossils were false. A basic search of wikipedia for nebraska man, piltdown man tells me that the fossils were not accepted by the scientific community or weeded out through the scientific process. Could you please link me a source to hervey leach. Also, cite source for peking man being fake, as i found no reliable sources for that claim. 'Ramapithecus - an ape' Humans are apes by the way.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Ramapithecus was a extinct ape species.
almost all of the apemen found that claimed to be the "missing link" turn out to be just missing evidence or hoaxes, Hervey Leach and Lionel were simple blacks that pretended to be the missing link... hoaxes of course, they would walk around stage and claim to be ape-humans.
The truth is there are ANY true links, that's why there are so many hoaxes.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Piltdown man was the only 'Hoax'. Humans are apes, our ape-man ancestors will be apes.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@seeheers As again, please cite the sources...
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Some sources have interpreted that Lucy 'was was not directly ancestral to humans' and some have, scientific controversies exist... Could you provide the scientific name for the fossil 'Lionel'. Now onto your implied claim that creationism is a science. Literal creationism which follows closely the words of the bible, are not factual, it does not form a coherent theory, as genesis is contradictory in itself.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
In your view creationism might not seem realistic but when you look at all the scientific theorys that try to explain life they all have serious problems
The public deserves to know about these issues. Kids in Public school are being taught that macro evolution is fact and science and cant be questioned. The fact in the matter is that most people looking for truth assume that evolution is right, so if they find E that contradicts their theory they ignore it because they dont understand it
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Show us something that prove evolution wrong. Everything in this video has been debunked. Keep trying.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Micro evolution has been tested, observed and repeated, Macro never has, no scentist can prove it, Darkins has even admitted this! its pure assumption that a creature can keep changing! not science.
We see lab experiments on flies, they zap em with gamma rays and what not, then say a small difference in wing size is evolution?!? thats a JOKE! evolution is NOT proven, no creature can change into something completely different no matter how much time or chance is given, thats fact!
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Well, speciation has been observed in the laboratory in which two diverging groups of organisms were shown to have descended from one and they are unable to reproduce with each other now...
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Were they of the same species or different?
So far no scientists has seen macro evolution (something evolving into another species) in action. The reason this is impossible is because organisms cannot create new genes. There's something called a "DNA code limit" breeders hit this limit all the time. Race horses cannot survive on their own because these breeders "used up" all the genes to make the horse go faster. Natural selection should help these horses but it doesnt
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Different, that's why it's called speciation. Could you cite the source for dna code limit? I could not find any.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi So Lucy was a failed evolutionary process that was eliminated by natural selection?
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct: No Lucy, no large dinosaurs, no sabertooth tigers, no Neaderthals [the other kind of human] no trilobites. That is what we are trying to explain.
If the universe was fine tuned for life, why is most of it hostile to life?
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz less then 70% of all the known species are extinct, yet its hard to prove that...
I think i would turn your question around: Is there any hard evidence FOR macro evolution?
There are no transitional fossils... isn't that evidence enough against evolution?
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz There is a difference between macro and micro evolution though, micro evolution is transition from for example a poodle to a wolf, however, there is no such thing as a poodle changing into a car or a different species altogether.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Wolf to poodle is not evolution at all. It is called breeding. It does prove 'variation in species' which is necessary for evolution to work. The 'new information' is already there for natural selection to work on.
Reptiles evolved into mammals and dinosaurs into birds, check the fossil record, the proof is there. DNA proves it
If a dog evolved over millions of years to fly it would still be a flying dog. You can't outgrow your ancestry. Humans are still apes, still mammals.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz "the new information is already there for natural selection to work" This is true only to a certain extent, whales have genes for legs... they don't have genes for feathers, there is only a certain amount of genes in a species, some of the genes in dogs are different than cats, therefore making the transition impossible unless new genetic information was provided. Evolution says this new information is created by mutation but it's been proven that mutations only hurt animals...
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@seeheers Correct, evolution says whales will never have feathers and dogs will not turn into cats. The 'variation in species' does come from changes in DNA.
Not all mutations hurt animals.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz No not at all, new changes in DNA has never been seen. it is impossible for a organism to create new DNA sequences, therefore making evolution an impossible joke. Even mutations only change existing genes, never making completely new ones.
w09.biomedcentral(dot)com/1471-2164/7/239
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz If you really examine evolution you will find that all the evolution that supposedly has been "proven" is really just MICRO-evolution, changes within existing genomes, not MACRO-evolution, a change in the gene pool.
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@seeheers If the change was too big you would say there was a Gap. If the change is too small then you call it Micro evolution. Fucking Creatards.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz no, there is a very large line between mIcro and mAcro evolution macro evolution says that the genome pool can be expanded micro just says that genes can be mixed up... nothing totally new.
The fossil record shows no intermediate's. We dig up dinosaurs all the time, yet most of the fossils we find fit into a species... if evolution (slow gradual change) were true it should be impossible to find two species of dinosaurs exactly the same.
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@seeheers Macro evolution does not make ''totally new'' just small changes you call micro evolution. Dogs always make dogs. Dogs and cats have a common ancestor, there is nothing 'totally new'' They both have two eyes, nose, same # teeth, four legs etc. They are not that different but can't interbreed, they are different species.
Every fossils is of a complete species, just like today. There are many transitional fossils, like dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz thats what most people dont understand, they see changes to dogs and finches and they conclude that the changes can keep going. Genetically it doesn't work that way. Micro evolution is just changes (scrambling of DNA). Mutations, macroevolution, is the theory that organisms can INCREASE their gene pool, this we havent seen. Scientists have done thousands of experiments of all types trying to find this "creation" but so far they havent found it.
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz the archaeopteryx is a bird, we have 6 species today that have claws on their wings and teeth much like it
I dont really believe in evolution just because it doesn't make sense logically; Bombardier beetles mix two different chemicals together causing a chemical reaction which shoots out their butt and can kill predators. How would the evolution work? The first time the chemicals evolved they would mix and explode killing the beetle...
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz if evolutin is true why dont organisms live forever? why didn't evolution make them that way?
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz the only really alternative is creation, there aren't any other 'theories' that can explain this sudden explosion of species during the Cambrian period. They had to be created there isn't any other explanation.
seeheers 2 weeks ago
@seeheers Please tell me how the evolution of the basic Phyla 530 million years ago and the fact that all life back then was small marine creatures supports your religion creation story?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@seeheers It will be helpful that you respond to my previous post, it will help clear up some misunderstanding i may have about your position.
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi
When i mean "evolution" i mean the gradual process of a species evolving into a totally different species, such as a Dog to Cat or something.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers ''evolution means 'a Dog to Cat'' WRONG
Evolution says a Cat and a Dog have a common ancestor, the first mammal.
If dogs evolved for a million years and could fly they would still be flying dogs. You can't out grow your ancestry. That is why Humans are still apes and still mammals.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@seeheers lol okay...do you know about phylogenetic trees?
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
@swisscheesepotatochi creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_116-122.pdf
yes, it is from a creation bias but it cites a good chunk of site/sources so its not like they're just making this stuff up.
If evolution were really true it should be hard to tell where one species begins and another ends. This also implys that 99.9% of species should be extinct. Which isn't so.
I hope you can take my word on these things... u can look them up if you hav any doubts
seeheers 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seeheers ''If evolution were really true it should be hard to tell where one species begins and another ends''. Correct. Paleontologists argue if something it a mammal like reptile or a reptile like mammal. Is it a dinosaur because it has teeth or a bird because it has feathers? Or is just another feathered dinosaur.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@seeheers could you resend link? The link leads to any error page...You'll have to explain what you mean by 'where one species begins and another ends.', because species is the fundamental unit of taxonomy. What's between two species? You'll have organisms with less genetic similarities which are still under the same species, but then there will be a point where they cannot reproduce with their original species but what is between that?
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
"There is no outside energy source for evolution"
Yes there is... it's called the sun.
Nobody is claiming that the universe is evolving. Only living organisms evolve.
Nanofuture87 1 year ago
@Nanofuture87 Mathematically for chemicals to separate the way they had to for life to create itself, would require much, much more energy than the sun produces. Scientists cannot even create life in a lab; how can you say that life just created itself?
The only attempts to create life in a lab have required enormous amounts of mechanical energy, thats just attempting, so far all attempts have failed
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers
1) I was specifically talking about evolution (how life changes over time), not abiogenesis (how life started). Science is still working out the details of abiogenesis, but evolution is a well documented fact.
2) As for abiogenesis, there are several competing models that I suggest you read up on to see what they actually entail. At no point is something which is physically impossible proposed.
3) We've been trying for under 100 years. It took nature millions of years.
Nanofuture87 3 weeks ago
@Nanofuture87 Science today has been able to synthesize all sorts of chemicals, not to mention new elements that we never even knew existed. Synthesizing life would in some ways be easier since all we need to do is copy it. So far i think the best we've dont is create a couple strands of RNA; but really we're a long way.
As for macro-evolution we really can't say its a fact because we've never seen it happen; if organisms could create new genes then yes, evolution could happen; but it doesnt
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers You seem to be implying that we know exactly what the earliest life forms were like. We don't; we just have general ideas.
There is only one "kind" of evolution. What you are calling "macro-evolution" is simply a series of "micro-evolutions" occurring over a large time scale. I recommend you pick up a reputable textbook on evolutionary biology if you would like details. The evidence supporting it is so overwhelming you may as well try to dispute germ or cell theory.
Nanofuture87 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seeheers Putting away the first claim, which if you could back up with scientific evidence, would be great, your second line logic that because 'Scientists cannot even create life in a lab...', life could not have created itself is fallacious because we are not analogous to nature in that way. For example, we cannot perform fusion, does that mean that fusion cannot be done in nature or natural bodies? I.e the sun?
swisscheesepotatochi 3 weeks ago
7:02 “If the solar system evolved, all planets should spin in the same direction.” I’ll bet that if all planets did spin in the same direction (yes, lets forget about gravity and mechanics), creationists would use that as an argument for creation, irreducible complexity, god’s divine whatever.
aftenfilosof 1 year ago
So creationists "argument" against biological evolution is to claim that energy can be destroyed?
aftenfilosof 1 year ago
this should be flag for the amount on bullshit thats in it!
blitz3 1 year ago
Atheism is just going to keep growing faster than religion if creationists don't learn how to lie better.
Heteblixem 1 year ago
Seems people dont understand that the earth is NOT a closed system. It is fed with a consistant heat and light source, THE SUN!! The over all entropy is not changed by seeing order within chaos.
Fucking creationists retard our advancement of knowledge.
Scanini 1 year ago
GOD said, "i have come to confound the wise. Were nothing more than piss ants who think we know it all, and know absolutely nothing.
Imamfgclone 1 year ago
Thanks for the Video, this one especially interested me.
jesuslovesyou7779 1 year ago
They miss the point. Fail creationist! No soup for you. I would have rated this low but the powers that be are afraid to see how bad we think it is. Superstitions are slowly the thing of the past.
wilmer420 1 year ago
the theory of evolution does not contradict the law of entropy. but god does.
also, evolution has nothing to do with astronomy.
this whole video is stupid. why do they lie??
stop fighting progress!
fuctanyway 1 year ago
I love the end! Typical creationist/ID reasoning. You can't do probability backwards. For example: Take a deck of cards. Pull out 8 cards in random. If you try to do the same again you will find it close to impossible to pull out the same cards in the same order. A creationist would come to the conclusion that God pulled out the cards...
aakesson1 1 year ago
dumb religious people playing scientist... of course there are answers to why solar system planets are different just do a freaking google search
shadowsofdream 1 year ago
i think why everything is so different as they say is due to other planets and space dust/junk colliding with everything. Also is it impossible that the reason why some planets have more than 1 moon be because it has collided with more than one thing? Who knows maybe at the beginning Saturn and Jupiter were one planet then were split up some 13 billion years ago by something else, after all this time there could be no evidence of any other thing tampering with it. Like the resurrection of Jesus.
ninoisagod 1 year ago
@ninoisagod Im just saying we cannot take things as we know it to be. There are many different variables to deal with, time is a big one. After all this time there would be no evidence to look at if we attempted to go and see what happened. There could have been multiple collisions, in which made the planets how they are now. Also things can change quickly, just like life as we know it, one day we can be here, the next we can be gone.
ninoisagod 1 year ago
God is most definitely real. And man's Evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby lol you're hilarious
shadowsofdream 1 year ago
@byScrooby are you fucking high or just extremely retarded? there is NO evidence for any religion, no matter how hard you want to believe it, what so ever and the evolution theory is posibly the most flawless explanation to the evolution of man to date, tell me, what evidence is there for God creating man?
jackobendo1 1 year ago
So far, all this video establishes is that the main difference between Creationists and Evolutionists (using it the way it's used here .. more like Non-Creationist) is that Creationists are more inclined to label their ignorance "God" than Evolutionists.
juliensorel36 1 year ago
"As Carl Sagan said, 'Cosmos all there is; there aint no more!'"
Epic paraphrase.
LordCustard 1 year ago
I think my favorite part of this video is the inclusion of Malcolm Bowden to talk about cosmology. Do a search on Malcolm Bowden sometime. He's a proponent of a geocentric universe. Forget Darwin, this guy thinks Galileo was wrong.
MikeJunker 1 year ago
Wtf is this? Anti evolutionist? Bullcrrap! Big bang ISNT evolution dumass -.-... And also, you FAIL to prove any single little thing why is evolution is wrong. All you prove is creationism is possible and the big bang is a total bullcrrap. Also, bigbang theory support their idea off electro magnetic pull and forces, and yes they prove that on Earth!
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
What is this vacuous bull?
ligerman30 1 year ago
Darwin wrote, ''Origin of Species'' not origin of the universe or origin of life.
gregrutz 1 year ago
What can bullshit is this?!
One thing I know creationists are goood at .. lying !
ssrr9000 1 year ago
@ssrr9000 is that you best argument? funny
Craighill9 1 year ago
Ratings disabled, why am I not suprised. :s
urantivirus 1 year ago
this is the scientific NERDS god dumb mother fuckers trying to get people to belive stupid shit like this fuck you and fuck you
Murd3rL3AgUE 1 year ago
The guy at 1:10 doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. All you need is an energy gradient, not an outside source.
jstarret 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have to have a creator of the universe to be able to believe in a talking snake! LOL.
gulsbyjag 1 year ago
Comment removed
gulsbyjag 1 year ago
So many things wrong arg.
00Alderamin 2 years ago
wow seriously just wow i wish scientist did propaganda to the masses like you guys the world would be a better place. there is so many things wrong this this video.
00Alderamin 2 years ago
In a time before printing presses, the Bible was "scribed" to produce copies. Many scribes over a long period of time dedicated all their lives to making sure every word was spelled correctly, comas, spaces, etc...If anything was not perfect, they would discard the copies with imperfections-IF something such as this contradicted something else, the scribes would have removed it-
shotsxxx 2 years ago
Aren't there two different genesis stories?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- No. But that seems to be a common misunderstanding. If that were the case, ancient scribes would have removed one. One cannot fully understand evolution unless you STUDY it instead of reading through it quickly. The Creation account must also be understood properly. When one actually pays attention to what they are reading, it becomes very clear. There is only one Creation. You are thinking of God planting a garden.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure there are, it would be great if someone could confirm or deny this. According to genesis all species of animals, or their "kinds" (whatever that means), that have ever lived existed together at the beginning. This is not what we find in the fossil record, we find a particular hierarchy of organisms and a distribution of traits that makes evolutionary sense. There is NO WAY that humans lived with the earlier forms of life, we simply have not existed that long as a species.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
Seriously, the whole story of Adam and Eve and the Fall did not happen. It's so obviously a story that it's embarrassing that there are adults that believe it to be literal history.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- Well thats what we call an "opinion"- The only way you could say that so definitely, would be if you were there yourself. Whats so "obviously" is the fact you are biased and offer no facts to prove any point at all to the claims you make- It is all only opinion. Can you understand anything you read? Read Creation in Genesis.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
I have read it. Facts? It's a fact that there are no modern animal fossils found with earlier organisms where it wouldn't make evolutionary sense. The story of genesis is contradicted by modern science, that's a fact. The bible refers to insects with four legs, which is inaccurate. The sequence of the existence of organisms in Creation is wrong. It claims that grass, land plants, and trees were created before the sun; that birds were created before land animals; etc. Read a science book.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- On one hand you speak as to indicate you have enough intelligence to conclude if this is true or not- On the other hand, you are basically saying you need someone to explain it to you and tell you if it's true or not. Did you really read Genesis?- It's only the first two chapters and can be read very quickly-
shotsxxx 2 years ago
No, I wasn't absolutely positive that there are two creation accounts because I don't have a bible in front of me. I have read Genesis, though, and I know what it claims. If you think that it's merely my opinion that the creation story of the bible is contradicted by modern scientific understanding then you need to do some research. I assumed that you've taken some science classes in school or have a basic understanding of modern scientific knowledge. If u want me to pull out the raw data I will
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- Sometimes when we read something a second time we notice things that we missed the first- If you thought there was the slightest chance it contained two Creation accounts, you don't know nearly as much as you say about Creation. Certainly not enough to say it is or is not true. True facts of modern science does not and cannot prove anything in the Bible to be un-true. Know what you are talking about before you talk.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx Forget about what I said regarding two creation stories, it's not central to the point I'm making. I just gave you examples of how the bible contradicts modern science. Did you read them? Noah and the Ark contradicts so much scientific knowledge and understanding that it's laughable anyone could consider it a historical event that actually occurred. Jonah and the whale? He lived in a stomach filled with stomach acid and without oxygen for three days? Come on, dude.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- Cool. That is a popular lie going around though. It seems kind of silly to me being anyone can read for 10 minutes and find the truth.I do understand there are some differences between the two theories.That happens to be the case most of the time in science when people are trying to find a truth.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx What two theories? Evolution and what? The creation myth is not a theory, it is supported by ZERO evidence. I just googled it and there does seem to be two creation stories with different orders for the creation of things.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- You should read it yourself and see for yourself what Bible says. You only listen to atheist that would deny God existed even if he slapped them in the face. Please prove you did not lie and tell me what these two stories are. I find it interesting. Please tell me.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
Even when evolutionist are presented with evidence you always say it's not good enough.(thats not your call,by the way)- What you show me as evidence for your theory is not good enough.
If close enough is good enough for you,good luck with that "smart" thinking. I'm sure you'll go far in life with that attitude. To call "good enough" a fact, Is against scientific method.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx What are you talking about? I just told you that certain species of animals are endemic to certain isolated regions of the world (which is a fact you can google), then asked how Noah could have gotten them to come to his Ark? You don't even address my points and simply change the subject. It's apparent now that you have not done your research. You haven't addressed any of the points I made and simply say they're not good enough. What evidence have you presented, again?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21.- You've made no points. YOU are trying to change subject. HEY IDIOT...WHAT DOES NOAH HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. You are trying to pull your same old childish nonsense to avoid something stupid you said. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION what does Noah have to do with evolution. YOU started talking about Noah for no reason. You are insane- I don't have time for you. You are just gay and want to pretend God is not real.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx lol, ok kid. You're obviously flustered because you've realize you're out of your element and are becoming desperate to save face. I never said that I was defending evolution, I was challenging the claims that the stories of the bible really happened. I said that they contradict with science in general. If you want to talk about evolution too then that's fine by me, but the original topic was the stories of the bible and their scientific inaccuracies according to certain fields.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@shotsxxx "You are trying to pull your same old childish nonsense to avoid something stupid you said."
Which is... ?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@shotsxxx "True facts of modern science does not and cannot prove anything in the Bible to be un-true. Know what you are talking about before you talk. "
LOL, wtf? Are you saying that the bible is 100% scientifically and factually accurate?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- I ment just what I said. Science cannot prove anything in the Bible to be untrue, using true facts.Sure you can disagree.--- You have no concern to find any truths. What does Noah and Jonah have to do with abiogenesis or evolution? Absolutely nothing. You only want to rant. It makes you feel better about the bad things you do. That helps you pretend and tell yourself lies. What does Noah have to do with abiogenesis or evolution?
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx I was just explaining how there is no way that a guy lived in the stomach of a whale for three days, that has to do with common sense and understanding that one cannot live in stomach acid with no oxygen for three days.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@shotsxxx How did Noah get marsupials and Lemurs from their respective endemic habitats? Not only is there no evidence to support this story as being historically true but there is so much evidence against it that it's obviously not true. Many animals have a very restricted diet that limit their options for food to specific resources of their respective regions. Did they bring lunchboxes, too? They must have brought more than two of each animal because many animals eat other animals.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- So what I get from what you are saying is you don't think anything is true unless you understand it. According to your logic, if you don't understand something, it is not true. WHAT DOES that have to do with evolution? You say you are so smart but you can't seem to keep focused and stay on the same subject. A-D-D?
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx lol, here we go, putting the focus on me rather than the points I brought up. Do you know what "endemic" means? I'll bring up the inaccuracies of the creation story if you want. It says that grass, land plants, and trees existed before the Sun; that the first forms of life were land plants; that birds existed before land animals; that fruit trees existed before fish; and that the first humans were created from dirt. This has everything to do with evolution.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21-I must have fell asleep because the only point you made is the fact that you are utterly stupid. You are not even close to being intelligent. Hahahah- What a loser- You are the dumbest person I have ever met. And you say you are smart because you believe evolution.Hahaha- Thats why you say you believe evolution, they tell you, you are smart. We know how a stupid person feels when called stupid, don't we? Hahaha
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx How old are you? You're just embarrassing yourself now, not that it matters on YouTube. I made points regarding the inaccuracy of the creation story in its order of existence for organisms, I said that certain animals are endemic to isolated regions that could not have possible gotten to Noah on their own, and that many animals have a restricted diet that forces them to feed off of certain foods that are only found in their respective regions. Care to address these points?
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@shotsxxx "And you say you are smart because you believe evolution."
When did I say that? All I said was that I've probably done more research than you, which has become glaringly obvious now.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- Everything seems to be obvious EXCEPT any answers to any questions I asked you- You are not educated. Thats why you are on youtube to pretend you are more than what you are. I teach evolution you idiot. I don't have time for you. You are too small and unimportant. You are completely uneducated and in no way have the intelligence to understand Creation or evolution to the point to say whats true or not. I am beyond your league.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
lol, alrighty.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@shotsxxx
And you probibly think there is as much evidence for creationism as evolution, LOL.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz there is more evidence for creation that for any other theory of origin...Mainly everything is evidence for creation.
Craighill9 1 year ago
@Craighill9 Wow, you really are brainwashed, read a science book.
All you hear is, '' fossils on mountains, must be from a flood.''
There are whole sea beds making up the top third of the mountain, made of slow growing corals. Put there through plate tectonic over millions of years.
Creation is not a theory, it is a religious teaching, one for every religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No, gregrutz, considering the evidence the most logical conclusion is creation....of course since you haven't posed any evidence that would indicate some other point of origin. And since you haven't posed any evidence for something other than creation, then the logical conclusion is creation.
Craighill9 1 year ago
@Craighill9 logical conclusion,,,,,,,,,you need to talk a class in logic.
It would be useless to show you evidence, fossils, tree rings, DNA, you won't be able to draw a conclusion.
There is No evidence for creationism, it is a religion, every religion has a different story.
Evolution has been proven, there is even a theory to show you how it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz fossils tree ring data DNA etc. are evidence for creation. Why do you keep bringing up evolution? this is about creation
Craighill9 1 year ago
@gregrutz
To prove your point you need to show that something can come from nothing, and you must also show that nothing caused it. What is observed (science) its observed that something cannot come from nothing apart from intelligent input.
Craighill9 1 year ago
@Craighill9 So if God made the Big Bang, then you will accept evolution?
BTW, no one said it started from nothing. They can only trace the universe back to the first Billionith of a second. Time did not exist a billionith of a second before that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Who is "they?" and what method did "they" use to trace it? Actually all "they" can do is speculate. Of course "they" will tell you that its more likely that space time and energy had a beginning. "They" will also tell you that everything that begins to exist has a cause outside itself. "They" will also tell you that a cause indicates a mind. If this is illogical then tell me what rule of logic I have violated?
Craighill9 1 year ago
@gregrutz Ever think that maybe your the one Brainwashed? I mean... you were raised in a atheist house, atheist school, with atheist book, with an atheist teacher not allowed to question science.
Think about it
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers Me brainwashed? Sorry I am not religious.
I was raised in a christian house and went to a religious school till the 8th grade.
People study science, repeat the experiments and question the Theories. You should learn so science and then you would know this video is bull shit.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
RussianAssassin21- I assumed you have at least average intelligence and common sense. I've done my research, you need to go do a little yourself. If you want ME to pull out the raw data for you I will. Don't crown yourself as higher intelligence than me and pretend you know, what I know and don't know. I'll tell you. Just because someone believes evolution does NOT mean they are smarter than a Creationist.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx I'm not saying I'm more intelligent than you but I am saying that I have done more research than you. PLEASE pull out your research, I want to know where you're getting your information.
"Just because someone believes evolution does NOT mean they are smarter than a Creationist. "
I'm not sure about that one, maybe when evolution was first proposed 150 years ago. One of them has definitely not done their research.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- Oh yeah? How much research have I done?- Face the facts No you are not smarter just because you don't believe in God.You lie to yourself.You are not about science.What does Noah have to do with evolution?If you were concerned with science you would have not mentioned something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. (Noah,Jonah)- I can teach you the Bible if thats what you really are asking for.
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx Evolution explains the distribution of animals to certain regions and shows how there is no way that Noah could have gotten certain species that are endemic to places such as Madagascar and Australia, to name couple.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
@RussianAssassin21 Its also so sad to hear people like you that all their life they've only heard one side of the story.
seeheers 3 weeks ago
@seeheers What evidence would prove evolution to you?
Nothing?!?
then you are the one who is brainwashed !
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
It is clear that, in context, the reference is to the noble ones, princes, not the physical earth. Immediately before, the context is people, and immediately after the context is also about people. It is quite clear that this is the meaning-..." He hangs the earth on nothing."-(Job 26:7).
shotsxxx 2 years ago
The universe had a start to the expansion, it was always here.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Utter misleading, dishonest, and ignorant propaganda.
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
The 2nd Law does not apply to open systems. The decrease of entropy in life is more than made up for by the drastic increase in the sun. And it should be noted that thermodynamic entropy is NOT the same as 'disorder'.
The Heat Death theory has not been widely accepted, and even if it's true, it doesn't imply that a man 'wound it up'.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
If you can prove a 'creator' or IDer, you could prove a god, and manking has been trying to do that for 10,000 years and failed.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Great video!
TheForthcoming1 2 years ago
@TheForthcoming1
if you think this is OK, then you have never opened a science book.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What a straw man.
If the universe didn't come from an explosion, then god dun it.
The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time.
There are no backward orbits.
Science does not have all the answers, but they know much more thant the avg. person knows. Enough to prove these guys wrong.
gregrutz 2 years ago
A closed system: lock yourself in a room for a year and see if you turn to mush, you went to disorder.
Open system: Eat some food, adding energy to you, the system, you turn chemicals into you. You live. You are an open system.
Evolution is part of the earth, an open system, it gets energy from the sun.
It does not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The earth free-floats in space, affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the Earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we know true.- " He hangs the Earth on nothing "- (Job 26:7)
shotsxxx 2 years ago
@shotsxxx There are passages that say the Earth is rested upon pillars and is immovable.
RussianAssassin21 2 years ago
RussianAssassin21- The pillars are the power and providence of God.Figuratively,pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world,the supreme rulers of it and civil magistrates-sometimes called cornerstones and The shields of the earth.- Pillars mean cementing,supporting,and protecting,people on earth.The church is the pillar and every good man in the house of God-Especially ministers of the Gospel-(pillars of the earth)-
shotsxxx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RussianAssassin21- The pillars are the power and providence of God.Figuratively,pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world,the supreme rulers of it and civil magistrates-sometimes called cornerstones and The shields of the earth.- Pillars mean cementing,supporting,and protecting,people on earth.The church is the pillar and every good man in the house of God-Especially ministers of the Gospel-(pillars of the earth)-
shotsxxx 2 years ago
Absolute propoganda. The difference between the Big Bang and an explosion is the first thing you learn when you study the Big Bang.
And that incredibly inane claim about the second law again. "Entropy" does not translate perfectly into "Disorder", and galaxies and stars can form just fine without violating any laws of thermodynamics.
Similarly, as for the evolution of life, the earth is not a closed system, and thus the 2nd theory doesn't apply.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
let's see. you start with a religious system: evolution. then you scoff and mock any other belief system and refuse to acknowledge that there are other legitimate theories out there.
then, because you have no definitive proof, you resort to name calling and making fun of those who believe in a Creator.
the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"
some of the comments on this video prove the foolishness of those who refuse to acknowledge their loving Creator.
JasperDale 2 years ago
Jasper God Bless You..I agree with you 100% it seems that atheist resort to name calling and bashing when their claims aren't as valid..There wondering "Why Do Christians Believe in God" and we don't. It's because the Holy Bible out weighs all evidence..It's funny how the Bible explains science so well, when I'm pretty sure 2,000 years ago that people didn't even begin to start thinking about the universe. The Bible was God inspired..
TheEquipper 2 years ago
@TheEquipper references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place"
All Wrong.
gregrutz 2 years ago
if your going to quote scripture please do it correctly..The Earth spins on its axis, it does not move out of place..Where I am it's 1:22am, no sun, when I wake up..The sun will be out..What are you talking about? If the earth were to move it would be a catastrophic event my friend..The definition of move, to change from one position to another..The earth spins on its axis.I hope you weren't serious trying to quote those scriptures..
TheEquipper 2 years ago
@TheEquipper
The bible was written by men who thought the same as most people, the earth is flat and the center of the universe. No big deal, religious people still don't understand science or logic.
Just listen to this video, these guy have no idea what they are talking about. Asking why science does not answer religious questions.
"First there was nothing and then it Exploded" is creationist propoganda. The Big Bang does not say that at all.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Actually, that's not true...i have seen to many big bang theory videos and evolution videos that state that there was nothing then the universe exploded and started expanding. These videos, also, did not have a THING to do with creation or I.D Science.
Inuyashapaladin717 2 years ago
@Inuyashapaladin717
It was a expansion not an explosion.
Remember the big bang is mostly a math modle to unite the forces of nature. They can't go all the way back to the point of 'NO TIME' because the math breaks down.
And it has nothing to do with evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@TheEquipper
The earth is moving arouund the sun and the sun is moving around the galaxy
gregrutz 2 years ago
The only sin going on here was the making of this video. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this Propaganda.
mymojorisin 2 years ago
So if something explodes, it produces chaos. I want to prove that wrong. I am going to do some research!
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
Lol, the peanut