the response to donexodus2's video on how to debate a creationist

[Tarakol]

Where did 1st cell come from? All cells come from pre-existant cells... so cell theory could technically be said to be theory. So if you find the origin of the 1st cell, we in essence can say common ancestor(All organisms w/ the same ancestor) is true if we accept the fact that all cells come from pre-xistant cells. I'm not done my high school education yet so if I am missing something please do tell.

[mskyej21]

@Tarakol i do not know the answer to that question, but what i do know is the fact that when you find out where the first cell came from, then you have to ask where did that come from? and then where did That come from?

there is a philosophical law that states you cannot have an infinite regress! Aristotle explains it thoroughly through his metaphysics explanations. To sum it up he concludes that there must be an immovable mover.

[mskyej21]

So in simpler terms there must be a creator. whether you want to believe its God or something else. Philosophically, there has to be something that is outside of the time spectrum that we cannot understand outside of, that created everything, and designed the way creation happened.

[damrak1969]

Evolution does not try to disprove a belief in God - that is your mistake - it could be the "how" and not the "why". This shows your prejudice. Ever look for any proof of transitional forms in the fossil record? There are thousands of them in both animal and plant species and we have very detailed forms of transitional human fossils as well. If you purposely avoid seeing the evidence for something you WISH were not true - you will never see the truth. You're a smart girl - act like it.

[BushLeagueHarlots]

@mskyej21

You have no idea what a theory means in science terms. These are things that I learned in sixth grade science class. Please, do make a video "proving" that a god exists.

[BushLeagueHarlots]

@mskyej21

I'm sure someone has already told you this in the comments, but what you don't seem to realize is that the Second law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. Read EsraYmssik1's reply, and tell us where our energy source is. You have a very gross misunderstanding of science.

[EsraYmssik1]

You're absolutely right about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. For evolution to be true, there would have to a huge energy source near the earth.

I'm thinking a 2E+30 kg cloud of plasma, fusing hydrogen into helium, at a distance of approximately 149,598,000 km from the earth, with a surface temperature of about 5,778 Kelvin.

Has anybody got any evidence of such an object? Checkmate evillutionists.

[nicklasjones]

Yes, the universal law of gravity. That is the one that shows why things always fall when let go of. lol

[CATMAHAT]

Actually, every 'refutation' that you made is false. To give one example, gravity is both a fact and a theory and so is evolution. Theory does not mean guess, and is higher in science than a mere fact. A theory contains many facts,laws,tested hypotheses, observations etc. Watch his other vids and also check out aronra's videos if you are truly open to learning. P.S. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Peace.

[mskyej21]

the fact is that evolution is not a law. and there are no facts to hold it up. You say "a theory contains many facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and observations."

What facts holds up evolution?

What laws holds up evolution?

What tested hypotheses are there?

and what things have you observed that explain evolution?

[DarkEmergence]

@mskyej21 A law is not a higher level of theory. You're confusing theory with hypothesis. There are a great many facts to hold up evolution including observed speciation in the lab and the wild, observed morphological changes, junk DNA, vestigial organs, transitional forms, Genetic comparisons to past lifeforms, endogenous retroviruses. I can send you links or even actual scientific papers if you'd like.

[mskyej21]

@DarkEmergence i believe in mutations, there are tons of them everywhere, but the fact is that animals that have a mutation, the mutation doesn't transmit genetically to the rest of its future descendants.

and i also believe in micro-evolution, i do not believe in macro-evolution. there has never been evidence for macro-evolution.

[DarkEmergence]

@mskyej21 Actually, there's documentation of inherited mutations in animals, including humans. And how could you believe in "microevolution" without mutations.

Again, I already listed various evidences of "macroevolution".

[mskyej21]

@DarkEmergence and in a summary, you conclude that because animals have similar DNA and have similarities in the way they look, that is proof that they evolved from the same thing and are all chained together because of evolution.

I say because of DNA and look similarities, All creation must have been designed by a creator who created them. ex.-you can identify a painter by his paintings because every individual has a certain style. that is the same for all sorts of artists and creators.

[DarkEmergence]

@mskyej21 No, not similarities, inherited infections of the genome. We have genetic markers that can only be inherited. We many of the same kinds and in the same locations as other animals. Denying common descent is like denying multiple paternity test results.

[CATMAHAT]

@mskyej21 Over 200,000 Peer- reviewed papers. Do you want me to list them all?

[DarkEmergence]

I think donexodus's point about snowflakes is that if you don't believe God micromanages snowflakes, why couldn't he use the process of evolution (which isn't things evolving on their own) to create diversity of life.

[mskyej21]

@DarkEmergence that is good in theory but i call what you are saying.. LaME(Lazy mans excuse) because the facts are if you believe God is true and the bible is real then you must believe in creation.

the reason? All of Genesis 1.. that is what states how the earth is the way it is today... and if you read all of Genesis 1 the way God formed and created the earth is completely contradictory to what evolution states. Therefore, you can not Believe in God and Believe in God.

[DarkEmergence]

@mskyej21 Unless of course Genesis was meant to be an allegory, as many Jewish people took it before Christianity.

[DarkEmergence]

There's a wealth of evidence for evolution. There's so much evidence of evolution, we are able to make predictions based on it and have seen them come true. To deny evolution, you would have to not only deny the many peer reviewed findings of biologists, but the findings of other sciences as well. But you don't even seem to touch on ANY of the evidences for evolution which you say aren't sturdy. You make it seem like you haven't looked into them.

[mskyej21]

@DarkEmergence i am open minded, honestly... so please may you give me a couple of evidences for Evolution? things that prove things evolve... things that prove things can be created out of nothing? things that prove things can get better by themselves?

[DarkEmergence]

@mskyej21 Things being created out of nothing or getting better by themselves isn't what evolution is. As I said, it's change within a population over time. This has been observed via speciation an even higher taxonomical classifications. Evidence for common descent is within your blood, endogenous retroviruses, inherited markers from the infection of an ancestor. We share many of these with other animals, therefore we share ancestors.

[zhalfirim]

The evidence is truly overwhelming, i don't know how to select just one study. I wish you would just go research for yourself. You're not dumb, go learn how biology works. Or even better, become a scientist, be the only person to disprove evolution in over 150 years.

If you don't want to accept it, don't. No one's going to make you.

[DarkEmergence]

Evolution is change withing a population over time. Unless you're denying mutations, the law of thermodynamics shouldn't enter into it.

Theories are a collection of facts, not a hypothesis waiting to graduate to a theory. Also, the law of gravity has been changed since Newton.

You need to research evolution from scientists, not creationist writings. There are books, scientific papers, some even answer questions from ordinary people.

[slautenschlager]

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not. In fact, one of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics is that if a system is not isolated, its entropy can be decreased.

[mskyej21]

@atriviality yeahhh... our energy is food and water... if we don't eat or drink water, we die. (law of entropy)or (2nd law of thermodynamics... everything tends towards disorder.

@rbtoav gravity is a law.... hence why it is called the "law of universal gravitation" and evolution can not be explained logically.

and if you think it can, give me three evidences and explain please, i am honestly open to learning, not trying to debate, just saying exactly what i have been taught.

[Atriviality]

Here's a crazy thought experiment. Where do you get the energy to clean your room? Does it magically appear inside you, or do you need to get it from somewhere external to yourself?

[TheNellie1978]

The second law of Therodynamics applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system

[rbrtoavl1]

I think his main point was that evolution can be logically argued and proven without having to talk about the existence of god. Mostly because it can and secondly because it's a conversation stopper for people.

[rbrtoavl1]

You're treating the earth if it's a closed system. It is not. As you know, the sun feeds the earth energy. Both are subset systems of the Universe and one can lose energy (Sun) while the other gain (Earth). Gravity is a theory. Newton proved how Gravity works but he didn't state why it works. Scientific theories hold more weight than say an essay theory. Due to one being more subjective(essay) and the other being more objective (science)...