The only reason why religious folks don't accept evolution is that it says that it never happened in their holy books. That's it. If the bible or the quran had said that objects fall to the ground because of invisible angles pushing them down, then they would refuse to accept the theory of gravity as well.
The creations story's that humans have made up can never fit with reality.
@bowbow13pats Thanks. The crazy thing is that this is hardly even the tip of the iceberg. Along with the DNA evidence, vestigial organs, the geological evidence, and the transitional fossils, evolution is about as proven as a scientific theory can be.
@itssohardtomakeaname I'm sure you're referring to the Cambrian explosion, but you're too hasty in calling it a "sudden appearance" of "nearly all the animal divisions." The event lasted 80 to 90 million years, which is - needless to say - not sudden at all. Tetrapods also came into existence during the Devonian, and tetrapods include all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. So the Cambrian explosion wasn't really what you think.
The fact that there is a lack of fossil evidence for the transition between various species of animals, is alone enough to deter evolution but even the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, himself said that the lack of these fossils "is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory. 1979 David M.Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago said" [172 years after Darwin, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions then Darwin did.]" summarized to fit
@itssohardtomakeaname In Darwin's time, they had no discovered the wealth of transitional fossils we have today. But I highly doubt your quote from Raup is accurate, since he was a paleontologist who published articles about dinosaurs and extinctions in evolution (he obviously accepted Darwin's theory). So what's your source?
Also, I mentioned several transitional fossils in this video, but you've ignored them all. Where's your refutation?
If there is no Creator, then obviously everything is a result of evolution yes? That means the universe would have been around for an infinite period of time, and everything should have been perfected. There would have been enough time for evolution to finish it's final state and for mankind to become the perfect beings and for all evil to have been vanquished, and yet there's still evil, suffering and imperfection.
@itssohardtomakeaname You do realize people can believe in a creator AND evolution, right? Even many Christians are evolutionists. You seem to have misunderstood evolution, though, because it's not about achieving perfection. There is no end goal of natural selection, it's only about suiting a species to its environment, and since there is an evolutionary arms-race between predators and prey, no species will ever achieve "evolutionary perfection."
@TaylorX04 i do believe that they can co-exist, i just find it amusing to see what other people think and feel about the same ideas as i do, and ARE YOU CHRISTIAN? IF SO YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON I'VE MET WITH THE (almost) SAME IDEAS.
@itssohardtomakeaname Oh, and the existence of evil is a problem for god, not for evolution. Nothing in natural selection deals with morality at all, yet the Christian god claims to be perfectly good while letting untold millions suffer throughout history, many of them causing suffering in his very name.
well it's not like God grabs them by the throat and commands them to kill people. He gave them free will and allowed them to choose to do what they saw right.
And the Crusaders? really? that's a perfect example of church corruption but not all were like the priests who brainwashed millions...
@itssohardtomakeaname Why do you assume that I'm talking about evil that has no real connection to god? You do know that the bible endorses slavery, genocide, and rape, right? I'd say those are pretty damn evil, and unless you think the bible is just full of bad advice (as I do), then there's no excusing it on "free will."
@TaylorX04 it endorses slavery but times are different, until about some 150 years ago slavery was still in place. genocide? Crusaders had nothing to do with God. And even before then,when Gods people would go out to fight they would give the enemy a chance to allow all the willing women and children and anyone who wanted to leave to escape leaving only the ones who stayed to fight
@itssohardtomakeaname Rape? Judges 21:10-24 does talk about rape but these soldiers wanted wives because they had none. And when a christian man rapes a woman he commits adultery but he must also marry her and treat her like a real spouse not some sex slave.
@itssohardtomakeaname "but he /must/ also marry her and treat her like a real spouse"
That's something that only a truly horrible person would say/write on a youtube comment. "Poor rapist, has to marry the woman *and* buy her stuff, and get her pregnant and care for the kids and all. What a harsh law for an average-income kind of rapist to follow."
@itssohardtomakeaname Rape is also in Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:14 & 21:10-11. It isn't just about soldiers, it's supposedly commanded by god. He instructs Moses and others to take young virgin girls for themselves. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to infer that many of those girls would have been uncooperative sexually.
@TaylorX04 The verse in Numbers isn't from God, it's from Moses who returned from battle and was angry with his soldiers because they had brought prostitutes. He tells them to kill the "loose" women and KEEP the virgins.Keeping doesn't imply rape.
Deuteronomy 20:14 says "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may TAKE these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies" same issue here
@itssohardtomakeaname Numbers 31:1-2, "The Lord said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites.'" Then in Num. 31:25-31, god divides up the spoils for Israel, never saying a word about how he disdains them for taking the young virgins. The only reasonable inference is that Moses WAS doing what god commanded. As I previously said, you can't expect us to believe EVERY virgin willingly gave herself to her captor. That is truly blind faith!
@TaylorX04 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
@itssohardtomakeaname and last but not least verses 13-14 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go. You must NOT SELL her or TREAT HER AS A SLAVE, since you have dishonored her.
@itssohardtomakeaname Lol, you show an extremely naive understanding of how conquering tribes took the women of conquered nations as wives. Do you think they got down on one knee and proposed? Your excuses are implausible nonsense motivated only by your desperate attempts to save face (and faith!).
@TaylorX04 speak for yourself, well no duh it's not like they proposed and the bible even tells you how it should happen, deuteronomy 21:10-14 READ IT, funny how every athiest i meet always has a superiority complex
@itssohardtomakeaname Wow. I hope you actually understood the point of my proposal comment. You cited the verse about making the women their wives as if that has any bearing on whether or not they were raped. Wives can still be raped by their husbands too. Giving the captives a period for mourning doesn't mean shit. A woman who has no attraction to her husband, but was acquired through war is not going to be a willing sexual partner, whether she resists or not. Wake up.
@TaylorX04 you sit there pointing out the flaws of Christianity,it almost seems to me that you're trying to say mankind alone is a perfect being. You wanna talk about rape? there are reported accounts of 213000 rape per year, 60% of all rapes not being reported, by men who aren't even willing to take responsibility, some killing their victims after. You tell me to wake up? I think the person who has to wake up is YOU
@itssohardtomakeaname Where on earth did I give you the impression that I think mankind is perfect? How could I think that since I'm arguing that the bible (written by men) contains error and immorality? Maybe you should think more before you post your next comment. Yes, rape is a terrible thing and should be denounced WHEREVER we find it, whether it's in the real world or whether it's in the bible. What do I need to wake up to? I'm not the one defending rape - you are!
@itssohardtomakeaname So are you saying slavery was acceptable to god in Old Testament times? Why would a perfect god change his mind? And by genocide, I'm not talking about crusaders, but the Israelites wiping out the Amalekites, Canaanites, and other ancient peoples, by (alleged) order of their god.
@itssohardtomakeaname By your definition slaves have choice too, they can either choose to obey their master or choose to receive the consequences. Please don't talk about morality when this is your idea of choice or free will, oh and saying, "when the leader does it it is not immoral" is textbook example of cult behavior. In your context free will is just as much a curse as slavery is for slaves, at best we were set up for failure.
@TaylorX04 doesn't it frustrate you that instead of someone reading what you've responded to they quite obviously come back with some piece of tripe which you've just refuted? you have a lot of patience!
@itssohardtomakeaname dude read a book about evolution and understand its principles before you 'open your mouth' honestly you are embarasing yourself. evolution does not require perfection, nor does it state how life / planet / solar system first originated. but i guess you are too busy reading Kent Hovnid or the likes thereof, justifying your belief to be interested?
@itssohardtomakeaname There is no such thing as "final state of evolution". Unlike the biblical philosophy, humankind is not the main purpose of evolution. We're intermediate species and not "finished". Actually, most of the suffering comes from economical hierarchy nowadays, and it can only survive by means of armed forces. Human-made systems make individuals more prone to violence and it benefits politicians. This has less to do with evolution than it has to do with God.
@itssohardtomakeaname Even if the universe had always been here, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old and the conditions keep changing. Where do you get the idea that there is some 'perfect' target state that is is to be achieved? Life only has to survive long enough to reproduce. Perfection would be a waste of energy when 'good enough' will do.
Hello TaylorX04! Love your videos and find them very informative. I find the way that you implement quotations and citations into your critiques highly admirable. :-)
I wish to recommend an article you might be interested in regarding evolution. It is called "Understanding Evolution" and can be found at rationalrevolution 'dot' net, under Articles.
In the opening chapters it delves into ancient mythology and the historical origins including Christianity.
I'm starting to believe in the Ancient Astronaut theory. An advanced species traveled here. They took an early hominid or another ape and combined their DNA with ours. They built the pyramids on the the Giza plateau , Puma Punku and a lot of other ancient places.
Why do I even consider this? Because you'd think that by now there would be another intelligent type of animal on this planet in the same league as humans.
We are the only animal on this Earth that have negative blood types.
@Br4veDave Your consideration seems based on an argument from ignorance. You're basically saying, "I can't see why we should be the only intelligent animal on this planet, therefore aliens must've planted us here." But one problem with this is that we're NOT the only intelligent species. Intellect has evolved in chimps, dolphins, elephants, and many other animals, even if it's not the same level as human intellect. The ancient astronauts stuff presumes intelligent animals must be like us. Why?
@TaylorX04 breifly, the Sumerians told us 4500 to 6000 yrs ago that the "Gods" came from another planet, they mixed their blood with primative man to make us better slaves(to mine gold) they told us 4500 yrs ago the sun was in the center, located pluto(we didnt c pluto til 1930) hadd all planets in our solar system in proper location(named color too) The head of the human genome project said in his official report that we have 250 extra terestrial genes! Theres a lot of strong evidence for this!
@look4urself Where does it say the gods came from another planet? Where does it say that about the sun, the solar system, etc? Keep in mind that I've actually read the Enuma Elish, so you're not going to be convincing me with "This guy so-and-so who happens to be a conspiracy theorist..." Who said that about extraterrestrial genes? Where's your sources for all this if the evidence is so strong?
@TaylorX04 in the Enuma Elish it says that Marduk killed Tiamat & her husband, used their body & Blood to creat earth & mandkind. Tablet VI "I will bring together blood to bone to creat mandkind" So man can work in the service of the Gods... Basically the 7 tablets of creation is where thousands of years later the bible got its 7 dayd of creation story from. the 6th generation of Gods created man from itheir blood so the Gods of the 7th generation could rest! Did u really read it? dosnt seem so!
@look4urself Yes, I've read it, you dolt, and as you're explaining it, I see you've not said a word about the gods coming from another planet. Well done, you've just shown that one of your points is stretching it.
@TaylorX04 please read the work of Jason Martell, and to a lesser extent Zacharia Sitchin. Theres so much strong evidence to support ancient astronau. The famous tablet I told you about can b seen if u google Sumerian Aliens and you'l see 4 pics, the 2nd is the pic showing all the planets in our solar system, including Pluto, and even a "12th" planet called Nibiru. I could write you a book from the 100's of hours of research Iv done!
@look4urself Let's see, Jason Martell, what are his qualifications... he's a "researcher" and "lecturer." In other words, no credentials. Ah, but he is on Ancient Aliens! How about Zecharia Sitchin? Well, he went to an Economics school... but no other credentials, and it doesn't even say he earned a degree. But he's written books! Yeah, it looks like you've given me conspiracy theorists as "evidence", just like I asked you not to do. You can't even tell me the name of the tablet, lol.
@TaylorX04 I did say to a lesser extent about Sitchen! & YES Martell is a researcher, those r the people who discover information! & u competely ignored all the other info & The quotes I gave u from the Enuma Elish! did u bother to look at the tablet which I gave u the location? btw it speaks 4 itself! the explanation of God coming from planet X, nibiru isnt in the 7 tablets, but much earlier tablets found in Iraq. The story of the Sumerians & the Anunnaki is well known & published!
@look4urself A researcher CAN be a person who discovers information, or it can be what a unqualified conspiracy theorist calls himself to appear like he knows his stuff. Religious authors use the "researcher" title too, especially when they want to pretend to be an authority on a controversial issue that most qualified authorities would destroy them on. I can't find the image you're talking about, but you know you can copy and paste a link, right? (cont'd)
(cont'd) Your quote from the Enuma Elish says nothing about the gods coming from other planets. I'm well aware that humans were created from the blood of Kingu, one of the gods, but that's not the part I'm asking you to show me. Stop giving me vague and unverifiable information and provide some actual sources, like a real researcher would. You say I'm brainwashed, but you've bought into a conspiracy that I've yet to see you offer any real evidence for!
@TaylorX04 and as well as the official report when the human genome was mapped you can listen to Crystal's explaination titled The known genome of species on Utube! she says it best! Please watch it! her earlier version she cam out and said the 250 genes could only be from an extra terestrial source, but the government removed it from utube, so after re-reading the Enuma Elish, Genome report, Jason Martell, I highly recomend watching many of Aronra's videos, my hero & UNDEFEATED!
@look4urself Hah, the government removed the video with her statement? Which government? Do you think YouTube is controlled by the government? You're really showing your conspiracy theory stripes now. And AronRa is one of my favorites too, but I'll bet you he'd be telling you that the ancient astronauts theory is nonsense, just like I am.
@TaylorX04 its a publicly known fact the gov is trying to sensor the internet. I see that you havnt disproved anything Iv said, offer no explanation of ur beliefs other than its ur emotional need to support tem. u expose ur brain washed sheep like ability to not think for urself by saying the word theory after the word conspiracy! all I originally said is there is A LOT of strong evidence to support ancient astronauts, and THERE IS! spend a few Hundred hours of reserch before speaking out!
@look4urself You really have a lot to learn about how evidence and reason work if you're coming at me with this bullshit. First of all, the default position is not to believe until there is reason to believe. You have not provided me any reason yet. You just keep making appeals to authority, but even that isn't quite true, because the sources you've cited are of questionable authority. It's also irresponsible to expect me to do hours of research when you could make the arguments yourself.
It's always the same. You evos never ask if the data can be interpreted another way.
Africanus is no evidence that it became something else. You presume and imagine that. But thats good enough science for you, huh? Evolution is bones and imagination. This video proves my point.
@Proverbs8 Hey, it's your prerogative if you want to interpret the data as the work of a deceitful god who is out to make organisms look like they evolve. I just don't see any reason for believing in that god in the first place. The problem with this asinine comment of yours is that it greatly ignores the other lines of evidence that support evolution like genetic similarities, vestigial structures, geographical origins, and on and on. As I said, this video focuses on one aspect among many.
@TaylorX04 First you mentioned homologies. Evos base most of their presumptions on this, never considering that two eyes in the front are simply an optimal design worthy of duplication, like four wheels on a car. Nope, gotta be related. The other "evidences" you cite ALL have inconsistencies. Find a bone in a whale, its a pelvis and a leg. Why? Because you want it to be. Find soft 70 mil year old dino tissue. Evo is still right, we just have to invent a new theory to make that possible.
@Proverbs8 You are mind-numbingly ignorant on this matter. Do you realize that "optimal design worthy of duplication" is EXACTLY what natural selection deals with? It's optimized by adaptation to the environment, then duplicated for other organisms living in the same or similar environments. In other environments where two eyes are not viable, the organisms don't have two eyes. Bones serve a purpose, so if a whale leg is not a leg bone, what is it? A Jesus bone?
(cont'd) Your statement about the 70 million year old dino soft tissue utterly discredits any opinion you have. No such thing has been found, and when people like Kent Hovind embrace that claim, you have to know it's bullshit.
@TaylorX04 "No such thing has been found?" Are you the missing link? Mary Schweitzer might take issue with you on that. Search for her msnbc interview here on youtube. Or maybe research the mosasaur fossil that is housed in L.A. You can read about the soft tissues and pigments in the eyes after 20 million years. Go to plosone.org Search for the article "Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur". Read and then apologize.
@Proverbs8 Like so many creationists, you've misunderstood what you've read, or you've swallowed someone else's terrible explanation of it. If you read the paper, you'd understand that IMPRESSIONS of tissue is what they've found, and the same for pigment in the eyes too. It's not like they cracked open a fossil and found dino skin or even skin cells. What they did find was bone protein, which presents no challenge to evolution. Nice try, but total fail.
Strange that you would describe a 2nd eye as inviable -- and then one phrase later speak of "whale legs" as if whales and legs are synonymous.
And I'm sorry, Taylor -- but the location of a hole in a skull only serves to show us that it's possible that an extinct ape may have employed bipedalism. There's still NOTHING to indicate why a "would-be poet" wasn't strong or bright enough to branch off, reproduce, and stick around long enough to become an actual Geico pitchman. ;-)
@justchemicali Did I describe a 2nd eye as inviable, or did I say that under certain environments or conditions, it may not be viable to have two eyes? And what the hell are you talking about "as if whales and legs are synonymous"? I don't think you even know what you're saying, especially since your nonsense about a "would-be poet" shows you don't understand natural selection and have confused it with LaMarckian evolution.
"Not viable" was the choice of words you used -- and I think "unnecessary" probably would have worked better. But either way, one eye or more... says nothing about common descent.
"And what the hell are you talking about...?" (whale legs)
Well, you quipped to Proverbs8, "if a WHALE LEG is not a leg bone, what is it?".... AS IF WHALES AND LEGS ARE SYNONYMOUS! Get it?
And no, I'm not a LaMarckian... I'm a ReMarkian. ;-)
No, I did want your original opinion on what evolution is, and having received a reply about dog breeding, it's very clear that you've been pretending to know about something you're ignorant of, as I've said all along.
The funny thing about observation is that you have not lived even close to the 4.7 billion years that earth has been around. Humankind itself has only been around for the last 1-2 million years. So no, you wouldn't observe it, because evolution doesn't happen overnight.
(cont'd) If chickens stay chickens, why have we only found chicken bones that date to no more than 8,000-10,000 years ago? Did god just randomly decide to create them at a later time than fish, dinosaurs, and other animals?
The bone evidence is fact, not opinion. It is not opinion that the position of the foramen magnum correlates to walking on all fours or on two legs, because it relates directly to the curvature of the spine.
(cont'd 2) You're asking me to believe it's just coincidence that all apes have the foramen magnum at the back of the skull, while all humans have it centered, and all the transitional fossils we've found have it somewhere in between. That's an awfully big coincidence, especially when combined with all the other evidence I've listed in the video. Is your god trying to mislead people by making animals this way?
(cont'd 3) And no, we don't have to have originals to talk about origins. Do detectives have to have the murder weapon to solve a crime? No, because they can look at other evidence to determine what weapon was probably used. Scientists have found lots of evidence in bones, genetics, geographical placement of fossils, vestigial structures, and on and on. In the 150 years since Darwin published his theory, NOTHING has come along to undermine it. Genetics could've been a big threat, but it wasn't.
I asked you to explain how organisms evolve, not give a generalized answer about how most people related it to dog breeding. There are huge differences between dog breeding and evolution. And yet your next statements reveal once again that you don't know what you're talking about. Macroevolution occurs when a newly evolved species can no longer reproduce with the species it evolved from. Microevolution occurs when there is small change, but reproduction can still happen with the former species.
(cont'd) Creationists have distorted the concepts, when they actually have nothing to do with outward appearances. But even if you dispute this, let me ask you, since you're so knowledgeable of evolution, what prohibits your definition of macroevolution from happening? Why can't a lot of small changes over time result in some big changes? Creationists like to pretend that there's some unseen force preventing this from occurring. Well, what is it?
Oh please do use sarcasm with me, because surely I was a fool to think you care to learn anything about spelling, seeing how you continually refuse to learn anything of science and evolution. If you really think you understand evolution, explain to me how organisms are said to evolve.
I know what the word means, dumbass, but I'm not sure you do. If you're saying life begins concurrently, you're saying it begins side-by-side something, and I am asking what is this other thing that it begins along with. I think you meant to say that life begins spontaneously.
Once again you misconstrue my words into some inane bullshit. It's a simple fact that if an organism is suited for a warm climate and the climate suddenly changes to freezing, the organism will die if it cannot adapt to the change. In a very general sense, yes it does need to evolve, but there is no guarantee that it will, there is nothing the organism can do to make itself evolve.
The problem with your statement on my "circular reasoning" is that life doesn't just spring into being on its own.
Life comes into being by gradual, natural processes. We have found amino acids, the building blocks of life, on passing meteors in space. So what you think is circular reasoning on my part is once again just your poor understanding of science. "Lies can sustain only for a while then truth triumphs". Indeed, look how I've yet again proven this to you.
Lol, first of all, it's "modus operandi". Secondly, if you're going to accuse me of making stuff up everytime I give you an answer, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. I haven't given you anything like a whale to swallow, you are just uninformed on evolution, though you keep denying it. For example, why do you want to say life started concurrently? What does that even mean - what started concurrently with life?
"why do we need evolution to change us if we are already sustained"
We don't NEED anything. There's no conscious decision to evolution and there's no invisible being deciding what's best for us. Evolution is not all benefitial mutations, there are harmful ones. We change because the world around us changes and if we don't adapt, we die.
I do know the answer, and I've already given it to you, but apparently I need to walk you through it step by step. First of all, your "trees and bees" crap makes no sense. Maybe you're trying to ask if bees or FLOWERS came first? The answer is that flowers came first and attracted bees later on, probably after the flowers started using the wind to pollinate.
"All life no matter witch came first has to be sustained"
You're thinking of life in static terms, probably. If certain organisms and certain plants have developed a co-dependency, they evolved together or in response to each other. Flowers had plenty of ways to pollinate before bees and bees had plenty of shelter and food sources before flowers. Unchain your mind from the dogmatic creationist thinking on the fixity of species. You DON'T understand the theory or you wouldn't ask the question.
The question once again betrays a lack of understanding in evolution. Trees and bees have not always existed in the way we find them today. This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Things evolve and adapt to their environment, and by that fact symbiotic relationships develop as well. Your question is only reasonable if you know absolutely nothing about evolution. Are you finally willing to admit that?
Right, you said I either have a low IQ or low self-esteem. That's not implying one or the other, but it is insulting. You're either a brainless ass or a spineless dick. See how that works?
The sad thing to me is that you keep claiming it's a "fact" that evolution is wrong, and you haven't presented a shred of evidence to invalidate it - you've only denied the very real evidence that proves it. You can lead a creationist to evidence but you can't make him think, I guess.
@TaylorX04 Sorry for taking up so much room with the debate about spelling. (firefox is working again so I have a spill checker)
Something that would have enhanced this video had you the time to allot for it would have been showing how the ape like features of earlier australopithecus diminish in later ones, the fuzzyness of the line distinguishing genus Homo from genus Australopithecus, etc.
Keep saying generic nonsense if it makes you feel better about being wrong and uninformed on evolution. It won't change the truth of the matter one iota though.
@bettySwollox first of all spelling is irrelevant to inteligence. A better way of rebutting his claims would be to point out that he is using logical fallacies, name them, explain them and let him call you an elitist and put his finger in his ears. I would advise against using ad hominems in response to ad hominems as it tends to cause the debate to degenerate. His arguments should stand or fall on their own merit, regaurdless of his intelect or spelling ability.
Wlel if sllepnig ins't scuh a big dael tehn I gseus we can all do waht the hlel we wnat wtih teshe ltetres and angrrae tehm in any odrer we coohse and smpily hpoe for the bset rghit?
His misspellings were phonetically possible. Your's create nonsense words. Furthermore I did not say we should try to spell porely or even not try to spell, I said that spelling ability, despite what you suggested earlier has a poor corolation with inteligence. Grammar and vocabulary are better measures. Furthermore I emphasized the fact that both spelling and inteligense are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments presented, and as such your comments were ad hominems and unproductive.
Surely you were able to read what I just wrote? If not, then I suggest you go back, and take the time to read the "nonsense words" more carefully. As you will no doubt notice that they are far from nonsensical, as there is actually a system to the apparent madness. As long as the first letter and the last letter of the word are in the right place, then it really doesn't matter where the other letters go! Still nonsense?
I was able to read what you wrote. But they are unpronouncable, and as such are nonsense. I am very familiar with the article that pointed out this phenomenon. I assume that you misread my previous post and did not realize that I was emphasizing the phonetic qualities of words. It requires more effort to read words that are scrambled in the manner that you scrambled them than to read words that, though the spelling is off would be phonetically identical to the corect spelling.
If you are familiar with the article describing this phenomenon, then surely you'd agree that it takes very little effort to decipher the words, as long as you follow the simple rules of first and last letters in their correct places, right?
It seems that you are suggesting that it's OK to substitute a 'written word' - which has a given meaning/intended purpose - with another 'written word' - which again, has a different meaning/intended purpose - as long as it can be....
You misinterpret what I am saying. I am saying that there is a significant difference between attempting to read "wtretin wrod" and "ritten werd"
The latter is not another predefined word that I substitute for word. It is a word that according to the rules of english pronunciation is phonetically equivalent to word.
The point being that it is more natural to read and write words in the stile that you criticized MM for using than in your sample stile. As I stated earlier I am not...
Absolutely! I believe that you and I both are in complete agreement, with the notion that there are similar phonetic values, that words share, in both their 'audible' and 'written' forms. However, you are comparing chalk to cheese here, as you are using two different systems to make your point. The "wtretin wrod" is not a phonetic spelling of anything (English) but does follow a rule, as pointed out already (first and last letters etc).
Whilst "ritten werd" is (unless you read it in Dutch, then it means "Rides Was") following the rule that: 'these words are spelled incorrectly, but they are used merely to demonstrate an example'. Or something like that. Actually, the word "written" would have also served as an example of a rule, where of course the rule is: ' the "w" in written is silent'.
I am not saying that it does not follow a rule. I am saying that ritten word follows the rules that are used to spell words based off of their sound. You suggested that there are only two posibilities
1. Individuals who do not spell things properly are idiots
2. We abandon spelling rules.
I disagree with both. I atempt to spell words correctly. I have memorized the rules to spell words based off of their sound. I however make frequent mistakes. The alternative is to memorize every word's...
...suggesting that one abandons any attempt to spell properly, just emphasising that spelling and intelligense do not corralate. Your equating misspelt words with stupidity was unfounded. Furthermore as a dislexic I found it to be personally insulting.
OK, so what was it about the following that you found insulting?
Original
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, can't even spell the words "esteem" or "accept" correctly. What a fucking dummy!"
If I had instead posted:
New
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, hasn't even used the correct words to make his point. You used "a steam" instead of 'esteem' and "except" instead of 'accept'."
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, hasn't even used the correct words to make his point. You used "a steam" instead of 'esteem' and "except" instead of 'accept'."
As this - in my view - isn't an ad hominem in any way, shape or form. As my intention here would be to advance the notion of irony. It's ironic that MM said that someone else's IQ was low, when his word choice made his IQ look just as low, if not lower!
...deciphered phonetically. Is that what you are suggesting? In my view, phonetics deals with the sound of words. Of course it's OK to take, say, a foreign word, with an unconventional spelling, and use words within the mother tongue, to demonstrate how that word is pronounced. But using these words in human speech for demonstration, or explanation purposes, is something entirely different from using words - that already have assigned meanings to them - and substituting...
...them at will, with words that means something completely different. Remember, words have meaning. If you want to be understood, then it's essential that you master the correct use of the words: correct spelling, meaning and of course the grammatical framework in place, that assists both the reader and the writer in forming the correct mental picture as was intended.
addendum: "If you want to be understood, then it's essential that you master the correct use of the words: correct spelling, meaning and of course the grammatical framework in place, that assists both the reader and the writer in forming the correct mental picture as was intended."
As stated earlier: Grammar and word choice do corrolate with inteligense. Spelling has a poor corrolation. Also, with the majority of common spelling errors meaning is not obscured...
I've noticed many spelling mistakes in your posts, but I think I've been rather polite in ignoring them, and now that you have explained your condition, I'm glad I didn't attempt to hit you below the belt: I can't remember throwing a single insult your way regardless of your dyslexia. I'd even say that you and I have had quite a grown up, intelligent (arguably pointless, but nonetheless civil) conversation. Agreed?
Good I'm glad you enjoyed it, I too enjoy some mental gymnastics from time to time. I'm interested in what you have to say about my last post. I wait with bated breath!!!
"Grammar and word choice do corrolate with inteligense"
Now if we go back to what MM originally posted, he wrote:
"...low self a steam..." and "...learn to except a gift..."
Looking at MM's spelling, he has in fact, spelled everything correctly. But his "word choice" is incorrect. According to you, this correlates with intelligence. So poor word choice = poor intelligence?
The thing is, as kind as you were in your suggestion - as to how I should have approached mm's claims - I actually didn't intend to steam roll over the logical fallacies of his assertions, as I really wasn't at all concerned with his argument in the first place. Therefore, the insult that I threw in his general direction, was not an ad hominem. It was, merely an insult. There is a difference, believe it or not, do you see that?
"the insult I threw in his general direction, was not an ad hominem. It was, merely an insult. is a difference, believe it or not, do you see that?"
Ad hominem: an attack on an opponents character that does not answer his arguments.
Insult: An offensive action or remark;
What you posted was definitely an insult. It was also an adhominem. It did not answer his arguments and instead attacked his intellectual character. The problem with ad hominems in group debates (contd.)
(part 2) is that they tend to polarize people and often will cause the individual who used the ad hominem's side to look less appealing to the middle ground. I understand that you were not attempting to present a serious argument, but in name calling (especially using an insult that had at its basis a false primace) you are lending a greater degree of credibility to his side than if you had simply ignored his arguments.
Is this the love and forgiveness of your god shining through your words? Lol. I can assure you that the only void I feel is the one in collective intelligence and civility left by religious people like yourself.
Your testimony is your claims, dumbass. It's interesting that you reject the doctrine of hell. You are essentially saying that the revelation some people received is wrong then. Which makes my former question perfectly valid. Why should I believe you, especially if you think others that have "experienced god" are wrong about their experiences?
You have verified nothing. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and countless other people of faith would claim very similar things about experiencing their own particular god(s). Personal experience is non-transferable, so believe what you want, but there's no reason for me to believe you experienced what you claim.
Also, you used all your senses to "verify" god? You touched him? Tasted him? Hmmm, you're kind of a dirty Christian, aren't you?
Once again, here come the assertions, but where is your evidence? Provide your source(s) that disprove the tails or spell out why the 5% is "fatal". You know that since humans and apes can't mate, that means we're separate species. If we could mate, that would disprove common descent. Man, you're an idiot. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. You're the most hated man on this page for that fact. You speak ignorance and continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
Lol, oh it's not an ACTUAL tree? And here I had been thinking how ridiculous that would be, but it's really just a representation of knowledge. I know that, dumbass, and that's the point I was making. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When they did, they understood good and evil. But the problem is that if they didn't know morality before that point, how would they know that it was right to follow god and wrong to listen to the serpent? Think!
Prove it or its a lie? Lmao, aren't you the one who believes that a superior being died on a cross in first century Palestine to save us from sin that resulted from his own bad decision to plant a tree in a garden and order his creations not to eat from it, even though they had no idea of what right and wrong were at the time? Yeah, I can see how that's relevant to today. It's a good reminder of how gullible some people are.
This video has presented proof of evolution in numerous transitional fossils and the characteristics that make them transitional. There is also human chromosome 2, which is two ape chromosomes fused together (apes have 24 pairs, we have 23, because of chromosome #2). Then there is the genetic similarity of humans and chimps, which is at 95%. Vestigial structures like tails on human embryos, the eyes on the blind mole rat. Seriously, talk about the light shining! Lol. Open your eyes.
A free thinker does not blindly accept the word of a 2,000 year old book while denying the clear scientific evidence for evolution. You have presented nothing even remotely resembling "research" so far, just assertion after assertion, all based on faith. I don't care how terrible your typing is, but I do care when you make uninformed statements of ignorance.
@markymark27030. It's difficult to understand what someone is saying when there is bad grammar, so you might want to work on it so people can comprehend the things you are trying to say. As for your points: vestigial organs don't have a purpose, if you would like examples just ask or look it up yourself. Yes evolution is a theory, just like any other scientific theory until it is proven wrong (check out how science operates). And I have no clue what you were saying about berries and hunters.
You don't know the first thing about evolution, but you attack it because you think it threatens your religious belief. It's sad, really, but if you're willing to ignore the evidence here, I don't suppose you'd be persuaded even if it was put right in front of your nose. We do have examples of evolution - lots of them - but due to your piss poor understanding of evolution, you don't accept them. Dogs evolving into cats is not evolution, dumbass.
Comparative anatomy is only one way evolution is proven, there is also plenty of genetic evidence, evidence of our vestigial structures, and so much more. You are just willfully ignorant because your fanatical brand of Christianity has taught you to be so. I have to laugh at how you dismiss all that's in this video without even providing reasons. You just cry about how you can't understand it. Don't mistake your own failure of thought for a failure in the truth! ;-)
im not a creationist but what does our brain havethat gives us the ability to drive cars, talk on the phone, type,etc instead of just acting like the rest of the animal species. why are we advanced the way we are. thats my only question about evolution.
We have evolved higher levels of consciousness that allow us to break from instinct and make the world around us more suited to our environment, instead of the opposite happening in the animal kingdom. However, there are moments where human behavior can pretty much resemble animal behavior. Mating? Rioting? Football games? Lol...
You understand the theory? Bullshit. All you've done so far is whine that it's unsupported without showing why. Generally when you say something is full of lies, you expose where those lies are and you refute them to prove that they are lies. I know this concept may be foreign to you, because you're heavily religious, but try to have SOME integrity. No one is claiming to have all the answers except for you, in your own twisted way.
markymark27030 Why do you think the Vatican has no objection to EVOLUTION, when it so obviously contradicts Genesis ? Ever thought of that ? Because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. They don`t want another Galileo scandal.
They have lots of catholic scientists behind that decision.
@lizazoon just thought i'd point out that Genesis does not contradict evolution. Genesis doesn't touch the subject, no talk of monkey men in it...it does say 'God created' and that is irrelevant of the process. I suppose if you want to go down the argument of 'days' i.e. 7 day creation, then if literal how are days 1-3 days? days are measured by our revolving around the sun - day 4. Gen 1 is a beautiful poem about God creating a space and then filing it, a void - to a solar system full of life.
@lizazoon just thought i'd point out that Genesis does not contradict evolution. Genesis doesn't touch the subject, no talk of monkey men in it...it does say 'God created' and that is irrelevant of the process. I suppose if you want to go down the argument of 'days' i.e. 7 day creation, then if literal how are days 1-3 days? days are measured by our revolving around the sun - day 4. Gen 1 is a beautiful poem about God creating a space and then filing it, a void - life :)
@spareaxe sorry I'm fairly sure I didn't use the words 'fairy tale'. A poem is not by default fiction. most poetry is an artists reflection on a real event or situation. All I was clarifying was not all christians ignore the original poetic structure of the hebrew language in Genesis 1 and how by the basic facts such as we count days and years by the laws of nature (that God created) and that their are two different creation stories between gen 1 and 2, that its probably not about the process.
Nope. I'd ask you to present some evidence, but I see that you can't spell Australopithecus and you even say "or w/e", so I'm betting you won't bother to support your assertion.
The only reason why religious folks don't accept evolution is that it says that it never happened in their holy books. That's it. If the bible or the quran had said that objects fall to the ground because of invisible angles pushing them down, then they would refuse to accept the theory of gravity as well.
The creations story's that humans have made up can never fit with reality.
FrozenPetrolPie 1 month ago
It looks like you really did your research. Very well put together video, I find it hard to disagree with evolution after watching it.
bowbow13pats 1 month ago
@bowbow13pats Thanks. The crazy thing is that this is hardly even the tip of the iceberg. Along with the DNA evidence, vestigial organs, the geological evidence, and the transitional fossils, evolution is about as proven as a scientific theory can be.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
But what fossil records do show is that within rocks dating back some 507,000,000 there's a sudden appearance of nearly all the animal divisions.
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname I'm sure you're referring to the Cambrian explosion, but you're too hasty in calling it a "sudden appearance" of "nearly all the animal divisions." The event lasted 80 to 90 million years, which is - needless to say - not sudden at all. Tetrapods also came into existence during the Devonian, and tetrapods include all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. So the Cambrian explosion wasn't really what you think.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
The fact that there is a lack of fossil evidence for the transition between various species of animals, is alone enough to deter evolution but even the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, himself said that the lack of these fossils "is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory. 1979 David M.Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago said" [172 years after Darwin, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions then Darwin did.]" summarized to fit
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname In Darwin's time, they had no discovered the wealth of transitional fossils we have today. But I highly doubt your quote from Raup is accurate, since he was a paleontologist who published articles about dinosaurs and extinctions in evolution (he obviously accepted Darwin's theory). So what's your source?
Also, I mentioned several transitional fossils in this video, but you've ignored them all. Where's your refutation?
TaylorX04 1 month ago
If there is no Creator, then obviously everything is a result of evolution yes? That means the universe would have been around for an infinite period of time, and everything should have been perfected. There would have been enough time for evolution to finish it's final state and for mankind to become the perfect beings and for all evil to have been vanquished, and yet there's still evil, suffering and imperfection.
Therefore there has to have been a God
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname You do realize people can believe in a creator AND evolution, right? Even many Christians are evolutionists. You seem to have misunderstood evolution, though, because it's not about achieving perfection. There is no end goal of natural selection, it's only about suiting a species to its environment, and since there is an evolutionary arms-race between predators and prey, no species will ever achieve "evolutionary perfection."
TaylorX04 1 month ago 3
@TaylorX04 i do believe that they can co-exist, i just find it amusing to see what other people think and feel about the same ideas as i do, and ARE YOU CHRISTIAN? IF SO YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON I'VE MET WITH THE (almost) SAME IDEAS.
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname No, I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Oh, and the existence of evil is a problem for god, not for evolution. Nothing in natural selection deals with morality at all, yet the Christian god claims to be perfectly good while letting untold millions suffer throughout history, many of them causing suffering in his very name.
TaylorX04 1 month ago 10
@TaylorX04
well it's not like God grabs them by the throat and commands them to kill people. He gave them free will and allowed them to choose to do what they saw right.
And the Crusaders? really? that's a perfect example of church corruption but not all were like the priests who brainwashed millions...
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Why do you assume that I'm talking about evil that has no real connection to god? You do know that the bible endorses slavery, genocide, and rape, right? I'd say those are pretty damn evil, and unless you think the bible is just full of bad advice (as I do), then there's no excusing it on "free will."
TaylorX04 1 month ago 7
@TaylorX04 it endorses slavery but times are different, until about some 150 years ago slavery was still in place. genocide? Crusaders had nothing to do with God. And even before then,when Gods people would go out to fight they would give the enemy a chance to allow all the willing women and children and anyone who wanted to leave to escape leaving only the ones who stayed to fight
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Rape? Judges 21:10-24 does talk about rape but these soldiers wanted wives because they had none. And when a christian man rapes a woman he commits adultery but he must also marry her and treat her like a real spouse not some sex slave.
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname "but he /must/ also marry her and treat her like a real spouse"
That's something that only a truly horrible person would say/write on a youtube comment. "Poor rapist, has to marry the woman *and* buy her stuff, and get her pregnant and care for the kids and all. What a harsh law for an average-income kind of rapist to follow."
Men like you make me sick to the stomach.
GreyLabyrinthine 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Rape is also in Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:14 & 21:10-11. It isn't just about soldiers, it's supposedly commanded by god. He instructs Moses and others to take young virgin girls for themselves. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to infer that many of those girls would have been uncooperative sexually.
TaylorX04 1 month ago 2
@TaylorX04 The verse in Numbers isn't from God, it's from Moses who returned from battle and was angry with his soldiers because they had brought prostitutes. He tells them to kill the "loose" women and KEEP the virgins.Keeping doesn't imply rape.
Deuteronomy 20:14 says "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may TAKE these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies" same issue here
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Numbers 31:1-2, "The Lord said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites.'" Then in Num. 31:25-31, god divides up the spoils for Israel, never saying a word about how he disdains them for taking the young virgins. The only reasonable inference is that Moses WAS doing what god commanded. As I previously said, you can't expect us to believe EVERY virgin willingly gave herself to her captor. That is truly blind faith!
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
notice the last part "TAKER HER AS YOUR WIFE"
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname and last but not least verses 13-14 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go. You must NOT SELL her or TREAT HER AS A SLAVE, since you have dishonored her.
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Lol, you show an extremely naive understanding of how conquering tribes took the women of conquered nations as wives. Do you think they got down on one knee and proposed? Your excuses are implausible nonsense motivated only by your desperate attempts to save face (and faith!).
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 speak for yourself, well no duh it's not like they proposed and the bible even tells you how it should happen, deuteronomy 21:10-14 READ IT, funny how every athiest i meet always has a superiority complex
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Wow. I hope you actually understood the point of my proposal comment. You cited the verse about making the women their wives as if that has any bearing on whether or not they were raped. Wives can still be raped by their husbands too. Giving the captives a period for mourning doesn't mean shit. A woman who has no attraction to her husband, but was acquired through war is not going to be a willing sexual partner, whether she resists or not. Wake up.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 you sit there pointing out the flaws of Christianity,it almost seems to me that you're trying to say mankind alone is a perfect being. You wanna talk about rape? there are reported accounts of 213000 rape per year, 60% of all rapes not being reported, by men who aren't even willing to take responsibility, some killing their victims after. You tell me to wake up? I think the person who has to wake up is YOU
itssohardtomakeaname 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Where on earth did I give you the impression that I think mankind is perfect? How could I think that since I'm arguing that the bible (written by men) contains error and immorality? Maybe you should think more before you post your next comment. Yes, rape is a terrible thing and should be denounced WHEREVER we find it, whether it's in the real world or whether it's in the bible. What do I need to wake up to? I'm not the one defending rape - you are!
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname So are you saying slavery was acceptable to god in Old Testament times? Why would a perfect god change his mind? And by genocide, I'm not talking about crusaders, but the Israelites wiping out the Amalekites, Canaanites, and other ancient peoples, by (alleged) order of their god.
TaylorX04 1 month ago 2
@itssohardtomakeaname By your definition slaves have choice too, they can either choose to obey their master or choose to receive the consequences. Please don't talk about morality when this is your idea of choice or free will, oh and saying, "when the leader does it it is not immoral" is textbook example of cult behavior. In your context free will is just as much a curse as slavery is for slaves, at best we were set up for failure.
pegasusfreedom 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 doesn't it frustrate you that instead of someone reading what you've responded to they quite obviously come back with some piece of tripe which you've just refuted? you have a lot of patience!
jjcrazi 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname dude read a book about evolution and understand its principles before you 'open your mouth' honestly you are embarasing yourself. evolution does not require perfection, nor does it state how life / planet / solar system first originated. but i guess you are too busy reading Kent Hovnid or the likes thereof, justifying your belief to be interested?
jjcrazi 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname There is no such thing as "final state of evolution". Unlike the biblical philosophy, humankind is not the main purpose of evolution. We're intermediate species and not "finished". Actually, most of the suffering comes from economical hierarchy nowadays, and it can only survive by means of armed forces. Human-made systems make individuals more prone to violence and it benefits politicians. This has less to do with evolution than it has to do with God.
urmenior 1 month ago
@itssohardtomakeaname Even if the universe had always been here, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old and the conditions keep changing. Where do you get the idea that there is some 'perfect' target state that is is to be achieved? Life only has to survive long enough to reproduce. Perfection would be a waste of energy when 'good enough' will do.
digitaljez 1 month ago 2
Hello TaylorX04! Love your videos and find them very informative. I find the way that you implement quotations and citations into your critiques highly admirable. :-)
I wish to recommend an article you might be interested in regarding evolution. It is called "Understanding Evolution" and can be found at rationalrevolution 'dot' net, under Articles.
In the opening chapters it delves into ancient mythology and the historical origins including Christianity.
Anyway, have a good day and take care!
ObjectiSkeptic 3 months ago
I'm starting to believe in the Ancient Astronaut theory. An advanced species traveled here. They took an early hominid or another ape and combined their DNA with ours. They built the pyramids on the the Giza plateau , Puma Punku and a lot of other ancient places.
Why do I even consider this? Because you'd think that by now there would be another intelligent type of animal on this planet in the same league as humans.
We are the only animal on this Earth that have negative blood types.
Br4veDave 7 months ago
@Br4veDave Your consideration seems based on an argument from ignorance. You're basically saying, "I can't see why we should be the only intelligent animal on this planet, therefore aliens must've planted us here." But one problem with this is that we're NOT the only intelligent species. Intellect has evolved in chimps, dolphins, elephants, and many other animals, even if it's not the same level as human intellect. The ancient astronauts stuff presumes intelligent animals must be like us. Why?
TaylorX04 7 months ago
@TaylorX04 breifly, the Sumerians told us 4500 to 6000 yrs ago that the "Gods" came from another planet, they mixed their blood with primative man to make us better slaves(to mine gold) they told us 4500 yrs ago the sun was in the center, located pluto(we didnt c pluto til 1930) hadd all planets in our solar system in proper location(named color too) The head of the human genome project said in his official report that we have 250 extra terestrial genes! Theres a lot of strong evidence for this!
look4urself 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TaylorX04
@look4urself Where does it say the gods came from another planet? Where does it say that about the sun, the solar system, etc? Keep in mind that I've actually read the Enuma Elish, so you're not going to be convincing me with "This guy so-and-so who happens to be a conspiracy theorist..." Who said that about extraterrestrial genes? Where's your sources for all this if the evidence is so strong?
TaylorX04 4 months ago
@TaylorX04 in the Enuma Elish it says that Marduk killed Tiamat & her husband, used their body & Blood to creat earth & mandkind. Tablet VI "I will bring together blood to bone to creat mandkind" So man can work in the service of the Gods... Basically the 7 tablets of creation is where thousands of years later the bible got its 7 dayd of creation story from. the 6th generation of Gods created man from itheir blood so the Gods of the 7th generation could rest! Did u really read it? dosnt seem so!
look4urself 4 months ago
@look4urself Yes, I've read it, you dolt, and as you're explaining it, I see you've not said a word about the gods coming from another planet. Well done, you've just shown that one of your points is stretching it.
TaylorX04 4 months ago
@TaylorX04 please read the work of Jason Martell, and to a lesser extent Zacharia Sitchin. Theres so much strong evidence to support ancient astronau. The famous tablet I told you about can b seen if u google Sumerian Aliens and you'l see 4 pics, the 2nd is the pic showing all the planets in our solar system, including Pluto, and even a "12th" planet called Nibiru. I could write you a book from the 100's of hours of research Iv done!
look4urself 4 months ago
@look4urself Let's see, Jason Martell, what are his qualifications... he's a "researcher" and "lecturer." In other words, no credentials. Ah, but he is on Ancient Aliens! How about Zecharia Sitchin? Well, he went to an Economics school... but no other credentials, and it doesn't even say he earned a degree. But he's written books! Yeah, it looks like you've given me conspiracy theorists as "evidence", just like I asked you not to do. You can't even tell me the name of the tablet, lol.
TaylorX04 4 months ago
@TaylorX04 I did say to a lesser extent about Sitchen! & YES Martell is a researcher, those r the people who discover information! & u competely ignored all the other info & The quotes I gave u from the Enuma Elish! did u bother to look at the tablet which I gave u the location? btw it speaks 4 itself! the explanation of God coming from planet X, nibiru isnt in the 7 tablets, but much earlier tablets found in Iraq. The story of the Sumerians & the Anunnaki is well known & published!
look4urself 4 months ago
@look4urself A researcher CAN be a person who discovers information, or it can be what a unqualified conspiracy theorist calls himself to appear like he knows his stuff. Religious authors use the "researcher" title too, especially when they want to pretend to be an authority on a controversial issue that most qualified authorities would destroy them on. I can't find the image you're talking about, but you know you can copy and paste a link, right? (cont'd)
TaylorX04 4 months ago
(cont'd) Your quote from the Enuma Elish says nothing about the gods coming from other planets. I'm well aware that humans were created from the blood of Kingu, one of the gods, but that's not the part I'm asking you to show me. Stop giving me vague and unverifiable information and provide some actual sources, like a real researcher would. You say I'm brainwashed, but you've bought into a conspiracy that I've yet to see you offer any real evidence for!
TaylorX04 4 months ago
@TaylorX04 and as well as the official report when the human genome was mapped you can listen to Crystal's explaination titled The known genome of species on Utube! she says it best! Please watch it! her earlier version she cam out and said the 250 genes could only be from an extra terestrial source, but the government removed it from utube, so after re-reading the Enuma Elish, Genome report, Jason Martell, I highly recomend watching many of Aronra's videos, my hero & UNDEFEATED!
look4urself 4 months ago
@look4urself Hah, the government removed the video with her statement? Which government? Do you think YouTube is controlled by the government? You're really showing your conspiracy theory stripes now. And AronRa is one of my favorites too, but I'll bet you he'd be telling you that the ancient astronauts theory is nonsense, just like I am.
TaylorX04 4 months ago
@TaylorX04 its a publicly known fact the gov is trying to sensor the internet. I see that you havnt disproved anything Iv said, offer no explanation of ur beliefs other than its ur emotional need to support tem. u expose ur brain washed sheep like ability to not think for urself by saying the word theory after the word conspiracy! all I originally said is there is A LOT of strong evidence to support ancient astronauts, and THERE IS! spend a few Hundred hours of reserch before speaking out!
look4urself 4 months ago
@look4urself You really have a lot to learn about how evidence and reason work if you're coming at me with this bullshit. First of all, the default position is not to believe until there is reason to believe. You have not provided me any reason yet. You just keep making appeals to authority, but even that isn't quite true, because the sources you've cited are of questionable authority. It's also irresponsible to expect me to do hours of research when you could make the arguments yourself.
TaylorX04 4 months ago
Quality video!
cbrusharmy 8 months ago
It's always the same. You evos never ask if the data can be interpreted another way.
Africanus is no evidence that it became something else. You presume and imagine that. But thats good enough science for you, huh? Evolution is bones and imagination. This video proves my point.
Proverbs8 9 months ago
@Proverbs8 Hey, it's your prerogative if you want to interpret the data as the work of a deceitful god who is out to make organisms look like they evolve. I just don't see any reason for believing in that god in the first place. The problem with this asinine comment of yours is that it greatly ignores the other lines of evidence that support evolution like genetic similarities, vestigial structures, geographical origins, and on and on. As I said, this video focuses on one aspect among many.
TaylorX04 9 months ago
@TaylorX04 First you mentioned homologies. Evos base most of their presumptions on this, never considering that two eyes in the front are simply an optimal design worthy of duplication, like four wheels on a car. Nope, gotta be related. The other "evidences" you cite ALL have inconsistencies. Find a bone in a whale, its a pelvis and a leg. Why? Because you want it to be. Find soft 70 mil year old dino tissue. Evo is still right, we just have to invent a new theory to make that possible.
Proverbs8 9 months ago
@Proverbs8 You are mind-numbingly ignorant on this matter. Do you realize that "optimal design worthy of duplication" is EXACTLY what natural selection deals with? It's optimized by adaptation to the environment, then duplicated for other organisms living in the same or similar environments. In other environments where two eyes are not viable, the organisms don't have two eyes. Bones serve a purpose, so if a whale leg is not a leg bone, what is it? A Jesus bone?
TaylorX04 9 months ago
(cont'd) Your statement about the 70 million year old dino soft tissue utterly discredits any opinion you have. No such thing has been found, and when people like Kent Hovind embrace that claim, you have to know it's bullshit.
TaylorX04 9 months ago
@TaylorX04 "No such thing has been found?" Are you the missing link? Mary Schweitzer might take issue with you on that. Search for her msnbc interview here on youtube. Or maybe research the mosasaur fossil that is housed in L.A. You can read about the soft tissues and pigments in the eyes after 20 million years. Go to plosone.org Search for the article "Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur". Read and then apologize.
Proverbs8 9 months ago
@Proverbs8 Like so many creationists, you've misunderstood what you've read, or you've swallowed someone else's terrible explanation of it. If you read the paper, you'd understand that IMPRESSIONS of tissue is what they've found, and the same for pigment in the eyes too. It's not like they cracked open a fossil and found dino skin or even skin cells. What they did find was bone protein, which presents no challenge to evolution. Nice try, but total fail.
TaylorX04 9 months ago
@TaylorX04
Strange that you would describe a 2nd eye as inviable -- and then one phrase later speak of "whale legs" as if whales and legs are synonymous.
And I'm sorry, Taylor -- but the location of a hole in a skull only serves to show us that it's possible that an extinct ape may have employed bipedalism. There's still NOTHING to indicate why a "would-be poet" wasn't strong or bright enough to branch off, reproduce, and stick around long enough to become an actual Geico pitchman. ;-)
justchemicali 9 months ago
@justchemicali Did I describe a 2nd eye as inviable, or did I say that under certain environments or conditions, it may not be viable to have two eyes? And what the hell are you talking about "as if whales and legs are synonymous"? I don't think you even know what you're saying, especially since your nonsense about a "would-be poet" shows you don't understand natural selection and have confused it with LaMarckian evolution.
TaylorX04 9 months ago
Hey thanks for the reply, Taylor.
"Not viable" was the choice of words you used -- and I think "unnecessary" probably would have worked better. But either way, one eye or more... says nothing about common descent.
"And what the hell are you talking about...?" (whale legs)
Well, you quipped to Proverbs8, "if a WHALE LEG is not a leg bone, what is it?".... AS IF WHALES AND LEGS ARE SYNONYMOUS! Get it?
And no, I'm not a LaMarckian... I'm a ReMarkian. ;-)
I do like you though.
Cheers.
justchemicali 9 months ago
Are you from Rhode Island?
arseymcpherson 1 year ago
@arseymcpherson No.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
No, I did want your original opinion on what evolution is, and having received a reply about dog breeding, it's very clear that you've been pretending to know about something you're ignorant of, as I've said all along.
The funny thing about observation is that you have not lived even close to the 4.7 billion years that earth has been around. Humankind itself has only been around for the last 1-2 million years. So no, you wouldn't observe it, because evolution doesn't happen overnight.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
(cont'd) If chickens stay chickens, why have we only found chicken bones that date to no more than 8,000-10,000 years ago? Did god just randomly decide to create them at a later time than fish, dinosaurs, and other animals?
The bone evidence is fact, not opinion. It is not opinion that the position of the foramen magnum correlates to walking on all fours or on two legs, because it relates directly to the curvature of the spine.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
(cont'd 2) You're asking me to believe it's just coincidence that all apes have the foramen magnum at the back of the skull, while all humans have it centered, and all the transitional fossils we've found have it somewhere in between. That's an awfully big coincidence, especially when combined with all the other evidence I've listed in the video. Is your god trying to mislead people by making animals this way?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
(cont'd 3) And no, we don't have to have originals to talk about origins. Do detectives have to have the murder weapon to solve a crime? No, because they can look at other evidence to determine what weapon was probably used. Scientists have found lots of evidence in bones, genetics, geographical placement of fossils, vestigial structures, and on and on. In the 150 years since Darwin published his theory, NOTHING has come along to undermine it. Genetics could've been a big threat, but it wasn't.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
I asked you to explain how organisms evolve, not give a generalized answer about how most people related it to dog breeding. There are huge differences between dog breeding and evolution. And yet your next statements reveal once again that you don't know what you're talking about. Macroevolution occurs when a newly evolved species can no longer reproduce with the species it evolved from. Microevolution occurs when there is small change, but reproduction can still happen with the former species.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
(cont'd) Creationists have distorted the concepts, when they actually have nothing to do with outward appearances. But even if you dispute this, let me ask you, since you're so knowledgeable of evolution, what prohibits your definition of macroevolution from happening? Why can't a lot of small changes over time result in some big changes? Creationists like to pretend that there's some unseen force preventing this from occurring. Well, what is it?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Oh please do use sarcasm with me, because surely I was a fool to think you care to learn anything about spelling, seeing how you continually refuse to learn anything of science and evolution. If you really think you understand evolution, explain to me how organisms are said to evolve.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
I know what the word means, dumbass, but I'm not sure you do. If you're saying life begins concurrently, you're saying it begins side-by-side something, and I am asking what is this other thing that it begins along with. I think you meant to say that life begins spontaneously.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Once again you misconstrue my words into some inane bullshit. It's a simple fact that if an organism is suited for a warm climate and the climate suddenly changes to freezing, the organism will die if it cannot adapt to the change. In a very general sense, yes it does need to evolve, but there is no guarantee that it will, there is nothing the organism can do to make itself evolve.
The problem with your statement on my "circular reasoning" is that life doesn't just spring into being on its own.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Life comes into being by gradual, natural processes. We have found amino acids, the building blocks of life, on passing meteors in space. So what you think is circular reasoning on my part is once again just your poor understanding of science. "Lies can sustain only for a while then truth triumphs". Indeed, look how I've yet again proven this to you.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Lol, first of all, it's "modus operandi". Secondly, if you're going to accuse me of making stuff up everytime I give you an answer, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. I haven't given you anything like a whale to swallow, you are just uninformed on evolution, though you keep denying it. For example, why do you want to say life started concurrently? What does that even mean - what started concurrently with life?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
"why do we need evolution to change us if we are already sustained"
We don't NEED anything. There's no conscious decision to evolution and there's no invisible being deciding what's best for us. Evolution is not all benefitial mutations, there are harmful ones. We change because the world around us changes and if we don't adapt, we die.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
I do know the answer, and I've already given it to you, but apparently I need to walk you through it step by step. First of all, your "trees and bees" crap makes no sense. Maybe you're trying to ask if bees or FLOWERS came first? The answer is that flowers came first and attracted bees later on, probably after the flowers started using the wind to pollinate.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
"All life no matter witch came first has to be sustained"
You're thinking of life in static terms, probably. If certain organisms and certain plants have developed a co-dependency, they evolved together or in response to each other. Flowers had plenty of ways to pollinate before bees and bees had plenty of shelter and food sources before flowers. Unchain your mind from the dogmatic creationist thinking on the fixity of species. You DON'T understand the theory or you wouldn't ask the question.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
The question once again betrays a lack of understanding in evolution. Trees and bees have not always existed in the way we find them today. This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Things evolve and adapt to their environment, and by that fact symbiotic relationships develop as well. Your question is only reasonable if you know absolutely nothing about evolution. Are you finally willing to admit that?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Right, you said I either have a low IQ or low self-esteem. That's not implying one or the other, but it is insulting. You're either a brainless ass or a spineless dick. See how that works?
The sad thing to me is that you keep claiming it's a "fact" that evolution is wrong, and you haven't presented a shred of evidence to invalidate it - you've only denied the very real evidence that proves it. You can lead a creationist to evidence but you can't make him think, I guess.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
@TaylorX04 Sorry for taking up so much room with the debate about spelling. (firefox is working again so I have a spill checker)
Something that would have enhanced this video had you the time to allot for it would have been showing how the ape like features of earlier australopithecus diminish in later ones, the fuzzyness of the line distinguishing genus Homo from genus Australopithecus, etc.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Keep saying generic nonsense if it makes you feel better about being wrong and uninformed on evolution. It won't change the truth of the matter one iota though.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
@markymark27030
I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, can't even spell the words "esteem" or "accept" correctly. What a fucking dummy!
bettySwollox 2 years ago 5
@bettySwollox first of all spelling is irrelevant to inteligence. A better way of rebutting his claims would be to point out that he is using logical fallacies, name them, explain them and let him call you an elitist and put his finger in his ears. I would advise against using ad hominems in response to ad hominems as it tends to cause the debate to degenerate. His arguments should stand or fall on their own merit, regaurdless of his intelect or spelling ability.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Wlel if sllepnig ins't scuh a big dael tehn I gseus we can all do waht the hlel we wnat wtih teshe ltetres and angrrae tehm in any odrer we coohse and smpily hpoe for the bset rghit?
bettySwollox 2 years ago 2
His misspellings were phonetically possible. Your's create nonsense words. Furthermore I did not say we should try to spell porely or even not try to spell, I said that spelling ability, despite what you suggested earlier has a poor corolation with inteligence. Grammar and vocabulary are better measures. Furthermore I emphasized the fact that both spelling and inteligense are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments presented, and as such your comments were ad hominems and unproductive.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
Comment removed
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Surely you were able to read what I just wrote? If not, then I suggest you go back, and take the time to read the "nonsense words" more carefully. As you will no doubt notice that they are far from nonsensical, as there is actually a system to the apparent madness. As long as the first letter and the last letter of the word are in the right place, then it really doesn't matter where the other letters go! Still nonsense?
bettySwollox 2 years ago 2
I was able to read what you wrote. But they are unpronouncable, and as such are nonsense. I am very familiar with the article that pointed out this phenomenon. I assume that you misread my previous post and did not realize that I was emphasizing the phonetic qualities of words. It requires more effort to read words that are scrambled in the manner that you scrambled them than to read words that, though the spelling is off would be phonetically identical to the corect spelling.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
If you are familiar with the article describing this phenomenon, then surely you'd agree that it takes very little effort to decipher the words, as long as you follow the simple rules of first and last letters in their correct places, right?
It seems that you are suggesting that it's OK to substitute a 'written word' - which has a given meaning/intended purpose - with another 'written word' - which again, has a different meaning/intended purpose - as long as it can be....
bettySwollox 2 years ago
You misinterpret what I am saying. I am saying that there is a significant difference between attempting to read "wtretin wrod" and "ritten werd"
The latter is not another predefined word that I substitute for word. It is a word that according to the rules of english pronunciation is phonetically equivalent to word.
The point being that it is more natural to read and write words in the stile that you criticized MM for using than in your sample stile. As I stated earlier I am not...
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Absolutely! I believe that you and I both are in complete agreement, with the notion that there are similar phonetic values, that words share, in both their 'audible' and 'written' forms. However, you are comparing chalk to cheese here, as you are using two different systems to make your point. The "wtretin wrod" is not a phonetic spelling of anything (English) but does follow a rule, as pointed out already (first and last letters etc).
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Whilst "ritten werd" is (unless you read it in Dutch, then it means "Rides Was") following the rule that: 'these words are spelled incorrectly, but they are used merely to demonstrate an example'. Or something like that. Actually, the word "written" would have also served as an example of a rule, where of course the rule is: ' the "w" in written is silent'.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
I am not saying that it does not follow a rule. I am saying that ritten word follows the rules that are used to spell words based off of their sound. You suggested that there are only two posibilities
1. Individuals who do not spell things properly are idiots
2. We abandon spelling rules.
I disagree with both. I atempt to spell words correctly. I have memorized the rules to spell words based off of their sound. I however make frequent mistakes. The alternative is to memorize every word's...
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
...proper spelling. Ferther more your rule can leed to more confusing circumstances than phonetic spelling.
Examples
Yours: "He caught a crap"
Phonetic: "He caught a karp"
Yours: "Wcihh way is the bootrham?"
Phonetic: "Witch/Wich way is the bathroom?"
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
...suggesting that one abandons any attempt to spell properly, just emphasising that spelling and intelligense do not corralate. Your equating misspelt words with stupidity was unfounded. Furthermore as a dislexic I found it to be personally insulting.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
OK, so what was it about the following that you found insulting?
Original
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, can't even spell the words "esteem" or "accept" correctly. What a fucking dummy!"
If I had instead posted:
New
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, hasn't even used the correct words to make his point. You used "a steam" instead of 'esteem' and "except" instead of 'accept'."
Would this have been less insulting?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Yes, but still just as much of an ad hominem as the claim that you are spell checking.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
You referring to this one?
New
"I like how the person claiming that someone else has a low IQ, hasn't even used the correct words to make his point. You used "a steam" instead of 'esteem' and "except" instead of 'accept'."
As this - in my view - isn't an ad hominem in any way, shape or form. As my intention here would be to advance the notion of irony. It's ironic that MM said that someone else's IQ was low, when his word choice made his IQ look just as low, if not lower!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
...deciphered phonetically. Is that what you are suggesting? In my view, phonetics deals with the sound of words. Of course it's OK to take, say, a foreign word, with an unconventional spelling, and use words within the mother tongue, to demonstrate how that word is pronounced. But using these words in human speech for demonstration, or explanation purposes, is something entirely different from using words - that already have assigned meanings to them - and substituting...
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
...them at will, with words that means something completely different. Remember, words have meaning. If you want to be understood, then it's essential that you master the correct use of the words: correct spelling, meaning and of course the grammatical framework in place, that assists both the reader and the writer in forming the correct mental picture as was intended.
By words the mind is winged. —Aristophanes.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
addendum: "If you want to be understood, then it's essential that you master the correct use of the words: correct spelling, meaning and of course the grammatical framework in place, that assists both the reader and the writer in forming the correct mental picture as was intended."
As stated earlier: Grammar and word choice do corrolate with inteligense. Spelling has a poor corrolation. Also, with the majority of common spelling errors meaning is not obscured...
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
I've noticed many spelling mistakes in your posts, but I think I've been rather polite in ignoring them, and now that you have explained your condition, I'm glad I didn't attempt to hit you below the belt: I can't remember throwing a single insult your way regardless of your dyslexia. I'd even say that you and I have had quite a grown up, intelligent (arguably pointless, but nonetheless civil) conversation. Agreed?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox Agreed, save that it was not pointless as it acheved the point that led me to start it; I enjoy arguing and it amused me.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Good I'm glad you enjoyed it, I too enjoy some mental gymnastics from time to time. I'm interested in what you have to say about my last post. I wait with bated breath!!!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
Earlier you stated that:
"spelling is irrelevant to inteligence."
Now you are stating that:
"Grammar and word choice do corrolate with inteligense"
Now if we go back to what MM originally posted, he wrote:
"...low self a steam..." and "...learn to except a gift..."
Looking at MM's spelling, he has in fact, spelled everything correctly. But his "word choice" is incorrect. According to you, this correlates with intelligence. So poor word choice = poor intelligence?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
...For example you probably would understand what I meant with little to no dificulty if I wrote "Wich way is the store?".
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
@cryingsoftly
The thing is, as kind as you were in your suggestion - as to how I should have approached mm's claims - I actually didn't intend to steam roll over the logical fallacies of his assertions, as I really wasn't at all concerned with his argument in the first place. Therefore, the insult that I threw in his general direction, was not an ad hominem. It was, merely an insult. There is a difference, believe it or not, do you see that?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@betty Swollox
"the insult I threw in his general direction, was not an ad hominem. It was, merely an insult. is a difference, believe it or not, do you see that?"
Ad hominem: an attack on an opponents character that does not answer his arguments.
Insult: An offensive action or remark;
What you posted was definitely an insult. It was also an adhominem. It did not answer his arguments and instead attacked his intellectual character. The problem with ad hominems in group debates (contd.)
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
(part 2) is that they tend to polarize people and often will cause the individual who used the ad hominem's side to look less appealing to the middle ground. I understand that you were not attempting to present a serious argument, but in name calling (especially using an insult that had at its basis a false primace) you are lending a greater degree of credibility to his side than if you had simply ignored his arguments.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
Is this the love and forgiveness of your god shining through your words? Lol. I can assure you that the only void I feel is the one in collective intelligence and civility left by religious people like yourself.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Your testimony is your claims, dumbass. It's interesting that you reject the doctrine of hell. You are essentially saying that the revelation some people received is wrong then. Which makes my former question perfectly valid. Why should I believe you, especially if you think others that have "experienced god" are wrong about their experiences?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
You have verified nothing. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and countless other people of faith would claim very similar things about experiencing their own particular god(s). Personal experience is non-transferable, so believe what you want, but there's no reason for me to believe you experienced what you claim.
Also, you used all your senses to "verify" god? You touched him? Tasted him? Hmmm, you're kind of a dirty Christian, aren't you?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Once again, here come the assertions, but where is your evidence? Provide your source(s) that disprove the tails or spell out why the 5% is "fatal". You know that since humans and apes can't mate, that means we're separate species. If we could mate, that would disprove common descent. Man, you're an idiot. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. You're the most hated man on this page for that fact. You speak ignorance and continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
@markymark27030
I doubt that you are the most hated, but you are the most ill-informed, and I dare say, uneducated person on this thread.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Lol, oh it's not an ACTUAL tree? And here I had been thinking how ridiculous that would be, but it's really just a representation of knowledge. I know that, dumbass, and that's the point I was making. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When they did, they understood good and evil. But the problem is that if they didn't know morality before that point, how would they know that it was right to follow god and wrong to listen to the serpent? Think!
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Not an actual tree? I know know a number of christians who would disagree with you!
caligulaincarnate 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Prove it or its a lie? Lmao, aren't you the one who believes that a superior being died on a cross in first century Palestine to save us from sin that resulted from his own bad decision to plant a tree in a garden and order his creations not to eat from it, even though they had no idea of what right and wrong were at the time? Yeah, I can see how that's relevant to today. It's a good reminder of how gullible some people are.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
This video has presented proof of evolution in numerous transitional fossils and the characteristics that make them transitional. There is also human chromosome 2, which is two ape chromosomes fused together (apes have 24 pairs, we have 23, because of chromosome #2). Then there is the genetic similarity of humans and chimps, which is at 95%. Vestigial structures like tails on human embryos, the eyes on the blind mole rat. Seriously, talk about the light shining! Lol. Open your eyes.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
"Prove it boss prove it if you cant then its a lie a lie."
That's a nasty stammer you have there, mate.
revjimbob 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
A free thinker does not blindly accept the word of a 2,000 year old book while denying the clear scientific evidence for evolution. You have presented nothing even remotely resembling "research" so far, just assertion after assertion, all based on faith. I don't care how terrible your typing is, but I do care when you make uninformed statements of ignorance.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
@markymark27030. It's difficult to understand what someone is saying when there is bad grammar, so you might want to work on it so people can comprehend the things you are trying to say. As for your points: vestigial organs don't have a purpose, if you would like examples just ask or look it up yourself. Yes evolution is a theory, just like any other scientific theory until it is proven wrong (check out how science operates). And I have no clue what you were saying about berries and hunters.
guitarstylings 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
You don't know the first thing about evolution, but you attack it because you think it threatens your religious belief. It's sad, really, but if you're willing to ignore the evidence here, I don't suppose you'd be persuaded even if it was put right in front of your nose. We do have examples of evolution - lots of them - but due to your piss poor understanding of evolution, you don't accept them. Dogs evolving into cats is not evolution, dumbass.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
@markymark27030. Time for a lesson of punctuation.
Start each sentence with a capital letter.
The word "I" is always written with a capital letter.
End each sentence with punctuation.
Use a space after a punctuation before the new sentence.
Each time you would take a breath if you spoke the sentence, either use a comma, or end the sentence.
greyman000 2 years ago 3
@markymark27030 your an idiot
frank3976 2 years ago
Um.....yep.....you hit this nail hard, taylor, right on the head, on the first try, and flush with the surface. Good job.
LordSlag 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
Comparative anatomy is only one way evolution is proven, there is also plenty of genetic evidence, evidence of our vestigial structures, and so much more. You are just willfully ignorant because your fanatical brand of Christianity has taught you to be so. I have to laugh at how you dismiss all that's in this video without even providing reasons. You just cry about how you can't understand it. Don't mistake your own failure of thought for a failure in the truth! ;-)
TaylorX04 2 years ago
im not a creationist but what does our brain havethat gives us the ability to drive cars, talk on the phone, type,etc instead of just acting like the rest of the animal species. why are we advanced the way we are. thats my only question about evolution.
by the way good ideos
pistolpete667 2 years ago
We have evolved higher levels of consciousness that allow us to break from instinct and make the world around us more suited to our environment, instead of the opposite happening in the animal kingdom. However, there are moments where human behavior can pretty much resemble animal behavior. Mating? Rioting? Football games? Lol...
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Comment removed
markymark27030 2 years ago
You understand the theory? Bullshit. All you've done so far is whine that it's unsupported without showing why. Generally when you say something is full of lies, you expose where those lies are and you refute them to prove that they are lies. I know this concept may be foreign to you, because you're heavily religious, but try to have SOME integrity. No one is claiming to have all the answers except for you, in your own twisted way.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
markymark27030 Why do you think the Vatican has no objection to EVOLUTION, when it so obviously contradicts Genesis ? Ever thought of that ? Because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. They don`t want another Galileo scandal.
They have lots of catholic scientists behind that decision.
lizazoon 2 years ago 5
@lizazoon just thought i'd point out that Genesis does not contradict evolution. Genesis doesn't touch the subject, no talk of monkey men in it...it does say 'God created' and that is irrelevant of the process. I suppose if you want to go down the argument of 'days' i.e. 7 day creation, then if literal how are days 1-3 days? days are measured by our revolving around the sun - day 4. Gen 1 is a beautiful poem about God creating a space and then filing it, a void - to a solar system full of life.
jandlaura 1 year ago
@lizazoon just thought i'd point out that Genesis does not contradict evolution. Genesis doesn't touch the subject, no talk of monkey men in it...it does say 'God created' and that is irrelevant of the process. I suppose if you want to go down the argument of 'days' i.e. 7 day creation, then if literal how are days 1-3 days? days are measured by our revolving around the sun - day 4. Gen 1 is a beautiful poem about God creating a space and then filing it, a void - life :)
jandlaura 1 year ago
@jandlaura Genesis is part of a fairy tale....are you joking?!
spareaxe 10 months ago
@spareaxe sorry I'm fairly sure I didn't use the words 'fairy tale'. A poem is not by default fiction. most poetry is an artists reflection on a real event or situation. All I was clarifying was not all christians ignore the original poetic structure of the hebrew language in Genesis 1 and how by the basic facts such as we count days and years by the laws of nature (that God created) and that their are two different creation stories between gen 1 and 2, that its probably not about the process.
theholyhunk 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
australapithalis or w/e is its own species of apes...
Chase9803 2 years ago
Nope. I'd ask you to present some evidence, but I see that you can't spell Australopithecus and you even say "or w/e", so I'm betting you won't bother to support your assertion.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
I love your video!
lizatony969 2 years ago
Very good -- thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Cuffsmaster 2 years ago
great job
wodie225 2 years ago
Well done. 5/5
PoDReligion 2 years ago