@IMONAMADTING1 Yes they would have been on Noahs Ark. You know they were not called dinosaurs then and the Bible talks about them. God made all life.Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. Dinosaur is a modern term. Hostorically there are many books and pottery that prove man has lived with dinosaurs. watch?v=fskiSFfFUxw&feature=related
The bigger the scare, the more magazines sold! Same formula goes for anything else, just replace 'bigger', 'scare' and 'magazines' with other fitting words etc.
We are moving into a marxist/ communist future. Lets look at what the GOVERNMENT is buying up and owning with out taxes. Everything is subject to a global agenda including science and hence "ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES". These are used just for political leverage- but are promises kept? Obama gets a peace prize- why? HE is one image of the New World Order- Yet the TRUTH - he justifies sending 30,000 more men to war. SEE the HYPOCRACY! They SAY PEACE, and not do it, they SAY ENVIRONMENT and get CONTROL!
Actually no. The idea of the ETS is to allow the MARKET to set its own price on the cost of emitting CO2 into the atmospher. If a company wants to emit a tonne of CO2 they have to have a greenhouse permit. The government simply sets the total number of national permits which limits the total amount of pollution permitted.
[SEE the HYPOCRACY! They SAY PEACE, and not do it, they SAY ENVIRONMENT and get CONTROL!]
I can see that you are rather emotionally attached to your position. Let me say this though: Obama does some things that I personally agree with, and some that I don't, but as an Australian, it is not really my concern to get overly worked up about his domestic policies. That being said, America's carbon footprint is my concern just as it is for all nation's footprints.
Raspesher do you understand the seriousness of the times? We are as a world in the revealing of the greatest deception in history. The deception is the the government and its medias premise that this world needs to be saved and helped and 'government ' is the only answer. We are deluded by this issue as if the sky will fall if our saviour BO and the UN and IMF and WB ( The NWO) will save the day. As we bow down and suck their cock WE have to pay them for the mere privelage eat,fart and work!
First things first. Great video, very well done. Secondly. Why is anyone discussing anything with an evolutionist? They are seeking God, they don't know it, but it burns in them, they want someone to answer every last mentally retarded argument they have been exposed to. Their suppliers cannot get passed the cell, why take the discussion any further than that. No cell, no life as we know it. They can't get past the basics so they throw out every last thing they can mix and mash together.
Give the evolutionist every non living substance on the face of the earth, let them take as long as they want. They will never get life. They are the chiefs of fools, not only claiming there is no designer, but confident in their mind to say they can figure out the beginnings of life. Somebody get them a straight jacket and keep them away from the children.
How could you ever claim to know that? Not only do you believe in an omniscient God but you also claim omniscience. Which one is the "chief of fools"?
It is a mistake to think that the first cell would be similar to the highly evolved cells that we see today. Dr David Deamer has demonstrated that a simple cell can self assemble. No God, however, has ever been shown to be able to produce even the most primative of cells. The creationist has no basis whatsoever to make snide and arrogant remarks considering the quality, or lack thereof, of their own arguments.
RasPesher, I don't want to seem demeaning at all but thats all just too amazing and incredably imaginative. You speak as if species can change so easily as if there is nothing in place to protect their own survival. Can scientist cross species - no. Is it possible - no. therefore evolution is a dream and not science. Species were made by God to reproduce after their kind, as they do today in nature. You won't find species mating with another different species. IT A FACT!
Leaving God out of the equation and ignoring the lack of a proper definition of kind, this is a good example of ancient man making observations and drawing an inference.
Yes, it may sound trivial but the fact that Jesus feet were not injured, is important, when we consider why he was able to walk out of the tomb. The greek NT does not use the word "resurrection". This is an English substitution for the greek word "anastasis" meaning to stand up, or the Greek word "egersis" means to arouse (as from a sleep) and to stand up. After Jesus revived from his crucifixion ordeal he woke up, stood up and walked out of the tomb. Hence the empty tomb!
If Jesus didn't have a resurrected body , made alive again and miraculously healed but still with scars, forget the scars in his feet he was whipped 39 times with a cat of 9 tails. His guts would have been almost falling out with no skin on his back. He had 4 inch thorns smashed around his skull and a spear pushed in his side. They beat him- his bruises alone would incapacitate a man. He was the lamb slain for the sins of the world. He the Son of God did that for you and me! God is love.
I googled "Fundamentalists rewrite the bible" and found the following quotes:
"What the 'Conservative Bible Project' is doing is not translating the bible. It is rewriting the bible to make it say what they want it to say, without regard for what it actually says. These people, who insist that every word of their holy texts must be taken as absolute literal truth without interpretation -- are rewriting their bibles to make it say what they want it to say."
Whilst it says, in the earliest Greek versions of the Gospels, "Jesus son of the Father" (Aramaic: barabbas) scourged "Jesus called Christ" the bible does not say that he whipped him 39 times. Do we even know which Jesus is which? Some think, that the Jesus that was scourged, was not the true Jesus; hence "called Christ", not "Christ".
What is the purpose of the planets that don't sustain life? Most don't. It seems to me that if you randomly made planets some would be in the zone suitable for life and others wouldn't. Where is the design in that?
What is their purpose....? Well thats a question that needs to be better defined. How you define purpose depends on your oppinion of what somethings purpose must be. I personally care about what God calls 'purpose'. For example HE says in His Word that His people have a purpose " We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose." Rom 8:28
Gods creation reveals His wonders to us all that we are without excuse.
So you are saying that God made planets that do not sustain life and CAN NOT be seen, to "reveal" his wonders to us. I'm at a loss as to how something that can't be seen in any way by the average person, can reveal anything.
The whole of creation I believe is for God's glory and for us, his people, to both enjoy and abide with God in. Everything in the universe, as large as it is- is to show that we are without excuse by saying "there is no God". Man wants to try and define how and when man evolved in an acidental environment but I believe life is more than man can define and so I find it easy to believe the evidence of Gods creation proves Gods existence as it lines up in everyway to biblical scripture.
"The whole of creation I believe is for God's glory .."
..but we are not talking about the whole of the universe, just the bits that are too small to see. It is also a stretch to think that there is a magic man in the sky that makes universes. There is no evidence to support the assertions of the writings of ancient desert nomads about the existence of a god; not to forget that you can't even understand the text.
Can you comprehend this " If you could fold a piece of .1mm papar 64 times (doubling its thickness) it would make a distance equivalent to the diameter of the universe. If you were the size of a carbon atom how would you percieve an apple? You on the other hand are a carbon atom looking at the universe but God isnot He is everywhere and all-knowing and all seeing. YOu cannot comprehend God because you are of this dimension and just flesh. IF you were in Gods dimension (outside time) spirit -yes
"If you were the size of a carbon atom how would you percieve an apple?"
Not all questions that can be asked are valid questions. Single Carbon atoms do not have the ability to percieve, so asking 'how' it perceives is not valid.
I was trying to demonstrate that God is so much more than your mind can understand. You are like an atom looking at an apple (the earth). God though isn't just the orchid, He is eternally beyond all around the orchid. Yet God dwells in His people, those that seek HIm and love HIm and accept His love, His salvation through Jesus Christ.He isn't limited by dimension, time or space. God is also not a force but and intelligent all knowing deity, able to love , able to have a relationship with us.
If you existed 200 years ago and I told you some day we'll have radio or a telephone or a television and they work by invisible signals travlelling through the air- how could you convieve that? The brain emits signals and its a fact a human body is lighter after it is dead- so the soul/ spirit has weight.Youa re spirit being in a body with a mind- with the freedom to choose your destiny. But you may choose to not believe because you want there to be no God. Remember ;a fool says there is no God.
"...its a fact a human body is lighter after it is dead"
Unfortunately this "fact" is the result of a hoax. You have been fooled.
200 years ago a radio or TV would have seemed supernatural, yet today we have a natural explanation for their operation. God is only the term we give to the things we can't understand today. Historically man has never gone from a natural explanation for something, to a supernatural explanation. Perhaps in time the supernatural will totally disappear.
dude your living in a daydream. I understand your point - you can't see air but you breath it and it keeps you alive, so does my faith and I can't explain to you how I know God is real I just know. That will never change.
dude, faith does not "keep you alive". Let go of your faith and you'll find that you will still be alive. I am certainly alive, without need for the faith to which you refer. However I'm sure that you will throw this fact out, so-as to maintain the dream.
You KNOW what your saying is just your opinion. You are trying to tell me I am wrong but you have nothing but your oppinion. I will never be able to "let go of my faith"- as that is my rock and one day when all you trust in is blown away in the wind, I will not be moved. God will not leave me nor forsake me. Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world. No weapon formed against me shall prosper. WHat can separate me from the love of God- nothing- not death - nothing
The fact that I am alive is more than just my opinion. You're just trying to be argumentive, or you lived through the sixties, and took far too many drugs.
"..the evidence of Gods creation proves Gods existence"
God can only have a creation if God exists. In otherwords your proof is of the form that 'if God exists, then God exists'. You have just proven your assumption based on your assumption.
You know what -its not assumption but faith based on truth according to Gods Word. YOu may not believe Gods Word, but the evidence of its truth is through applying its truth, living its truth and observing its truth around us. God is not an impersonal force or religion in a stone building - but someone that is so gracious and loving to all who by faith open their hearts to Him. He is the Heavenly Father who gave His only Son Jesus Christ ( Yeshua) to die for your sins. He is the Way,Truth& Life.
You used the word "truth" six times in the post to which I'm responding.
Usually people that are telling the "truth" don't need to claim to be telling the truth. Criminals tend to claim that they are telling the truth to cover for their lies.
Why do you, need to claim to be, telling the "truth"?
No you don't. You are not aware of your own motivation. You say its "true" because YOU KNOW that your message is unlikely to be believed. Your supporting evidence and arguments are weak, and deep down you know it.
My belief is my business and your questioning me for making this video that simply shows the complexity of Gods design. I say the word is truth because I know it is- thats all - I can't prove it- to know God is a personal experience. He opened my eyes. If my arguments are weak, thats ok- you can think that- I have talked with probably a hundred people like you on You Tube and i have never heard a factual piece of evidence for evolution or against God. Science is not evolution its imaginary.
I'm not doubting your belief, only your ability to know yourself.
The usual ID argument is complexity complexity, the ear, complexity complexity, the eye, complexity complexity, the phlagellum, complexity complexity.
Wouldn't you expect an intelligent designer to come up with an elegant yet simple design. An argument from complexity is a weak argument, and deep down you know it.
"i have never heard a factual piece of evidence for evolution"
Actually you have, its just that with faith you reject the facts. Faith is not just a process of filling in the gaps in human knowledge with beliefs. It's also an active process that is used to reject facts.
Can you see evolution happenning in your life and the people around you. Are the trees and the animals changing? You should after millions of years be seeing animals in part morphis phases and why are we seeing evolution repeating early process like fish tryin to become land dwellers? SOund weird- but thats what you believe happenned millions of years ago. Its so easy to say over 'millions of years' life but its not scientifically testable or observable. Its illogical to say its factual.
Newer methods of radiometric dating can not only measure the age of igneous rocks but also screen for contamination or leeching of minerals in the sample. We can be confident of the results.
Fish are not trying to become land dwellers. What they are trying to do, is to eek out an existance and survive. Coming onto land is no longer a winning strategy. There is already too much competition for a badly adapted fish species to slot into, on dry land. The tetrapod (an early fish-like land dweller) has gone extinct; extinct because it has been out competed.
When that first 'fish' went from water to land- how did it breath before it had fully evolved lungs(Which must have taken millions of years)accordin to your theory , what did it eat, grass? How could it without a correct digestive system? IF it survived, what did it mate with?. How did it IF it survived ,KNOW how to survive or where to find shelter? WHere did its insticts come from? How did it have intelligence at all? If it had intellience wouldn't stay in the water to survive?
"how did it breath before it had fully evolved lungs(Which must have taken millions of years)accordin to your theory"
365 million years ago fish already had lungs. In fact 400 million years ago fish had lungs. Lungs were not developed for life on land but for life in the oceans. Lungs can be more efficient than gills for extracting oxygen. A fish fleeing another fish found that skipping out of the water allowed it to take a gulp of air and hence take in an efficient supply of oxygen. oxygen
jiminiflix, Have you ever hiccupped? The noise produced is made by the glottis. The nerve firing sequence that controls the glottis is a throughback to our fishy past. The glottis and nerve firing sequence was used to shunt air into the swim bladder/lungs of early air breathing fish. Your own body contains a relic of your fishy past.
"did it eat, grass? How could it without a correct digestive system"
There are water grasses so some fish already had the ability to digest grass. The first fish to go onto land were those that had previously lived in the shallow water near the land. They would have already been able to use insects as a food source. The digestive system was not a problem.
If it was male it would have mated with a female. If it was female it would have mated with a male. They really should give sex education lessons to fundies!
So you believe both evolved at the same time. WHat are the chances?- how did male and female come about anyway by chance? How is it possible for all information of all life to have been a gradual INCREASE in new information? This bein ALL life- rass, trees, bird, fish, donkeys, alephants, zebras, and humans- we all came froma cell- thats amazin and with no forethought or design. Thats science!
"you believe both evolved at the same time. WHat are the chances?- how did male and female come about"
If your question is about human evolution then the chances are 100% because males and females had already evolved over half a billion years ago. If you go back the the first haploid gametes that started to sexually reproduce over half a billion years ago, the sexes were not differentiated. ie the sperm and egg were identical.
Mutation is the source of new information. Duplication of sections of DNA adds to the chromosome length. Further point mutations to these slabs of code allows for new information to emerge in the genome.
Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area.
Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
An example of a ring species is the Ensatina Salamander. It is spread out around the San Joaquin Valley in California. Adjacent groups of the Salimander can interbreed but where the groups meet up again at the end of the valley there are two species that cannot interbreed. What we have, is the evolution event of a new species, but one where all the intermediates have survived too.
I think this shows how natural variations in species occurs. This isn't proof a species can change to another but a natural occurance where populations and family lines diverge by geographic boundaries and so you have different looking variations of species just as mankind has developed over 6000 years. Races have happenned that very way through segregation and population growth occuring. People mate with people like themselves which I see as a human instinct put there by God.
"This isn't proof a species can change to another"
I beg to differ. At the very least it's proof of concept. When you get two groups of salamander living in the same area that cannot interbreed, is that not equivalent to saying that they are two different species?
Are they not different "kinds" of Salimanders - they cannot interbreed? And they were also brought forth after their kind till they became a different "kind".
If a population of humans ( that could breed amongst themselves) got to the stage where they could not interbreed with other humans, that would be speciation.
The proof we are from a man and a woman (adam and eve) is we can interbreed globally- we are one species. I believe there no transient species becoming man.
Was Neanderthal a man or a different species? Ofcourse you believe it was a different species- but what happenned to Neanderthal man? If his species dissapeared it must have died out as species don't change into new species. So whether you believe the human fossil record is real or fake- its meaningless to join them together.
"I believe there no transient species becoming man"
You're wrong. Markers in the DNA show family trees. Markers in the DNA get passed on from parent to sibling from generation to generation. We share a number of markers with the Chimps. We share a lesser number with Gorillas. Conclusion: both chimps and gorillas are in our family tree. Gorillas are more distant relatives.
But we are miles apart, we are different species. And scientists don't aree with you, IF we did evolve, we did not branch off after monkets and gorillas, but totally on our own from a very early monkey not even discovered yet.Why hav'nt gorillas evolved - because they are gorillas as God made them. They always have been gorillas. Man has always been man and God created them to multiply. Life can only come from life. Humans can only come from humans. Simply really.
Just as we no longer look like our last common ancestor with the Gorilla, neither does the Gorilla. The Gorilla has evolved for just as long as we have, since then.
I think I need to point something out to you. I'm a male and you're a male. The fact that we can't breed does not make us a different species. You need to get one of your parents, to give you a talk about the birds and bees.
It it was a half a billion years, how do you know it wasn't a trillion years, how can you best guess it? You couldn't uess the lottery numbers so how can you accurately date 1/2 a billion years? Its assumption NOT science- its not testable or observable. ALso you paint the complexity of a cell as simple- microscopic life is so complex we are still learning . Just a simple cell is more complex than all computers combined. To water down the complexity of life with assumptions is unscientific.
You have misquoted me. I said it was "over" half a billion years. In the context of my comment it does not matter if it was half a billion years or a trillion years; its a bloody long time. But if you want to be a pedant, look up my previous comments to you, concerning the oldest fossilised evidence we have of sexual reproduction. re - 570 million year old ropy sea creature fossils.
..and by saying oldest fossilised evidence, it means that sexual reproduction started 570 million years ago OR BEFORE. If you want to learn about the evidence listen to the "Are we Alone" podcast "Sex: From Beginning to End" 5th Jan 2009. Google, podcast ropy sea creature seti, to find it.
No way can man date accurately that far. Tell me why there are so many examples of many million year old fossils that are no different to today. You are not related to a sea creature and neither is a cow or a dog or even a whale. Each belong to there own kind & would not be able to change into a new species. Natural changes in populations only occur within 'kinds". Like canines or horses - we breed them but they cannot interbreed with other species - we know this as fact
The environment drives evolutionary change. A species that lives in an unchanging environment will at first adapt to that environment, then once adapted, its form, will remain relatively stable. Those lobe finned fish that remained in deep water have changed little to this day, but those that moved into new environments have changed so much that they have brought forth every land animal other than insects (that I can think of).
You say they change - but they are still salamanders. Why they don't mix is maybe a mystery but they are still salamanders. This is not evidence of evolution but natural selection ( which is not evolution)
For an randomly evolved species you should know better than to say your intelligent enough to know where he came from. If you claim to know then evolution has no purpose anymore because theres nothing more to evolve into - man has reached his potential and now he is on the verge of nuking himself to death. Out of 4 billlion years we live for a blink of an eye and destroy the earth. Evolution monster is unhappy! Oh but the evolution monster is blind, dumb, deaf and incapable of caring anyway!
You are anthropromorphising a natural process. But you are right in one sense. The process that brought us here is not going to save us from ourselves. It doesn't care. Some people say, "save the Earth", but the Earth does not need saving. It is going to be OK. It's only the life forms on the Earth that are in danger from global warming and pollution.
Well in 20 years when everything is the same we will be told its only because of the lowering of Co2 even though the only way to lower it by 4o would be to stop all economic activity FOR 20 YEARS! . GW is a lie- purely a political scandal for world control through sanctions and treaties to bow 1st to 3rd world nations to a one world order. The scientists behind this are accoutable for the lies. Al Gore is a deceptive weasel, con man and political tyrant. This 'science' only smells like money.
Global warming is the fear factor spread by the media to smokescreen the people from what they are truly signing treaties about. Its not about 'global warming'. Do you really believe the trillionaires who own the world corporations, who own the banks as well are going to pay taxes on pollution they make?They are pretending so as to be seen doin the "right thing" but have we forgotten how industry has steered wars leaders for their own gain?.These men wipe their asses with science.
"Global warming is the fear factor spread by the media.."
-Wow what a conspiracy. The problem with this arguement is that I can directly experience the temperature myself. I do not need to rely on the media. In August the temperatures here in Sydney averaged 3 C above the average. On one day the temperatures reached 28 C on the coast. It was so warm that I went to the beach almost every day in August, yet it was meant to be winter. The temperatures that we experience are not a conspiracy.
Well that may be true for a short spell but the actual data shows the earth is in a cool cycle- its cooling. In Geelong I can tell you its no different. We have had a ten year drought yet this year we have had more rain in the country areas than ever before. Temp never are "NORMAL" and CO2 is NOT to blame for global warming. The sun goes through cycles as other planets have warmed as well. I also know and man can change weather - I worked for a man who did it and now is with homeland security.
There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument:
1.Not all planets are warming - some are cooling
2.The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
3.There are explanations for why other planets are warming
Not all planets in the solar system are warming. Only 6 planets or moons out of the 100+ bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001)
On Mars there has been an increase in dust in the atmosphere. Modelling of the Martian atmosphere shows that dust is the likely cause of the warming. However modelling has shown that dust in the atmosphere of Earth is not a prime cause for our global warming, but we can see that in both cases, on Earth and on Mars, the atmosphere is responsible.
The heat capacitance of the oceans outstrips that of the air. Whilst air temperatures have dropped, ocean temperatures have increased. The total stored energy in the combination of the oceans and atmosphere has continued to increase.
The "cool cycle" is illusory. In any event, your "cool cycle" has ended, as this year both ocean and air temps are rising.
The video does not support your assertion of global cooling. The Modeling of the climate system does not effect measured temperatures in anyway. The difference in heat capacity between air and water is well known science and can easily be looked up on the web.
Jiminiflix, You should have a look at the debate between Ian Plimer and Monbiot. In particular watch how Plimer tries to evade the question with respect to Plimer's claim, that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes
Monbiot is a reporter, not a scientist. The issue Plimer makes very clear and showin scientific method illustrates to evidence of cooling over 4500 years. Why are we worried about a half degree change when we know the earths climate never stays the same - it deviates in cylcles. Al Gore said that by the end of 2009 ALL ice would be melted in antarctica and nasa has said the ice has infact grown 25%- WTF? I wouldn't trust Monbiot hes a rude nobody.
[1) Co2 is not made only by man and is a natural output of breathing and keeps all plantlife alive]
If you're attempting to argue that CO2 can't cause global warming because its good for plants; that's rediculous. It would be analogous to arguing that babies can't drown in swimming pools because we need to drink water to survive.
If not, why did you bother making this comment? Nobody has argued that CO2 is not required for plants, nor that it doesn't occur naturally.
[2)Co2 is heavier than air and so therefore does not ... make a canopy]
The higher you go, the thinner the air and the lower the temperature. This results in the upper atmosphere emitting very little infrared radiation. Your point is inconsequential at best. The global warming greenhouse effect is not analogous to the way a green house works. The term, to some extent, has been inaptly chosen. So never you worry about high altitude samples.
So what are you going to say if you finally found out warming has happened throughout the whole solar system, including Mars. Are you going to blame the Martians for farting?
@MARSTVCHANNEL asks "Are you going to blame the Martians for farting?"
Since we have now passed peak oil you may want to consider bottling it, instead. Last year included the hottest global twelve month period, so yes the Earth is warming up. At least one planet in the solar system is warming up and that at a time when we are going through a solar minimum.
That's complete nonsense, and now you know it. Stop reading the glossy popular science magazines! Those are for entertainment. Why do you think those exist? To inform us? Here's what they are for: To make money & the more the better as we live in a society where it is mandatory for companies to make effort to increase profits continuously.What better way then to keep the myth going that it has never been so hot,all the while we're moving tons of snow for months on end for the third year in a row
@MARSTVCHANNEL said, "we're moving tons of snow for months on end"
One of the coldest places on the planet, the center of Greenland, has a very low snowfall. So cold temperatures do not necessarily lead to increased snowfall. A main factor affecting snowfall is the amount of moisture in the atmosphere. Global warming increases the rate of evaporation. It is a known fact that increased temperatures ironically lead to increased rainfall and snowfall.
[4) The Copehagen treaty is NOT about Global warming- ITS A SCAM]
Because in your opinion, global warming does not exist, you have come to the conclusion, that the Copenhagen talks can't be about correcting global warming. Alas, poor Yorick! This has allowed you to follow some really weird political conspiracy theories.
Its all a scam. It political BS at its finest. Its purely a money chain for many industries and and a scam for the poorer nations. The rich will get richer and the poor will be made to carry the burden. It will slow growth in developing nations and will NOT slow down CO2 emissions, because buying credits will palm the problem onto someone else. If a poorer developing nation has no other option but burning coal or wood, they will to live. They idea is absurd and unnessessary
I agree, it is "all a scam". It reminds me when I was young, and the cigarette companies had employed doctors and scientists to call to tell us that smoking did not cause cancer. Now we have oil and coal companies employing scientists and journalists to promote the story that global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. It's Deja Vu.
Jim it is not your fault, your being conned by professionals.
I'm sorry you've been conned. You been told the solution is taxation and that co2 is the cause and the false premise to tax us for. You've been conned into believing this isn't about money and politics and about the profiteers in the oil industries that want any excuse to raise their prices and so the world government can have their continuous income stream to suck dry the poorer nations to develope armies and technoloies to depopulate the unwanted. Al Gore is a money man, a con artist.
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,"
The observed reduction in the northern ice cap is greater than most of the models predict. It has been reducing both in area and thickness.
"nasa has said the ice has infact grown 25%- WTF?"
Antarctic land ice has been decreasing. This is adding to the rise in sea level.
Sea ice however has increased due to ocean stratification. This is not an indication of Global cooling. The overall antartic sea temperatures have been increasing. The sea ice does not effect sea level, so the overall effect of the changes in antarctic ice is to increase the sea level around the globe.
"we had a medieval warming of 400 years, temperatures were much, much higher, we didn't have industry, we didn't have super-high sea levels".
Any five year old child can tell you that if you put an iceblock out in the Sun it melts. Not having superhigh sea levels tells us that despite being a journalist, Monbiot is right when he quotes the science:
"science shows unequivocally that it is warmer today than at any of those periods that he (Plimer) mentions"
You're really just accusing Monbiot of being rude because he was being a journalist. What a journalist, being a journalist? He was determined to hold Plimer accountable for his fabricated claims. Plimer tried to duck and weave his way out of answering the question. Even calling Monbiot "rude" was part of the dodge. Plimer could have elected to answer the question but we both know why he didn't.
Gareth Renowden's latest post on Monckton: Unprompted, Monckton told us he is now "working on what may prove to be a cure for HIV," but provided no further explanation or comment.
SpotWeld: I get the wierd impression that Monckton is trying to create a new definition of "cured" that will essentially mean "they were never sick in the first place, and I can proove it by flipping this graph upside-down"
This was a parody on Monchton's claim that there has not been any Global warming in the last 15 years, not withstanding the facts that, 1998 was the hottest year on record, and 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record.
Mockton is 1 man. There are 30000 scientists sueing Al HORE at the moment for all the lies he's made a 100 million dollars on. I would say this IF there is any doubt why the FUCK would you believe the answer is to tax the shit out the already taxed nations (that are already on the verge of hyperinflation)- why do the few scientists left keep standin on the lies to push the Copenhaen Treaty? Hot weather is NOT evidence of a permanent man made temperature change made by Co2 (made by ocean).
"a simple cell is more complex ... with assumptions is unscientific."
Correction. A simple cell is simple, a complex cell is complex. Scientific experiments have shown that simple cells can self assemble; that is RNA or DNA in a lipid membrane. An experiment is not an assumption. To think that a simple cell is complex is an assumption. Got it!
Rubbish do some study on the complexity of a simple cell. It is not in any way 'simple'. That sounds like what early darwinian teachers used to say only because they couldn't see yet through technology small enough. There is amazing complexity of design and the detail is reater the smaller you go. How do you explain what even drives a cell to reproduce? How does the immense libraries of information in DNA just happen? Maybe, just Maybe God is real?
Todays cells are the product of 3.7 billion years of evolution. Those cells started out simple but evolved. It is posible for man to design things and optimize those designs for which he has very little knowledge; provided he uses the trial and error technique. Reproduction with copying errors combined with natural selection is similar to trial and error.
Evolution is often the product of random mutations followed by natural selection. Whilst the mutations are random, natural selection is not. Overall evolution produces the illusion of ID without the need of an intelligent designer. Evolution punches above its weight. Human design using trial and error, allows the human designer to produce designs that we don't fully understand. The design of the first plane involved spanning areas where we lacked knowledge; yet by trail & error we did it.
That is ridiculous. Take a look at your hands. Your telling me they are a result of nil intellience? Your brain is a result of nil intelligence? Think about that. No plane got off the ground without intelligence - now compare that to the flight of an eagle that can out perform any man made aeroplane- from standing to flying with long range eyesight to catch its prey. With lightweight and highly streamlined body with feathers that are so perfect, and grow on the bird ( that is a fricken wonder!)
I'm sure thats true, man copied nature but what did nature copy? Nature doesn't "tinker" it follows laws as set out at its beginning ( and haven't changed) Life was made to carry and support life, to multiply, to endure to live by a God designed instinct and for a purpose to both glorify God and to support mankind.The complexity of nature, environments and ecosytems illustrate the design in nature.80 -20?? Are these your figures? LOL DO you believe what your saying?
-thanks you've just admitted my point, no need to quivel over whether it's 80% or 20%.
"but what did nature copy?"
-Nothing it didn't need to.
"Nature ... follows laws as set out at its beginning"
-Natural law is very different to legal law. A photon does not say to itself, 'I had better be careful, I'm exceeding the speed of light. I need to watch out for the cosmic policeman'
Perfect for what? If feathers are so perfect for flight, why don't the pterosaurs, bats, and insects have feathers? Birds having evolved from feathered dinosaurs, had feathers, but all those flying animals that didn't to begin with, don't. Evolution tinkers with what is already there.
Again another transitive verb used for evolution. Nothing without a brain, imagination or the slightest amount of creativity can "tinker". Evolution is not a thought,idea, plan,or a concept, its nothing but if anything an accident, a dead nothing, souless and lifeless. It is a concept OF imagination though.
"Evolution is not a thought,idea, plan,or a concept"
-Yes, it is not; it's a process that tinkers with what it has.
Tinkers: "2. To manipulate unskillfully or experimentally" - free online dictionary
How does it manipulate? Through random mutations.
What is the result is the result of the experiment? Natural selection results in some changes, having a greater probability of copying and propagating themselves than others.
This is a dodge to the question: why bats don't have feathers?
"tinkering" is only done by an intellient being. SHow me an example of tinkering in evolution please. NAtural selection is no doubt within nature. Survival of the fittest is true, but all species I believe have always had the mechanisms and the abilities to defend themselves from creation. You know mutations end in either sterility or death. Why don't bats have feathers? I don't know why. And you have a 50 million year old fossils "apparently" that show they havent changed.
If thats true what could the bacteria possibly evolve into because of their resistance? What? I have also heard this fact spoken of as proof of evolution yet has their been an increase in resistance- is it continuing to increase so much so that there is obvious change in a bacteria that it wants to move in another direction ( ie not being a bacteria?)
Are you calling benefitial mutations adaptations, and harmful mutations, mutations so that you can deny evolution whilst at the same time claim that there are no such things as benefitial mutations?
If so, isn't this a varient of a ventriloquist's act.
I don't see why something in nature is evolving because its able to overcome a man introduced anti biotic. I say that that shows bacteria are more adaptable than we understand. Its a built in survival mechanism but not proof of evolution occurring.
how do you know thats an evolutionary change. Its seems they already had the ability to adapt, not that they evolved into a higher grade of bacteria, it s a survival trait so they can live on. Did they change into a different lifeform?
Well if you look at a duck- they repell water. The down and feathers keep the bird warm. They are streamline and light.
They are extremely strong and under a microscope show design in shape with micro hooks. They are part of the bird and grow back if damaged.Birds are a wonder to watch fly and their complexity is astounding. They read earths magnetic field for directional purposes and they learn to evrything by instict as God made it. Nothing about life on earth is accidental.
We all know that birds have feathers and that birds also have certain abilities and attributes. However to assert that God made them, is first to assume that a god exists then to assume that this thing you call god has the ability to make birds. And finally that this thing is motivated into action. Yet a simpler explanations exist; one that matches observations.
1. Do you see design or miraculous results of accidental coincidences?
2. What is simpler and more mathematically possible- a/ Life was set up miraculously ONCE at its beginning with order to reproduce according to kinds or b/ MILLIONS of miraculous genetically impossible random events causing a labyrynth of genetic information and as a result over millions of years and trillions of deaths and trial and error creatures along the way ,life has eminated in its glory a purposeless existance.
In both questions 1 and 2 you have set up a false dicotomy.
When you see events causing "trillions of deaths and trial and error creatures ..." I do, the majority of species, that have lived, have gone extinct.
evolution takes millions of years for a change to occur in a species , by the - time its about to change what are the chances the species is alive anymore?I believe the earth had much more life and over time has died out due to mans population increases and other issues. Its another reason why I believe in a youn earth.
"what are the chances the species is alive anymore?"
Once a species is adapted to a niche in the environment, its chances of survival are good. If the environment changes, stress is placed on the species. This then becomes the driving force for evolutionary change. Either the species adapts to the change or it becomes extinct. When a man takes antibiotics, he is changing the environment, as seen by the bacteria. Those that survive get to pass on their genes; the resistant genes win out.
Also I think that comment you made is unscientific in every way. Here is my point- if life is a result of random accidents- how can something without intellience or under the control of intellience learn what right and wrong is or what is good or bad? Without those survival insticts nothing could progress but you need intelligence to start with ( the capability to learn). How is life as it is ( well designed) if there apparently was no blueprint or purpose for it all anyway?
Did the car come to Henry Ford and say I want you to make me? Did Alexander Graham Bell need no intellience at all to create the telephone? How could anything man has made come about without intellience and the God given gift of creativity. Nothing can be accomplished without imagination or forethought or a design, a plan of some kind before something exists. So creation around us was a planned event- God spoke life into being- from the mouth of the creator- Yeshua Yahweh- Almighty God.
The only evidence that we have for intelligent design in this universe are those things designed by man. We could conclude that if something is designed it was designed by man. Did the car make Henry Ford? Did the telephone make Alexander Bell? We can note that certain classes of objects form naturally, such as H2O. Asserting that God makes things is just an assumption.
Btw jim im still in shock at what you said in your message.. dinosaurs were on noahs ark? jeez.
IMONAMADTING1 1 week ago
@IMONAMADTING1 Yes they would have been on Noahs Ark. You know they were not called dinosaurs then and the Bible talks about them. God made all life.Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. Dinosaur is a modern term. Hostorically there are many books and pottery that prove man has lived with dinosaurs. watch?v=fskiSFfFUxw&feature=related
jiminiflix 6 days ago
Jesus was nailed to the cross because the Romans were fed up of him preaching his lies and deceit. Not for 'sins' lol
IMONAMADTING1 1 week ago
The bigger the scare, the more magazines sold! Same formula goes for anything else, just replace 'bigger', 'scare' and 'magazines' with other fitting words etc.
MARSTVCHANNEL 1 year ago
We are moving into a marxist/ communist future. Lets look at what the GOVERNMENT is buying up and owning with out taxes. Everything is subject to a global agenda including science and hence "ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES". These are used just for political leverage- but are promises kept? Obama gets a peace prize- why? HE is one image of the New World Order- Yet the TRUTH - he justifies sending 30,000 more men to war. SEE the HYPOCRACY! They SAY PEACE, and not do it, they SAY ENVIRONMENT and get CONTROL!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
[We are moving into a marxist/ communist future]
Actually no. The idea of the ETS is to allow the MARKET to set its own price on the cost of emitting CO2 into the atmospher. If a company wants to emit a tonne of CO2 they have to have a greenhouse permit. The government simply sets the total number of national permits which limits the total amount of pollution permitted.
RasPesher 2 years ago
[SEE the HYPOCRACY! They SAY PEACE, and not do it, they SAY ENVIRONMENT and get CONTROL!]
I can see that you are rather emotionally attached to your position. Let me say this though: Obama does some things that I personally agree with, and some that I don't, but as an Australian, it is not really my concern to get overly worked up about his domestic policies. That being said, America's carbon footprint is my concern just as it is for all nation's footprints.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Raspesher do you understand the seriousness of the times? We are as a world in the revealing of the greatest deception in history. The deception is the the government and its medias premise that this world needs to be saved and helped and 'government ' is the only answer. We are deluded by this issue as if the sky will fall if our saviour BO and the UN and IMF and WB ( The NWO) will save the day. As we bow down and suck their cock WE have to pay them for the mere privelage eat,fart and work!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
First things first. Great video, very well done. Secondly. Why is anyone discussing anything with an evolutionist? They are seeking God, they don't know it, but it burns in them, they want someone to answer every last mentally retarded argument they have been exposed to. Their suppliers cannot get passed the cell, why take the discussion any further than that. No cell, no life as we know it. They can't get past the basics so they throw out every last thing they can mix and mash together.
goffnett 2 years ago
Give the evolutionist every non living substance on the face of the earth, let them take as long as they want. They will never get life. They are the chiefs of fools, not only claiming there is no designer, but confident in their mind to say they can figure out the beginnings of life. Somebody get them a straight jacket and keep them away from the children.
goffnett 2 years ago
"get them a straight jacket and keep them away from the children"
So you would kidnap children. You, goffnet, are an example of pure evil. It's yet another example of religion poisoning the well.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Goffnet - "They will never get life"
How could you ever claim to know that? Not only do you believe in an omniscient God but you also claim omniscience. Which one is the "chief of fools"?
RasPesher 2 years ago
"No cell, no life as we know it"
It is a mistake to think that the first cell would be similar to the highly evolved cells that we see today. Dr David Deamer has demonstrated that a simple cell can self assemble. No God, however, has ever been shown to be able to produce even the most primative of cells. The creationist has no basis whatsoever to make snide and arrogant remarks considering the quality, or lack thereof, of their own arguments.
RasPesher 2 years ago
RasPesher, I don't want to seem demeaning at all but thats all just too amazing and incredably imaginative. You speak as if species can change so easily as if there is nothing in place to protect their own survival. Can scientist cross species - no. Is it possible - no. therefore evolution is a dream and not science. Species were made by God to reproduce after their kind, as they do today in nature. You won't find species mating with another different species. IT A FACT!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"... to reproduce after their kind"
Leaving God out of the equation and ignoring the lack of a proper definition of kind, this is a good example of ancient man making observations and drawing an inference.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus feet were nailed to a cross. You might want to correct that in the video.
RasPesher 2 years ago
ok that seems correct thanks.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Yes, it may sound trivial but the fact that Jesus feet were not injured, is important, when we consider why he was able to walk out of the tomb. The greek NT does not use the word "resurrection". This is an English substitution for the greek word "anastasis" meaning to stand up, or the Greek word "egersis" means to arouse (as from a sleep) and to stand up. After Jesus revived from his crucifixion ordeal he woke up, stood up and walked out of the tomb. Hence the empty tomb!
RasPesher 2 years ago
If Jesus didn't have a resurrected body , made alive again and miraculously healed but still with scars, forget the scars in his feet he was whipped 39 times with a cat of 9 tails. His guts would have been almost falling out with no skin on his back. He had 4 inch thorns smashed around his skull and a spear pushed in his side. They beat him- his bruises alone would incapacitate a man. He was the lamb slain for the sins of the world. He the Son of God did that for you and me! God is love.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"healed but still with scars"
This is evidence of natural recovery.
"he was whipped 39 times with a cat of 9 tails"
I've reads that the fundamentalist Christians are rewriting the bible. If this is a prelude, it seems that they've gone down the mad Max route, here!
RasPesher 2 years ago
I googled "Fundamentalists rewrite the bible" and found the following quotes:
"What the 'Conservative Bible Project' is doing is not translating the bible. It is rewriting the bible to make it say what they want it to say, without regard for what it actually says. These people, who insist that every word of their holy texts must be taken as absolute literal truth without interpretation -- are rewriting their bibles to make it say what they want it to say."
Wow!
RasPesher 2 years ago
Just study the word and refer to the original Hebrew and Greek. I don't agree with changing any scripture.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Whilst it says, in the earliest Greek versions of the Gospels, "Jesus son of the Father" (Aramaic: barabbas) scourged "Jesus called Christ" the bible does not say that he whipped him 39 times. Do we even know which Jesus is which? Some think, that the Jesus that was scourged, was not the true Jesus; hence "called Christ", not "Christ".
RasPesher 2 years ago
"He designed earth to be sustainable for life"
What is the purpose of the planets that don't sustain life? Most don't. It seems to me that if you randomly made planets some would be in the zone suitable for life and others wouldn't. Where is the design in that?
RasPesher 2 years ago
What is their purpose....? Well thats a question that needs to be better defined. How you define purpose depends on your oppinion of what somethings purpose must be. I personally care about what God calls 'purpose'. For example HE says in His Word that His people have a purpose " We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose." Rom 8:28
Gods creation reveals His wonders to us all that we are without excuse.
Rom 1:20.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
So you are saying that God made planets that do not sustain life and CAN NOT be seen, to "reveal" his wonders to us. I'm at a loss as to how something that can't be seen in any way by the average person, can reveal anything.
RasPesher 2 years ago
The whole of creation I believe is for God's glory and for us, his people, to both enjoy and abide with God in. Everything in the universe, as large as it is- is to show that we are without excuse by saying "there is no God". Man wants to try and define how and when man evolved in an acidental environment but I believe life is more than man can define and so I find it easy to believe the evidence of Gods creation proves Gods existence as it lines up in everyway to biblical scripture.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"The whole of creation I believe is for God's glory .."
..but we are not talking about the whole of the universe, just the bits that are too small to see. It is also a stretch to think that there is a magic man in the sky that makes universes. There is no evidence to support the assertions of the writings of ancient desert nomads about the existence of a god; not to forget that you can't even understand the text.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Can you comprehend this " If you could fold a piece of .1mm papar 64 times (doubling its thickness) it would make a distance equivalent to the diameter of the universe. If you were the size of a carbon atom how would you percieve an apple? You on the other hand are a carbon atom looking at the universe but God isnot He is everywhere and all-knowing and all seeing. YOu cannot comprehend God because you are of this dimension and just flesh. IF you were in Gods dimension (outside time) spirit -yes
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"If you were the size of a carbon atom how would you percieve an apple?"
Not all questions that can be asked are valid questions. Single Carbon atoms do not have the ability to percieve, so asking 'how' it perceives is not valid.
RasPesher 2 years ago
if you were the" size" of one...
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"You on the other hand are a carbon atom .."
In context you were talking about more than just the "size" of one...
RasPesher 2 years ago
"if you were the "size" of one ..."
The answer is simple. If I was the size of a carbon atom, an apple would appear big. What was your point in asking that question?
RasPesher 2 years ago
I was trying to demonstrate that God is so much more than your mind can understand. You are like an atom looking at an apple (the earth). God though isn't just the orchid, He is eternally beyond all around the orchid. Yet God dwells in His people, those that seek HIm and love HIm and accept His love, His salvation through Jesus Christ.He isn't limited by dimension, time or space. God is also not a force but and intelligent all knowing deity, able to love , able to have a relationship with us.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"He is everywhere and ... IF you were in Gods dimension (outside time)"
Is God everywhere or is he outside time?
RasPesher 2 years ago
If you existed 200 years ago and I told you some day we'll have radio or a telephone or a television and they work by invisible signals travlelling through the air- how could you convieve that? The brain emits signals and its a fact a human body is lighter after it is dead- so the soul/ spirit has weight.Youa re spirit being in a body with a mind- with the freedom to choose your destiny. But you may choose to not believe because you want there to be no God. Remember ;a fool says there is no God.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"...its a fact a human body is lighter after it is dead"
Unfortunately this "fact" is the result of a hoax. You have been fooled.
200 years ago a radio or TV would have seemed supernatural, yet today we have a natural explanation for their operation. God is only the term we give to the things we can't understand today. Historically man has never gone from a natural explanation for something, to a supernatural explanation. Perhaps in time the supernatural will totally disappear.
RasPesher 2 years ago
dude your living in a daydream. I understand your point - you can't see air but you breath it and it keeps you alive, so does my faith and I can't explain to you how I know God is real I just know. That will never change.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
dude, faith does not "keep you alive". Let go of your faith and you'll find that you will still be alive. I am certainly alive, without need for the faith to which you refer. However I'm sure that you will throw this fact out, so-as to maintain the dream.
RasPesher 2 years ago
You KNOW what your saying is just your opinion. You are trying to tell me I am wrong but you have nothing but your oppinion. I will never be able to "let go of my faith"- as that is my rock and one day when all you trust in is blown away in the wind, I will not be moved. God will not leave me nor forsake me. Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world. No weapon formed against me shall prosper. WHat can separate me from the love of God- nothing- not death - nothing
jiminiflix 2 years ago
The fact that I am alive is more than just my opinion. You're just trying to be argumentive, or you lived through the sixties, and took far too many drugs.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"..the evidence of Gods creation proves Gods existence"
God can only have a creation if God exists. In otherwords your proof is of the form that 'if God exists, then God exists'. You have just proven your assumption based on your assumption.
RasPesher 2 years ago
God is both eternal and everywhere present
jiminiflix 2 years ago
You know what -its not assumption but faith based on truth according to Gods Word. YOu may not believe Gods Word, but the evidence of its truth is through applying its truth, living its truth and observing its truth around us. God is not an impersonal force or religion in a stone building - but someone that is so gracious and loving to all who by faith open their hearts to Him. He is the Heavenly Father who gave His only Son Jesus Christ ( Yeshua) to die for your sins. He is the Way,Truth& Life.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
You used the word "truth" six times in the post to which I'm responding.
Usually people that are telling the "truth" don't need to claim to be telling the truth. Criminals tend to claim that they are telling the truth to cover for their lies.
Why do you, need to claim to be, telling the "truth"?
RasPesher 2 years ago
I claim only that God's word is truth and that only.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
If God's word was true, then you would not need to claim six times that it was.
RasPesher 2 years ago
IT is true and that is why I say it is true. Truelly!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
No you don't. You are not aware of your own motivation. You say its "true" because YOU KNOW that your message is unlikely to be believed. Your supporting evidence and arguments are weak, and deep down you know it.
RasPesher 2 years ago
My belief is my business and your questioning me for making this video that simply shows the complexity of Gods design. I say the word is truth because I know it is- thats all - I can't prove it- to know God is a personal experience. He opened my eyes. If my arguments are weak, thats ok- you can think that- I have talked with probably a hundred people like you on You Tube and i have never heard a factual piece of evidence for evolution or against God. Science is not evolution its imaginary.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
evolution is imaginary
jiminiflix 2 years ago
I'm not doubting your belief, only your ability to know yourself.
The usual ID argument is complexity complexity, the ear, complexity complexity, the eye, complexity complexity, the phlagellum, complexity complexity.
Wouldn't you expect an intelligent designer to come up with an elegant yet simple design. An argument from complexity is a weak argument, and deep down you know it.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"i have never heard a factual piece of evidence for evolution"
Actually you have, its just that with faith you reject the facts. Faith is not just a process of filling in the gaps in human knowledge with beliefs. It's also an active process that is used to reject facts.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Can you see evolution happenning in your life and the people around you. Are the trees and the animals changing? You should after millions of years be seeing animals in part morphis phases and why are we seeing evolution repeating early process like fish tryin to become land dwellers? SOund weird- but thats what you believe happenned millions of years ago. Its so easy to say over 'millions of years' life but its not scientifically testable or observable. Its illogical to say its factual.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Newer methods of radiometric dating can not only measure the age of igneous rocks but also screen for contamination or leeching of minerals in the sample. We can be confident of the results.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Fish are not trying to become land dwellers. What they are trying to do, is to eek out an existance and survive. Coming onto land is no longer a winning strategy. There is already too much competition for a badly adapted fish species to slot into, on dry land. The tetrapod (an early fish-like land dweller) has gone extinct; extinct because it has been out competed.
RasPesher 2 years ago
When that first 'fish' went from water to land- how did it breath before it had fully evolved lungs(Which must have taken millions of years)accordin to your theory , what did it eat, grass? How could it without a correct digestive system? IF it survived, what did it mate with?. How did it IF it survived ,KNOW how to survive or where to find shelter? WHere did its insticts come from? How did it have intelligence at all? If it had intellience wouldn't stay in the water to survive?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"how did it breath before it had fully evolved lungs(Which must have taken millions of years)accordin to your theory"
365 million years ago fish already had lungs. In fact 400 million years ago fish had lungs. Lungs were not developed for life on land but for life in the oceans. Lungs can be more efficient than gills for extracting oxygen. A fish fleeing another fish found that skipping out of the water allowed it to take a gulp of air and hence take in an efficient supply of oxygen. oxygen
RasPesher 2 years ago
jiminiflix, Have you ever hiccupped? The noise produced is made by the glottis. The nerve firing sequence that controls the glottis is a throughback to our fishy past. The glottis and nerve firing sequence was used to shunt air into the swim bladder/lungs of early air breathing fish. Your own body contains a relic of your fishy past.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"did it eat, grass? How could it without a correct digestive system"
There are water grasses so some fish already had the ability to digest grass. The first fish to go onto land were those that had previously lived in the shallow water near the land. They would have already been able to use insects as a food source. The digestive system was not a problem.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Other relics:
1) Not only do we have a tail bone but we also have DNA in our genome that if expressed would produce a number of tail vertabrae.
2)Tiktaalik, the first fish to have bones in its fins, had a neck. This neck has been passed on from generation to generation, right down to us.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"what did it mate with?"
If it was male it would have mated with a female. If it was female it would have mated with a male. They really should give sex education lessons to fundies!
RasPesher 2 years ago
So you believe both evolved at the same time. WHat are the chances?- how did male and female come about anyway by chance? How is it possible for all information of all life to have been a gradual INCREASE in new information? This bein ALL life- rass, trees, bird, fish, donkeys, alephants, zebras, and humans- we all came froma cell- thats amazin and with no forethought or design. Thats science!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"you believe both evolved at the same time. WHat are the chances?- how did male and female come about"
If your question is about human evolution then the chances are 100% because males and females had already evolved over half a billion years ago. If you go back the the first haploid gametes that started to sexually reproduce over half a billion years ago, the sexes were not differentiated. ie the sperm and egg were identical.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"a gradual INCREASE in new information?"
Mutation is the source of new information. Duplication of sections of DNA adds to the chromosome length. Further point mutations to these slabs of code allows for new information to emerge in the genome.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Ring species:
Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Ring species part 2:
One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Ring Species part 3:
Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Ring Species part 4:
An example of a ring species is the Ensatina Salamander. It is spread out around the San Joaquin Valley in California. Adjacent groups of the Salimander can interbreed but where the groups meet up again at the end of the valley there are two species that cannot interbreed. What we have, is the evolution event of a new species, but one where all the intermediates have survived too.
RasPesher 2 years ago
I think this shows how natural variations in species occurs. This isn't proof a species can change to another but a natural occurance where populations and family lines diverge by geographic boundaries and so you have different looking variations of species just as mankind has developed over 6000 years. Races have happenned that very way through segregation and population growth occuring. People mate with people like themselves which I see as a human instinct put there by God.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"This isn't proof a species can change to another"
I beg to differ. At the very least it's proof of concept. When you get two groups of salamander living in the same area that cannot interbreed, is that not equivalent to saying that they are two different species?
RasPesher 2 years ago
Are they not still salamanders?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Are they not different "kinds" of Salimanders - they cannot interbreed? And they were also brought forth after their kind till they became a different "kind".
RasPesher 2 years ago
If a population of humans ( that could breed amongst themselves) got to the stage where they could not interbreed with other humans, that would be speciation.
RasPesher 2 years ago
The proof we are from a man and a woman (adam and eve) is we can interbreed globally- we are one species. I believe there no transient species becoming man.
Was Neanderthal a man or a different species? Ofcourse you believe it was a different species- but what happenned to Neanderthal man? If his species dissapeared it must have died out as species don't change into new species. So whether you believe the human fossil record is real or fake- its meaningless to join them together.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"I believe there no transient species becoming man"
You're wrong. Markers in the DNA show family trees. Markers in the DNA get passed on from parent to sibling from generation to generation. We share a number of markers with the Chimps. We share a lesser number with Gorillas. Conclusion: both chimps and gorillas are in our family tree. Gorillas are more distant relatives.
RasPesher 2 years ago
But we are miles apart, we are different species. And scientists don't aree with you, IF we did evolve, we did not branch off after monkets and gorillas, but totally on our own from a very early monkey not even discovered yet.Why hav'nt gorillas evolved - because they are gorillas as God made them. They always have been gorillas. Man has always been man and God created them to multiply. Life can only come from life. Humans can only come from humans. Simply really.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Why hav'nt gorillas evolved"
Just as we no longer look like our last common ancestor with the Gorilla, neither does the Gorilla. The Gorilla has evolved for just as long as we have, since then.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"we are different species"
I think I need to point something out to you. I'm a male and you're a male. The fact that we can't breed does not make us a different species. You need to get one of your parents, to give you a talk about the birds and bees.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"People mate with people like themselves which I see as a human instinct put there by God."
I certainly didn't. I'm a male and I mated with someone who was, unlike me, a female. It worked for me. That God of yours is a bit mixed up.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Your a joke.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
It it was a half a billion years, how do you know it wasn't a trillion years, how can you best guess it? You couldn't uess the lottery numbers so how can you accurately date 1/2 a billion years? Its assumption NOT science- its not testable or observable. ALso you paint the complexity of a cell as simple- microscopic life is so complex we are still learning . Just a simple cell is more complex than all computers combined. To water down the complexity of life with assumptions is unscientific.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"it was a half a billion years"
You have misquoted me. I said it was "over" half a billion years. In the context of my comment it does not matter if it was half a billion years or a trillion years; its a bloody long time. But if you want to be a pedant, look up my previous comments to you, concerning the oldest fossilised evidence we have of sexual reproduction. re - 570 million year old ropy sea creature fossils.
RasPesher 2 years ago
..and by saying oldest fossilised evidence, it means that sexual reproduction started 570 million years ago OR BEFORE. If you want to learn about the evidence listen to the "Are we Alone" podcast "Sex: From Beginning to End" 5th Jan 2009. Google, podcast ropy sea creature seti, to find it.
RasPesher 2 years ago
No way can man date accurately that far. Tell me why there are so many examples of many million year old fossils that are no different to today. You are not related to a sea creature and neither is a cow or a dog or even a whale. Each belong to there own kind & would not be able to change into a new species. Natural changes in populations only occur within 'kinds". Like canines or horses - we breed them but they cannot interbreed with other species - we know this as fact
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"You are not related to a sea creature and neither is a cow or a dog or even a whale"
Please, can you tell me more about these "whales" that are "not related to sea creatures"?
RasPesher 2 years ago
Why some species remain morphologically stable:
The environment drives evolutionary change. A species that lives in an unchanging environment will at first adapt to that environment, then once adapted, its form, will remain relatively stable. Those lobe finned fish that remained in deep water have changed little to this day, but those that moved into new environments have changed so much that they have brought forth every land animal other than insects (that I can think of).
RasPesher 2 years ago
"Each belong to there own kind & would not be able to change into a new species"
Why wouldn't they? It has been demonstrated that Salamanders can change so what is stopping cows and dogs?
RasPesher 2 years ago
You say they change - but they are still salamanders. Why they don't mix is maybe a mystery but they are still salamanders. This is not evidence of evolution but natural selection ( which is not evolution)
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Why they don't mix is maybe a mystery but they are still salamanders"
Times are tough! You just can't find a god that's true to his word these days.
RasPesher 2 years ago
For an randomly evolved species you should know better than to say your intelligent enough to know where he came from. If you claim to know then evolution has no purpose anymore because theres nothing more to evolve into - man has reached his potential and now he is on the verge of nuking himself to death. Out of 4 billlion years we live for a blink of an eye and destroy the earth. Evolution monster is unhappy! Oh but the evolution monster is blind, dumb, deaf and incapable of caring anyway!
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Evolution monster is unhappy"
You are anthropromorphising a natural process. But you are right in one sense. The process that brought us here is not going to save us from ourselves. It doesn't care. Some people say, "save the Earth", but the Earth does not need saving. It is going to be OK. It's only the life forms on the Earth that are in danger from global warming and pollution.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Well in 20 years when everything is the same we will be told its only because of the lowering of Co2 even though the only way to lower it by 4o would be to stop all economic activity FOR 20 YEARS! . GW is a lie- purely a political scandal for world control through sanctions and treaties to bow 1st to 3rd world nations to a one world order. The scientists behind this are accoutable for the lies. Al Gore is a deceptive weasel, con man and political tyrant. This 'science' only smells like money.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"This 'science' only smells like money"
-You do realise that many of the climate skeptics were on the payroll of the oil companies and may well still be.
"purely a political scandal for world control"
-Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me
"Al Gore is a deceptive weasel, con man and political tyrant"
-This is only an ad hominem attack. Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with whether there is global warming or not.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Global warming is the fear factor spread by the media to smokescreen the people from what they are truly signing treaties about. Its not about 'global warming'. Do you really believe the trillionaires who own the world corporations, who own the banks as well are going to pay taxes on pollution they make?They are pretending so as to be seen doin the "right thing" but have we forgotten how industry has steered wars leaders for their own gain?.These men wipe their asses with science.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Global warming is the fear factor spread by the media.."
-Wow what a conspiracy. The problem with this arguement is that I can directly experience the temperature myself. I do not need to rely on the media. In August the temperatures here in Sydney averaged 3 C above the average. On one day the temperatures reached 28 C on the coast. It was so warm that I went to the beach almost every day in August, yet it was meant to be winter. The temperatures that we experience are not a conspiracy.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Well that may be true for a short spell but the actual data shows the earth is in a cool cycle- its cooling. In Geelong I can tell you its no different. We have had a ten year drought yet this year we have had more rain in the country areas than ever before. Temp never are "NORMAL" and CO2 is NOT to blame for global warming. The sun goes through cycles as other planets have warmed as well. I also know and man can change weather - I worked for a man who did it and now is with homeland security.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument:
1.Not all planets are warming - some are cooling
2.The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
3.There are explanations for why other planets are warming
Not all planets in the solar system are warming. Only 6 planets or moons out of the 100+ bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001)
RasPesher 2 years ago
On Mars there has been an increase in dust in the atmosphere. Modelling of the Martian atmosphere shows that dust is the likely cause of the warming. However modelling has shown that dust in the atmosphere of Earth is not a prime cause for our global warming, but we can see that in both cases, on Earth and on Mars, the atmosphere is responsible.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"actual data shows the earth is in a cool cycle"
The heat capacitance of the oceans outstrips that of the air. Whilst air temperatures have dropped, ocean temperatures have increased. The total stored energy in the combination of the oceans and atmosphere has continued to increase.
The "cool cycle" is illusory. In any event, your "cool cycle" has ended, as this year both ocean and air temps are rising.
RasPesher 2 years ago
watch?v=QHQYm9lY1Y8
jiminiflix 2 years ago
jiminiflix,
The video does not support your assertion of global cooling. The Modeling of the climate system does not effect measured temperatures in anyway. The difference in heat capacity between air and water is well known science and can easily be looked up on the web.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Jiminiflix, You should have a look at the debate between Ian Plimer and Monbiot. In particular watch how Plimer tries to evade the question with respect to Plimer's claim, that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes
RasPesher 2 years ago
Monbiot is a reporter, not a scientist. The issue Plimer makes very clear and showin scientific method illustrates to evidence of cooling over 4500 years. Why are we worried about a half degree change when we know the earths climate never stays the same - it deviates in cylcles. Al Gore said that by the end of 2009 ALL ice would be melted in antarctica and nasa has said the ice has infact grown 25%- WTF? I wouldn't trust Monbiot hes a rude nobody.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Why are we worried about a half degree change when we know the earths climate ... deviates in cylcles"
1)Global warming due to CO2 emissions is not a cycle.
2)An average rise in the world's temperature of 0.7 C will increase the temperature at the poles by up to 2.8 C.
3)Most of the Iand bound ice is nearer to the poles.
4)When melted, the sea level increases most near the equator.
5)Most of the world's population lives within a meter of sea level.
Does this not worry you?
RasPesher 2 years ago
1) Co2 is not made only by man and is a natural output of breathing and keeps all plantlife alive.
2) Co2 is heavier than air and so therefore does not rise into our atmosphere and make a canopy. High altitude samples have proven that .
3). If global warming is happenning due to polar shift thats different and serious.
4) The Copehagen treaty is NOT about Global warming- ITS A SCAM nations must surrender sovereinty to a new world government WTFU!
5) MAn made Gw does not. Pollution yes.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
[1) Co2 is not made only by man and is a natural output of breathing and keeps all plantlife alive]
If you're attempting to argue that CO2 can't cause global warming because its good for plants; that's rediculous. It would be analogous to arguing that babies can't drown in swimming pools because we need to drink water to survive.
If not, why did you bother making this comment? Nobody has argued that CO2 is not required for plants, nor that it doesn't occur naturally.
RasPesher 2 years ago
[2)Co2 is heavier than air and so therefore does not ... make a canopy]
The higher you go, the thinner the air and the lower the temperature. This results in the upper atmosphere emitting very little infrared radiation. Your point is inconsequential at best. The global warming greenhouse effect is not analogous to the way a green house works. The term, to some extent, has been inaptly chosen. So never you worry about high altitude samples.
RasPesher 2 years ago
[3)If global warming is happenning due to polar shift thats different and serious]
Yes, we'd be in deep shit, but luckily it's not. Because global warming is man made, it's in our power, to do something about it.
RasPesher 2 years ago
@RasPesher
So what are you going to say if you finally found out warming has happened throughout the whole solar system, including Mars. Are you going to blame the Martians for farting?
MARSTVCHANNEL 1 year ago
@MARSTVCHANNEL asks "Are you going to blame the Martians for farting?"
Since we have now passed peak oil you may want to consider bottling it, instead. Last year included the hottest global twelve month period, so yes the Earth is warming up. At least one planet in the solar system is warming up and that at a time when we are going through a solar minimum.
RasPesher 1 year ago
That's complete nonsense, and now you know it. Stop reading the glossy popular science magazines! Those are for entertainment. Why do you think those exist? To inform us? Here's what they are for: To make money & the more the better as we live in a society where it is mandatory for companies to make effort to increase profits continuously.What better way then to keep the myth going that it has never been so hot,all the while we're moving tons of snow for months on end for the third year in a row
MARSTVCHANNEL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MARSTVCHANNEL said, "we're moving tons of snow for months on end"
One of the coldest places on the planet, the center of Greenland, has a very low snowfall. So cold temperatures do not necessarily lead to increased snowfall. A main factor affecting snowfall is the amount of moisture in the atmosphere. Global warming increases the rate of evaporation. It is a known fact that increased temperatures ironically lead to increased rainfall and snowfall.
RasPesher 1 year ago
[4) The Copehagen treaty is NOT about Global warming- ITS A SCAM]
Because in your opinion, global warming does not exist, you have come to the conclusion, that the Copenhagen talks can't be about correcting global warming. Alas, poor Yorick! This has allowed you to follow some really weird political conspiracy theories.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Its all a scam. It political BS at its finest. Its purely a money chain for many industries and and a scam for the poorer nations. The rich will get richer and the poor will be made to carry the burden. It will slow growth in developing nations and will NOT slow down CO2 emissions, because buying credits will palm the problem onto someone else. If a poorer developing nation has no other option but burning coal or wood, they will to live. They idea is absurd and unnessessary
jiminiflix 2 years ago
I agree, it is "all a scam". It reminds me when I was young, and the cigarette companies had employed doctors and scientists to call to tell us that smoking did not cause cancer. Now we have oil and coal companies employing scientists and journalists to promote the story that global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. It's Deja Vu.
Jim it is not your fault, your being conned by professionals.
RasPesher 2 years ago
I'm sorry you've been conned. You been told the solution is taxation and that co2 is the cause and the false premise to tax us for. You've been conned into believing this isn't about money and politics and about the profiteers in the oil industries that want any excuse to raise their prices and so the world government can have their continuous income stream to suck dry the poorer nations to develope armies and technoloies to depopulate the unwanted. Al Gore is a money man, a con artist.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
[5) MAn made Gw does not. Pollution yes]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you rephrase the sentence?
RasPesher 2 years ago
What Al Gore actually said:
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,"
The observed reduction in the northern ice cap is greater than most of the models predict. It has been reducing both in area and thickness.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"nasa has said the ice has infact grown 25%- WTF?"
Antarctic land ice has been decreasing. This is adding to the rise in sea level.
Sea ice however has increased due to ocean stratification. This is not an indication of Global cooling. The overall antartic sea temperatures have been increasing. The sea ice does not effect sea level, so the overall effect of the changes in antarctic ice is to increase the sea level around the globe.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Plimer would have us believe that:
"we had a medieval warming of 400 years, temperatures were much, much higher, we didn't have industry, we didn't have super-high sea levels".
Any five year old child can tell you that if you put an iceblock out in the Sun it melts. Not having superhigh sea levels tells us that despite being a journalist, Monbiot is right when he quotes the science:
"science shows unequivocally that it is warmer today than at any of those periods that he (Plimer) mentions"
RasPesher 2 years ago
"I wouldn't trust Monbiot hes a rude nobody"
You're really just accusing Monbiot of being rude because he was being a journalist. What a journalist, being a journalist? He was determined to hold Plimer accountable for his fabricated claims. Plimer tried to duck and weave his way out of answering the question. Even calling Monbiot "rude" was part of the dodge. Plimer could have elected to answer the question but we both know why he didn't.
RasPesher 2 years ago
When the climate skeptic, Plimer, uses fabricated evidence; that is not the "scientific method". That was at the heart of Monbiots question.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"Monbiot is a reporter, not a scientist"
Neither is your favourite climate skeptic, Monckton; his qualifications are in journalism. Isn't this an example of hypocracy?
RasPesher 2 years ago
Is Mockton beyond parody?
Gareth Renowden's latest post on Monckton: Unprompted, Monckton told us he is now "working on what may prove to be a cure for HIV," but provided no further explanation or comment.
SpotWeld: I get the wierd impression that Monckton is trying to create a new definition of "cured" that will essentially mean "they were never sick in the first place, and I can proove it by flipping this graph upside-down"
RasPesher 2 years ago
This was a parody on Monchton's claim that there has not been any Global warming in the last 15 years, not withstanding the facts that, 1998 was the hottest year on record, and 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Mockton is 1 man. There are 30000 scientists sueing Al HORE at the moment for all the lies he's made a 100 million dollars on. I would say this IF there is any doubt why the FUCK would you believe the answer is to tax the shit out the already taxed nations (that are already on the verge of hyperinflation)- why do the few scientists left keep standin on the lies to push the Copenhaen Treaty? Hot weather is NOT evidence of a permanent man made temperature change made by Co2 (made by ocean).
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Google the following to find the science behind Al's movie:
"Does Al Gore get the science right in the movie An Inconvenient Truth?"
In particular the web site explains how we know that CO2 can act as a driver of global warming.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"a simple cell is more complex ... with assumptions is unscientific."
Correction. A simple cell is simple, a complex cell is complex. Scientific experiments have shown that simple cells can self assemble; that is RNA or DNA in a lipid membrane. An experiment is not an assumption. To think that a simple cell is complex is an assumption. Got it!
RasPesher 2 years ago
Rubbish do some study on the complexity of a simple cell. It is not in any way 'simple'. That sounds like what early darwinian teachers used to say only because they couldn't see yet through technology small enough. There is amazing complexity of design and the detail is reater the smaller you go. How do you explain what even drives a cell to reproduce? How does the immense libraries of information in DNA just happen? Maybe, just Maybe God is real?
Man could never make a 'simple' cell.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Todays cells are the product of 3.7 billion years of evolution. Those cells started out simple but evolved. It is posible for man to design things and optimize those designs for which he has very little knowledge; provided he uses the trial and error technique. Reproduction with copying errors combined with natural selection is similar to trial and error.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Yes because we have intellience- evolution is random not with intelligence. Take intellience away and you have a mess - nothing.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Evolution is often the product of random mutations followed by natural selection. Whilst the mutations are random, natural selection is not. Overall evolution produces the illusion of ID without the need of an intelligent designer. Evolution punches above its weight. Human design using trial and error, allows the human designer to produce designs that we don't fully understand. The design of the first plane involved spanning areas where we lacked knowledge; yet by trail & error we did it.
RasPesher 2 years ago
ie The idea that a designer needs to have more knowledge than the thing that he is designing is a false assumption.
RasPesher 2 years ago
That is ridiculous. Take a look at your hands. Your telling me they are a result of nil intellience? Your brain is a result of nil intelligence? Think about that. No plane got off the ground without intelligence - now compare that to the flight of an eagle that can out perform any man made aeroplane- from standing to flying with long range eyesight to catch its prey. With lightweight and highly streamlined body with feathers that are so perfect, and grow on the bird ( that is a fricken wonder!)
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"No plane got off the ground without intelligence"
80% of the design of the plane came from copying nature. The other 20% came from man's tinkering, and trial and error.
RasPesher 2 years ago
I'm sure thats true, man copied nature but what did nature copy? Nature doesn't "tinker" it follows laws as set out at its beginning ( and haven't changed) Life was made to carry and support life, to multiply, to endure to live by a God designed instinct and for a purpose to both glorify God and to support mankind.The complexity of nature, environments and ecosytems illustrate the design in nature.80 -20?? Are these your figures? LOL DO you believe what your saying?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"I'm sure thats true, man copied nature"
-thanks you've just admitted my point, no need to quivel over whether it's 80% or 20%.
"but what did nature copy?"
-Nothing it didn't need to.
"Nature ... follows laws as set out at its beginning"
-Natural law is very different to legal law. A photon does not say to itself, 'I had better be careful, I'm exceeding the speed of light. I need to watch out for the cosmic policeman'
RasPesher 2 years ago
"feathers that are so perfect"
Perfect for what? If feathers are so perfect for flight, why don't the pterosaurs, bats, and insects have feathers? Birds having evolved from feathered dinosaurs, had feathers, but all those flying animals that didn't to begin with, don't. Evolution tinkers with what is already there.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"evolution tinkers"
Again another transitive verb used for evolution. Nothing without a brain, imagination or the slightest amount of creativity can "tinker". Evolution is not a thought,idea, plan,or a concept, its nothing but if anything an accident, a dead nothing, souless and lifeless. It is a concept OF imagination though.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Evolution is not a thought,idea, plan,or a concept"
-Yes, it is not; it's a process that tinkers with what it has.
Tinkers: "2. To manipulate unskillfully or experimentally" - free online dictionary
How does it manipulate? Through random mutations.
What is the result is the result of the experiment? Natural selection results in some changes, having a greater probability of copying and propagating themselves than others.
This is a dodge to the question: why bats don't have feathers?
RasPesher 2 years ago
"tinkering" is only done by an intellient being. SHow me an example of tinkering in evolution please. NAtural selection is no doubt within nature. Survival of the fittest is true, but all species I believe have always had the mechanisms and the abilities to defend themselves from creation. You know mutations end in either sterility or death. Why don't bats have feathers? I don't know why. And you have a 50 million year old fossils "apparently" that show they havent changed.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
" 'tinkering' is only done by an intellient being."
That is your assertion. That is up to you to prove. It is not up to me to disprove. Random mutations are an example of the process of tinkering.
RasPesher 2 years ago
"tinker" is the wrong word.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"all species I believe have always had the mechanisms and the abilities to defend themselves from creation"
If so, why have most of the species, that have ever lived, gone exinct?
RasPesher 2 years ago
"It (evolution) is a concept OF imagination though"
Next time you get a bacteria that is antibiotic resistant, just think that it's in your imagination.
RasPesher 2 years ago
If thats true what could the bacteria possibly evolve into because of their resistance? What? I have also heard this fact spoken of as proof of evolution yet has their been an increase in resistance- is it continuing to increase so much so that there is obvious change in a bacteria that it wants to move in another direction ( ie not being a bacteria?)
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"yet has their been an increase in resistance"
Yes, antibiotic resistant means that there has been an increase in resistance to antibiotics.
RasPesher 2 years ago
and so what?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Jiminiflix,
Are you calling benefitial mutations adaptations, and harmful mutations, mutations so that you can deny evolution whilst at the same time claim that there are no such things as benefitial mutations?
If so, isn't this a varient of a ventriloquist's act.
RasPesher 2 years ago
I don't see why something in nature is evolving because its able to overcome a man introduced anti biotic. I say that that shows bacteria are more adaptable than we understand. Its a built in survival mechanism but not proof of evolution occurring.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Its a built in survival mechanism but not proof of evolution occurring"
That mechanism that you say is "more adaptable than we understand" is the process of evolution. Some people do understand, so where is the problem?
RasPesher 2 years ago
how do you know thats an evolutionary change. Its seems they already had the ability to adapt, not that they evolved into a higher grade of bacteria, it s a survival trait so they can live on. Did they change into a different lifeform?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"not that they evolved into a higher grade of bacteria"
Technically a antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria is a higher grade. We can find viruses that can modify to cross the species barrier.
HIV came from SIV. When it moved across, at first, it evolved rapidly so as to evade the human immune system.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Well if you look at a duck- they repell water. The down and feathers keep the bird warm. They are streamline and light.
They are extremely strong and under a microscope show design in shape with micro hooks. They are part of the bird and grow back if damaged.Birds are a wonder to watch fly and their complexity is astounding. They read earths magnetic field for directional purposes and they learn to evrything by instict as God made it. Nothing about life on earth is accidental.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
We all know that birds have feathers and that birds also have certain abilities and attributes. However to assert that God made them, is first to assume that a god exists then to assume that this thing you call god has the ability to make birds. And finally that this thing is motivated into action. Yet a simpler explanations exist; one that matches observations.
RasPesher 2 years ago
1. Do you see design or miraculous results of accidental coincidences?
2. What is simpler and more mathematically possible- a/ Life was set up miraculously ONCE at its beginning with order to reproduce according to kinds or b/ MILLIONS of miraculous genetically impossible random events causing a labyrynth of genetic information and as a result over millions of years and trillions of deaths and trial and error creatures along the way ,life has eminated in its glory a purposeless existance.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
In both questions 1 and 2 you have set up a false dicotomy.
When you see events causing "trillions of deaths and trial and error creatures ..." I do, the majority of species, that have lived, have gone extinct.
RasPesher 2 years ago
evolution takes millions of years for a change to occur in a species , by the - time its about to change what are the chances the species is alive anymore?I believe the earth had much more life and over time has died out due to mans population increases and other issues. Its another reason why I believe in a youn earth.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"what are the chances the species is alive anymore?"
Once a species is adapted to a niche in the environment, its chances of survival are good. If the environment changes, stress is placed on the species. This then becomes the driving force for evolutionary change. Either the species adapts to the change or it becomes extinct. When a man takes antibiotics, he is changing the environment, as seen by the bacteria. Those that survive get to pass on their genes; the resistant genes win out.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Also I think that comment you made is unscientific in every way. Here is my point- if life is a result of random accidents- how can something without intellience or under the control of intellience learn what right and wrong is or what is good or bad? Without those survival insticts nothing could progress but you need intelligence to start with ( the capability to learn). How is life as it is ( well designed) if there apparently was no blueprint or purpose for it all anyway?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Did the car come to Henry Ford and say I want you to make me? Did Alexander Graham Bell need no intellience at all to create the telephone? How could anything man has made come about without intellience and the God given gift of creativity. Nothing can be accomplished without imagination or forethought or a design, a plan of some kind before something exists. So creation around us was a planned event- God spoke life into being- from the mouth of the creator- Yeshua Yahweh- Almighty God.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
The only evidence that we have for intelligent design in this universe are those things designed by man. We could conclude that if something is designed it was designed by man. Did the car make Henry Ford? Did the telephone make Alexander Bell? We can note that certain classes of objects form naturally, such as H2O. Asserting that God makes things is just an assumption.
RasPesher 2 years ago