It's really sad to see how many people commenting on this thread go to the extremes of denying science, especially in the area of Evolution, which is now firmly established. Its the same with theist thinking of Cosmology. Just with the speed of light, we know the universe is billions of yrs old, not thousands.
These people deny what we know about our world simply bcuz it conflicts with their ancient religious beliefs. They're the same as the churchmen who refused to look thru Galileo's telescope
I respect your research but contrary to belief, evolution does not state that we came from apes but we branched off from the same ancestry more than 9 million years ago with a fossil that is called Sahelanthropus and was discovered in Africa.
I like how people here think being an atheist makes them appear smarter and instead of considering all theories like a true scientist they disregard what they don't hear by corrupt politicians.
@TheSumandas All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
Look people ... believe what you want .... but be consistent please.
If you believe in religion and not science don't "cherry-pick" the science you accept, just pray ... if I need a doctor it'll be nice to know the queue will be shorter because you are praying for a cure instead.
More than likely you "cherry-pick" the religious dogma you accept too.
@SearchBucket You are confusing the FREE GIFT of God by faith in Jesus Christ with the religions of the world. Creationists are very interested in REAL science, not science fiction (evolution).
@BereanBeacon1 This talk debates the evolution argument in respect of the fossil record ... put all that aside .... the DNA evidence is all that is needed to make evolution a fact ... a REAL science as you put it
@BereanBeacon1@BereanBeacon1 Creationists don't believe what they do because of REAL SCIENCE, but because of what the holy book of whatever their religion says. Don't tell me that if the book said that the world was created billions of years ago, that species evolved, & the Darwin found out the opposite, you'd believe him.
@SearchBucket Please try and stay with real science and stop using the religion straw man. Medicine is REAL science unless you have decided to use a voodoo doctor which is equivalent to evolution.
@SearchBucket DNA was discovered and examined using real science and has nothing to do with the evolutionary processes that requires more faith then I have.
@BereanBeacon1 Evolution MUST happen .... It is statistically impossible for generation after generation to reproduce without minute changes .... and those minute changes are subject to the process of natural selection to determine which genes survive. Like it or not YOU share vaste majority of YOUR DNA with apes.
DNA maps the transistions and landmarks .... no other evidence is needed .... its a "QED"
No doubt you believe in Santa Claus too .... equally probable by your standard of belief
This man either has no knowledge of Evolution, or is just lying thru his teeth!
He actually said there's no evidence for evolution, yet we have, in light of recent fossil discoveries, a beautiful display of land mammals transitioning into whales!
What links these transitional forms & demonstrates their evolution is the changing of the ear structure & nostril locations, from land to sea! This is firmly established now, as I said, with recent fossil discoveries.
Evolution is not science?? Then why is Biology, Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals etc. dependent on it? Why r there hundreds of scientific peer reviewed articles on Evolution?
Please answer my questions of how Creation explains Atavistic dna and Vestigial organs, if we were all created fully formed?
Are u asking why I said the biblical god is a mass murderer who has a penchant for killing children? Why he advocated slavery & Misogyny? Bcuz it's true! Would u like verses....in context?
@Cootabux Those methods are depended on Evolution because its the agenda thats depended on it. Go research evolution it has its roots in Germany and Hitler used evolution as an excuse to murder millions of Jews, pols, gays, and others. Its not science.
Wow, u all just eat it up by the truckload!! You are full of shit!!!
This whole Hitler/Darwin thing is perpetrated by Creationist lies!
If you learn anything, try to understand that these so called Christians, lie thru their teeth. They rely on people like you who will rely on them filling your heads with crap
Look at ur answer to me when I tried to explain why different scientific disciplines are dependent on Evolution! That tells me how bad off u r.
@Cootabux And people like eat up everything the media, the universities, and the elites tell you whats the difference? I know some people lie and cheat and take advantage but I choose to follow the greater messege of Jesus Christ and what he did for us.
What I tried to convey to u, is that for example, Pharmaceutical technologies depend on Evolution being accurate...correct. If it weren't, they drug companies would not be able to manufacture their drugs chemically. They depend directly on Evolutionary principles. If Evolution weren't true, then their chemical processes wouldn't work!! It's just that simple.
I'm sorry if you're offended at having common ancestry with apes. Sometimes people have to just grow up & take it like an adult.
@Cootabux You people have to understand that evolution is still just a theory and has not been proven yet. We all just go with this theory because it's what we are taught in school. Religion actually doesn't have that much to do with creationism because religion implies eternal truth while science is based on observations that are subject to change. I'm not saying im creationist but just keep an open mind
U said; "You people have to understand that evolution is still just a theory and has not been proven yet"
Obviously you don't know what a scientific theory is! It doesn't mean it's a hunch or a guess. A S. Theory is made up of a number observable facts, which together support the premise of the theory. The T. of Evol.is just as valid as the Germ Theory, the Atomic Theory, or the theory of gravity. A theory is never proven bcuz it's a never ending study, but that doesn't mean
the Theory of Evolution hasn't explained itself to us! Variation over time in species takes place, & over a long enough period we see speciation.
There are thousands of transitional fossil forms, but even if we didn't have the fossil record, genetics alone proves Evolution. We've made some extraordinary advances in genetics over the past 20 yrs.
Change? Yes, but not overturned. Science is always seeking new info., but Evolution is well established.
I was a Xian for a half century. Do you know how I became an atheist? I decided to read the bible from front to back. both OT & NT, the early church, a number of the Codices, & the Ugaritic Texts (The last subject blows Judaism completely out of the water.).
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is...what they say is true. If you want to turn a Xian into an atheist, just have him read the bible!!
@MelvinThe42 Wow. hahaha you both are arguing over a stupid point! Evolution and Creationism are both science! Science isn't based in fact but on evidence that is subject to change and over the years both theories have changed and been modified based on current observations of biology and geography
"Evolution and Creationism are both science! Science isn't based in fact but on evidence"
Creationism isn't science. It isn't supported by demonstrable evidence. This is why Creationism has no peer reviewed papers in science journals
Creationism also is not a Scientific Theory 4 basically the same reasons just stated.
Yes there's been changes in the T. of Evol. bucz of new data being uncovered all the time, & it always supports the T.of Evolution. Creat. is not supported by evidence
@greendaygew There is no evidence that supports creationism or that contradicts evolution. There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution and subsequently contradicts creationism.
I'd like to ask this genius to explain how Creation would cause us (man) to have atavistic dna. Humans grow tails in the early embryonic stage. Then the tails are reabsorbed. That's bcuz the dna 4 tails is from our common ancestry with apes/monkeys. And btw, some humans continue to develop tails & today there are about 100 people who have tails. I'm not talking about a fleshy appendage but tails with vertebrae w/ muscle & tendons.
We also have vestigial organs, i.e. Nictitating eye membranes.
@Cootabux Contrary to belief we aren't from apes at all. We just had a common ancestry some 9 million years ago and that's the point when humans and primates separated into groups. The last known ancestor is call Sahelanthropus found in Africa if you want to look it up. Us forming tails is likely due to the fact that our DNA's replication went wrong when we were forming as zygotes due to lack of length of our DNA's telomeres
Evolution doesn't claim we come from apes. We share a common ancestry with them. Monkeys, apes, and our primate lineage, all followed separate branches on the PhylogeneticTree. And btw, we "are apes! We're just more modern in our branch of evolution
Tails sometimes occur in us bcuz of atavistic dna, remnants from a much earlier period when we needed them. I point them out to theists as just another piece of evidence demonstrating our Evolution. Same with Vestigial organs.
You people have really got to be more careful about who you set up as your spokesman. This guys ignorance about everything he's trying to discuss makes you and him look like fools. A 16 yr old biology student has more grasp of the simple concepts falling through Duane's fingers. Do some real research!
Believe it or not, this guy is probably among the brightest of them. Picking a spokesman among the creationists is like looking for a functioning car in a garbage heap.
I like the way Gish just boldly lies too. Animals all appeared fully formed, with no transitional forms? LOL, give me a break. Even nutty evolution critics like David Berlinski have admitted that there are transitional forms. Animals do not all just "appear suddenly." Life on earth appeared billions of years ago, where as primates appear 10's of millions of years ago, and humans appear 100,000's of years ago, with plenty of transitional forms predating the first humans.
What you need to do, is continue to argue that "evolutionism" is an "atheist religion", and no transitional fossils exists. You also need to find a whole bunch of quotes from "evolutionary scientists," taken out of context, against evolution, and then post them in all caps. That's usually what real creanderthals do. Oh, and make sure you favorite a whole bunch of Kent Hovind videos, just in case someone sees your channel. Creanderthals LOVE idiots like Kent Hovind.
@mcshundess Another mindless Evolutionist here flaming and showing his ignorance. Dr. Gish is absolutly correct in regard to the fossil record in that it shows support for evolution other than the ones MADE UP and lied about by evolutionists.
I'm giving you the initial quantity. In order to understand how contamination is tested for, and the how the 'assumptions' about initial quantity can be tested, you have to understand the basic equations in the first place. This is step one, solve the equation. It should be easy since you're so much smarter than the scientists who developed the method, and who use it all over the world to piece together Earth's rich and vast natural history.
@thebig1 Why do you deny our animal heritage? Why do you deny that nature chose us through billions of years to grant us the gift of self awareness? We are apes, a highly intelgent species of ape.
@Symos If you choose to believe we came from apes thats your problem. I choose to believe I was created by God with Hopes, Dreams, abilities, and a destiny that was put into affect long before I was able to understand it. Nothing can create something...science can't do that but God can Create us and he did.
@thebig1 To be eternally bent knee before a monster, that's no destiny. To rise from the earth to master the universe, that is a destiny. Our destiny. You wish to remain a slave, that is your choice, but do not teach truth for lies, and lies for truth, for it is an abomonation.
@Symos Its an abomonation to who...GOD? I thought you didn't believe in a higher power? Furthurmore you are the typical evolutionist moron. You say God is Evil, GOD is mean, God is this and that. A God who dies on the cross and only requires you to believe in him to saved is not a monster. This " Evil " God came down to earth and setup a new covenant between him and mankind. The deal was all men would have the free will to decide whom they would serve. God or Satan...Heaven or Hell!!!!!
LOL, you're obviously trolling. You're doing OK, but I can tell you're not a real creanderthal. I like the spelling errors in your last comment:
"Its an abomonation to who...GOD? I thought you didn't believe in a higher power? Furthurmore you are the typical evolutionist moron."
That was pretty funny, and typical of a creanderthal. But I'm still not convinced. Real creanderthals don't actually talk about God and Jesus that much, they know humans don't take it seriously.
@thebig1 We are the higher power, we are the highest power in the known universe. You continue to deny that which exists such as evidence for evolution to support that which does not exist, your "lord and savour". Does the thought of being the product of natural selection on a cruel and unforgivng world and chosen to survive really scare you. Does it really comfort you to be the so called "product" of a creator who will burn you for the actions of 2 people you never met?
@Symos I don't have to worry about burning because I believe in him and serve him. Furthuremore I'm not a " product " but a creation with a unigue destiny. If you choose to believe you come from an ape thats your sad life not mine.
Tell me, how do u look at yourself in the mirror every day, after admitting that you have submitted to an evil tyrannical monster you call god?
If u r talking about the Xian god, then you're telling us that it doesn't bother you 1 bit that the Xian god was a mass murderer, who advocated slavery & misogyny! For anyone to be at ease for worshiping and serving an evil being who would create a hell, then send other sentient beings there, u must have lost your human decency & morals!
@rehzon Difference between you and I is I don't pretend to know. Saying "god did it" and leaving it at that isn't knowledge. You don't wanna beleive, fine, don't stop the rest of us trying to find out for sure.
I agree. Science would seem to support intelligence/purpose behind every living thing being here though. Evolution..everything by chance/luck. Everything
forming in the ocean from some soup (or whatever they say) goes against
@rehzon The process of natural selection through survival and reproduction is the opposite of random - it is specific ; if an organism fulfills the two goals of surviving long enough, and eventually reproducing, it's genetes are entered into the next generation. Failure on either goal means the organism's genetic make-up dies with it and any mutations that set it apart from siblings and the parent population are selected against.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.
You really expect that creanderthal (neoverse) to respond with an answer? LOL, he's probably needing a diaper change right about now. AnswersinGenesis can't help him with that one. Crooked scientists corrupted by religion can provide these fanatics with a small arsenal of arguments to repeat, but when it comes down to it, the sheep have NO IDEA whether or not the nonsense they're repeating is actually tenable.
Someone gave GoodScienceForYou a similar problem, since he's always making smug assertions about science. You're absolutely right about the creationists-sheep dynamic. Creationists don't understand that there isn't any doubt about evolution, the age of the earth, etc. WITHIN the scientific community. Creationists simply flock to the handful of zealots who have enough scientific qualifications to cast doubt in the minds of the scientifically illiterate.
@Jesussucksfagdick you expect anyone to take a jerk wit ha screen name like your serious, how pathetic can people be, you have reached a new low for Jesus haters
BIG HINT, since the nature of radiometric decay is described by the differential equation y=k(dy/dx), solve it, and don't forget the constant of integration.
@adkinsjr So how much C14 are we ASSUMING was there before we begin your equation? Yes I said ASSUMING. There is no possible way to know how much was there to begin with. The argument is not about how the math works, the argument is about ASSUMPTION. This is what you can't seem to wrap your mind around.
The problem is that you're just regurgitating the nonsense you've read off of creationist websites, without understanding any of it, or knowing whether or not the information truly reflects what's in the scientific literature. Can you honestly tell me approximately of how many meteoric samples have been tested to determine the age of the earth? Which isotopes were used? How many different isotopes have yielded an age of 4.5 billion years?
@adkinsjr You accuse him of spouting off creationist " talking points " yet you do the same thing with Evolutionist talking points. There is no evidence in the fossil record for Evolution NOT A SHRED. These creationists that you say are spouting off bible points...I HEAR NO BIBLE points all I hear is him and others talking about science in regard to biology, zoology, and others. Wake up and research both sides you might be surprised.
This man needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the archives of any major fossil collection. The 32 orders do not appear at the same time in the fossil record.
He is either willfully ignorant of the vast number of amphibian-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians (some present today) or he is lying (bearing false witness).
How did this guy get a doctorate? (shame on UCLA) How does anyone honor it?
Viruses are not alive. Viruses don't produce other viruses; a virus ruptures the cell membrane or wall and inserts its DNA into the cell. As a result, the cell reproduces as a viral version of itself.
To answer the claim that viruses prove nothing: Viral activity could be used to prove Lynn Margolis' endosymbiotic theory, which works within the evolutionary framework
"Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). "
First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24).
Really good example of an opinion bollstered by intellectual dishonesty .......science does its part by filling in the holes and accepting its own burden of proof by testing , studying documenting and fullfilling perdictions .. where is the intellectual rigor and study to offer proof of god??? the "faithful" point at gaps in science and call them proof of god. if religion is trying so hard to push science aside then wHy does religion itself try to use science AS proof of god??
@neoverse . My qualification is history. BA(Hons). I am not a biologist. However that doesnt mean that I am ignorant of evolution. Not to the degree of Duane Gish. I understand the scientific process and know why theories are tested and scrutinized. Duane Gish should know better since he is learned in this subject
@neoverse What would suffice as an example. I could use thousands of different models. I can HIV as an example. It mutating is one of the reasons why its so difficult to find a cure.Theres an example of evolution of virus. DNA is able to trace back the genetic line of humans right back to the less than ten thousand of our species who populated the earth and of who we are their direct descendants. Now tell me, how do you test for God?
@philster61 What test did you perform? Viruses adapt they don't evolve. Species of the different types of animals adapt they don't evolve into other types. Show one example of a type changing into another type. Show a fossil that proves it had an offspring different than it's self. There are none examples, none have been observed. Evolution cannot be tested, it is impossible.
@neoverse "Show one example of a type changing into another type" Types dont change" into another type overnight into another species.Changes occur over a long long time
.But hey if you wanna google "Tiktalik" theres an example of a "transitional species" if you wanna join the Kirk Cameron fan club. Then your half way there.
and you havent answered my question. How do you test for God? And you havent answered my question. How do you test for God.
@philster61 I never claimed I could test for God. But my religion isn't being force fed to students is it.
That's just an extinct fish. What does that prove? It proves nothing but it's a dead extinct fish. Coelacanth was suppose to be extinct also, If I were you I think I'd wait a while before jumping on the Tiktalik bandwagon.
@neoverse "But my religion isn't being force fed to students is it."
Not unless you live in the southern part of the US it normally isńt. And since there are more churches per head of population in the bible belt than in most other countries in the western world I think that the idea of getting away from a religious upbringing would be next to impossible.
And as for the "tiktalik Bandwagon" You wanted an example. There it is.
@philster61 What proof do you have of any religion being taught in a public school, that's an obvious opinion with no facts to back it up but you toss it out like it's a fact.
Do you propose that you have some kind of authority to decide if people should even learn a religion? As for any bones you toss out on the table for proof of evolution, it cannot be proof of anything but a dead and/or extinct animal.
@neoverse Of coarse your religion being forced down people throats . and what does any of that have to do with a rhetorical question that is much deserved. " where is your proof of god?" you never claimed to prove gods existence...great. nobody is saying you did. answer the question.
Demanding instant answers followed by selective ignorance when none are provided is a clear sign that" faith" can transcend and trump anything that can t be proven in a couple hunderd crumby words on youtubeLOL
are you a scientist? are you an evolutionary biologist? your question isn t easily answered or solved instantaniously on youtube as you would like it to be. its like admitting that if an answr takes time , study and pragmatism, than It doesn t count because its too complicated and not easily understood ,like the idea of religion. to assume evolution is as easily explained away like the idea of god is ridicules and shows a true lack of subtlety towards the efforts of science.
@neoverse Can you prove that it can never be proven in an unlimited amount of time? Prove something never happened sir. And time is the crutch you count on as an uncertainty to fill in something many orders of magnitude more unlikely than evo. (god and its existance) which is quit entertaining. lets get down to it . you believe in God and you are a creationist, right??
@thegliphic Millions of years have never been observed. Evo has never been observed. What does my belief have to do with you not being able to prove the millions of years to back up your theories?
@neoverse WOW! sweet straw-man argument ! I don t have theories . never claimed to have any . never put any forth.
actually your belief has alot to do with what YOU decide is unproveable . isn t your belief something that gives your opinion its subject matter.?? especially if u have a religious agenda.There are things I believe . scientific consensus is one . but what does that have to do with u avoiding the question.? answering a question with a question is the dumbing down of a debate.
@thegliphic LOL@strawman, your started building a straw man when you asked me about my belief. Why would I need an agenda to point out that no one has ever observed millions of years? How can I prove something didn't happen if no one was there to observe it? Are you saying "eve" & "bb" are true because no one was there to see it? That's very logical of you Spoc.
@neoverse you don t need an agenda to point out an answer to a question a 5 year old could answer. off coarse nobody was physically there to observe millions of years of evo. no shit . is that it as far as what you are putting forth for an essentially vacuous argument. ?? " nobody was there to see millions of years happen so... therefore.........." what? what is your postion?? to just deny everything? its very easy to deny everything. an Idiots errand. what is your alternative theory????
@thegliphic The only reason a 5 year old could answer an "evo" question is because they start brainwashing in preschool. Other than that he would ignore you or give you a strange look. And the difference between denying all this "evo" crap and believing everything your heroes tell your is? My theory? It was all created by God, it didn't create it's, only an idiot would believe the universe created it's self out of nothing. And anyone who believes in "bb" theory believes exactly that.
@neoverse what is your def. of "brainwashing "here? teaching something that has been studied since Darwin that best explains our origins ?? just because you can t percieve it possible for the universe to be created from something you don t understand or bother to understand doesn t give you any intellectual credibility scientificly . thats a logical fallcy dick head. Argument from personal incredulity. which is basiclly like saying you are to stupid to bother . lol . lots of luck.
@neoverse I don t have any heros when it comes to the study of our existence . Science doesn t work like that. Heros are personal icons to which we attribute vicariousness via light hearted envy. What the fuck does a hero have to do with a scientific consensus ??
and who is saying that :" we were all created out of nothing"...? nobody is. another straw man. idiot! you don t even know what science is actually saying! idiot! you just fill in the gaps with your own stupidity/god . lots of luck
@thegliphic Are you telling me that just because a bunch of men agree on something it becomes fact? It is not a straw man, try again. Do you think time and space was just here with no cause? LOL, you resorted to criticism a lot faster than thought you would. So you deny what 'bb" theory, well that's a start.
@neoverse you obviously have zero grasp of science and its process. why do u feel u even have an argument??? I want to answer your first question but then i think : never argue with a fool because nobody will know the difference. Buddy your best argument so far : LOL
did i say space time was therewith no cause? no . you wish i did ...another strawman you halfwit. u r easy criticize because u offer nothing in terms of a worthy argument. what did you expect ? praise?
@thegliphic Are we suppose to take your word for your opinion of what I grasp and what I don't based on your self diluted proclamation of intelligence? Do you have anything to say that is relevant? Criticism and half baked logic is not an argument.
I haven t made made any proclamations as to what I perceive as intelligence. I m just hinting at your general antics ,which i regard are ,a blatant representation of your level if intelligence. There is a difference. If you actually put forth any worthy subject matter rather than just posting short bursts of vacuous rhetoric , I might feel A subject is necessary . Do you have a question or are you waiting to stand of the shoulders of giants? what business do u have with evo?
@neoverse how is a asking question building a strawman argument.? a straw man is an erronious assumption based off ignorance that one uses to accuse the other of arguing for . I hate when debates turn into me educating somebody. You don t know what a strawman . I'm fine with that.
Pretty general statement you are making . nice and safe. Science does its best to observe millions of years . its the best thing we have to look at our past. name one thing that better documents our past than science.
No one's ever observed 'millions of years.'? You're a moron, we don't need to observe an event to deduce that it happened. It's called radiometric dating. It completely shatters the young-earth implied by the nursery rhymes in the bible.
@JohnEdwardIAF Radiometric dating is a load of crap. it doesn't disprove anything. It's all based the assumption that things were in a particular condition so called millions of years ago. There is no way to know for sure except to guess(theorize).
LOL, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what it's about? It has nothing to do with viruses evolving, idiot. They're talking about provirus-containing LOCI in a genome. An ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a SINGLE INTEGRATION EVENT. Read and weep, bible freaks.
@JohnEdwardIAF Read and weep what? LOL you can't really believe any of that stuff in your article is anything more than speculation. I would weep if anyone thinks that is some kind of evidence for 'eve" seriously.
WTF? Explain to me how it's speculation, and what points are incorrect? Is the math wrong? I challenge you to back to the forum, and post a thread refuting the validity of the methodology used in radiometric dating. Let's see if you can stump the geologists who post in that forum. Have fun, cupcake.
@JohnEdwardIAF Why would you need to prove something doesn't work if it already doesn't work? You challenge me? How about you dispute what Gish is talking about in the video. You can't, you asked me before if I was a troll but you have yet to make any valid argument against this video, so who is the troll? Refute Gish if you can. And we don't want to hear a bunch of speculation and it take millions of unproven years for something to happen.
"You challenge me? How about you dispute what Gish is talking about in the video. "
Run for the hills! LOL, I'm responding to YOUR comments right now, cupcake. Radiometric dating proves the age of the earth. You disagree right? Get your ass over to that forum I linked you to, and explain how the information given is incorrect. Show is were the math is wrong, or which assumptions cannot be verified. Have fun!
"Why would you need to prove something doesn't work if it already doesn't work? "
Um.....because it does work, you fucking idiot! Nice try, but you're not getting out of this that easily. Just go to the forum and explain WHY it doesn't work. Enlighten everybody with your knowledge. It shouldn't be difficult right? LOL, COWARD.
@JohnEdwardIAF Carbon dating is based on an assumption that the atmosphere was already saturated. That's why it doesn't work. Ignore the facts all you like but your just sounding more an more like a child with insults. Grow up, you sound like a 14 yr old. Coward, do tell,
They don't use carbon dating to date the age of the earth, you fucking idiot. LOL, you are really thick aren't you? You obviously don't have the capacity to refute radiometric dating, because you don't even understand how it's used. You think they use carbon dating to date the age of the earth? LMFAO!
@JohnEdwardIAF You have anything to say where you don't sound like a 15 year old punk? You must feel your arguments are so lame that you can't respond with any amount of civility. Try again. All the dating methods are flawed, not my problem if you've been indoctrinated into the evo faith. You haven't once used any kind of intelligible statement to try and refute anything said in this video. Instead you focus on me drawing straw man arguments. So sorry you've been duped by mainstream science.
LOL, obviously you've been indoctrinated by the nursery rhymes in the bible.
"you can't respond with any amount of civility."
Then stop responding to my comments, cupcake. Radiometric dating works and you can't explain why it DOESN'T work. So far you've only humiliated yourself by saying "carbon dating is based on assumptions." LMFAO, carbon dating used to date the earth? You're so funny! Now hurry! Hit that reply button like a good girl so I can have more fun with you.
@JohnEdwardIAF carbon dating aka radiometric dating is based on the assumption that that they know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere. Ignore the facts all you like your just proving to the rest of us that you don't care about real facts, on the ones you can you to spice up your little attempts at criticism.
@neoverse. Since you seem to be an expert in the flaws of radiometric dating, how about you list your credentials and qualifications. Lets see how much you now about this exacting process, which is NOT flawed. It is precise and quite complicated. If the only rebuttal you can offer is "civil conversation" then you deserve to be spoken to like the ignoramus you appear to be. Scientifically illiterate idiots like you deserve the abuse you get out of your sheer stupidity.
Carbon dating DOES not work that way. Radio carbon dating works in a very specific way: it measures the amount of carbon 14 decaying from an organic or non-organic material. Atmospheric saturation has nothing to do with it.
@peasantsoul You have to know how much was there to start with. Therefore they are assuming how much was in the atmosphere based on how much there is today. Anyone with common sense can see the assumptions being made. (1.) they assume how much was there when the animal lived. (2.) they assume the accumulation of carbon 14 has continued at a specific rate. (! & 2 ) Are both assumptions which cannot be proven. Therefore carbon dating is a lie and everyone knows it.
Carbon dating is a lie? LOL, you're a weirdo. Why the fuck would anybody lie about that? In fact, I just read an article about another discovery on Mt. Ararat. It turns out, some of your fellow bible fanatics use carbon dating on the scraps of wood they found.
You obviously just regurgitated the garbage you read off of creationwiki or AIG, without understanding any of it. Since you think you know so much about this, let's see if you're as cowardly as GoodScienceForYou.
Given that lamda=ln(2)/(1/2 life), find the amount in grams after 4,000 years given an initial quantity of 15 grams.
Just like GoodScienceForYou... He makes all these preposterous assertions about the 'flaws' of radiometric dating, yet he doesn't even understand the elementary derivation, which all undergraduate physics students learn. I learned it in calculus II. if you're so much more knowledgeable than the scientific community, then solve the problem I posted.
Oh, and good look trying to find an excuse NOT to post a thread in that forum refuting radiometric dating. i know you're not going to, because you're a fucking idiot, and you and I both know that you will be humiliated if you try to talk science. Have fun, religious idiot.
@JohnEdwardIAF@JohnEdwardIAF Do you think anyone beside someone who bows to the same "evo" worship as you would take any of your comments seriously with all the hatred and childish rhetoric in it? How about some of you people against this video stick to the topic of the video instead of going off on a beaten path of Christian bashing. Or maybe that's above you. Sorry for asking.
Gish is peddling pure lies. In the face of rampant evidence, he is oblivious to any of it. So bent on telling his fairy tale, he can stare at more than 750,000 fossil species of life on this Earth, many that do not resemble modern forms at all, and claim that evolution has not occurred. Priceless.
It's really sad to see how many people commenting on this thread go to the extremes of denying science, especially in the area of Evolution, which is now firmly established. Its the same with theist thinking of Cosmology. Just with the speed of light, we know the universe is billions of yrs old, not thousands.
These people deny what we know about our world simply bcuz it conflicts with their ancient religious beliefs. They're the same as the churchmen who refused to look thru Galileo's telescope
Cootabux 2 months ago
I respect your research but contrary to belief, evolution does not state that we came from apes but we branched off from the same ancestry more than 9 million years ago with a fossil that is called Sahelanthropus and was discovered in Africa.
greendaygew 2 months ago
I like how people here think being an atheist makes them appear smarter and instead of considering all theories like a true scientist they disregard what they don't hear by corrupt politicians.
turtleking9999 4 months ago
This is respected by all
luizfaria010 6 months ago
lunatic man!!!! evolution is fact!!!
TheSumandas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSumandas All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@TheSumandas
Its as much "fact" as unicorns.
Stay in school and read more on this topic.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@TheSumandas Your stupid....technically evolution is a theory and this topic is a big controversy yeah...how about you take AP Biology in school
greendaygew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
Look people ... believe what you want .... but be consistent please.
If you believe in religion and not science don't "cherry-pick" the science you accept, just pray ... if I need a doctor it'll be nice to know the queue will be shorter because you are praying for a cure instead.
More than likely you "cherry-pick" the religious dogma you accept too.
SearchBucket 1 year ago
@SearchBucket You are confusing the FREE GIFT of God by faith in Jesus Christ with the religions of the world. Creationists are very interested in REAL science, not science fiction (evolution).
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 "Creationists are very interested in REAL science ..."
Well, then getting a few papers submitted to some top science journals for objective peer review shouldn't be an issue, should it?
foxhole8063 1 year ago
@foxhole8063 Cluck
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 The only answer I'd expect from you, coward. Keep hiding behind the keyboard where it's safe and let the real scientists do the work.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 4
@BereanBeacon1 This talk debates the evolution argument in respect of the fossil record ... put all that aside .... the DNA evidence is all that is needed to make evolution a fact ... a REAL science as you put it
SearchBucket 1 year ago
Comment removed
MelvinThe42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 @BereanBeacon1 Creationists don't believe what they do because of REAL SCIENCE, but because of what the holy book of whatever their religion says. Don't tell me that if the book said that the world was created billions of years ago, that species evolved, & the Darwin found out the opposite, you'd believe him.
MelvinThe42 1 year ago
Comment removed
MelvinThe42 1 year ago
@SearchBucket Please try and stay with real science and stop using the religion straw man. Medicine is REAL science unless you have decided to use a voodoo doctor which is equivalent to evolution.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 You clearly don't understand the significance of the DNA evidence.
How you can compare evolution with Voodoo is beyond me? ....... Voodoo has as much credibility as religion
SearchBucket 1 year ago
@SearchBucket DNA was discovered and examined using real science and has nothing to do with the evolutionary processes that requires more faith then I have.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 And you miss the point entirely. The genetic record throughout all of biodiversity is only explicable through evolution
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Evolution MUST happen .... It is statistically impossible for generation after generation to reproduce without minute changes .... and those minute changes are subject to the process of natural selection to determine which genes survive. Like it or not YOU share vaste majority of YOUR DNA with apes.
DNA maps the transistions and landmarks .... no other evidence is needed .... its a "QED"
No doubt you believe in Santa Claus too .... equally probable by your standard of belief
SearchBucket 1 year ago 3
Forget the fossil evidence .... the DNA evidence is the clincher ... unknown at the time of this presentation
SearchBucket 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every living thing is a transitional species.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every living thing is a transitional species.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
This man either has no knowledge of Evolution, or is just lying thru his teeth!
He actually said there's no evidence for evolution, yet we have, in light of recent fossil discoveries, a beautiful display of land mammals transitioning into whales!
What links these transitional forms & demonstrates their evolution is the changing of the ear structure & nostril locations, from land to sea! This is firmly established now, as I said, with recent fossil discoveries.
If anyone doubts this, look it up.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux Evolution is not science. Furthuremore what are you talking about in regard to my God being all those things? The Xian God?
thebig1 1 year ago
thebig1
Evolution is not science?? Then why is Biology, Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals etc. dependent on it? Why r there hundreds of scientific peer reviewed articles on Evolution?
Please answer my questions of how Creation explains Atavistic dna and Vestigial organs, if we were all created fully formed?
Are u asking why I said the biblical god is a mass murderer who has a penchant for killing children? Why he advocated slavery & Misogyny? Bcuz it's true! Would u like verses....in context?
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux Those methods are depended on Evolution because its the agenda thats depended on it. Go research evolution it has its roots in Germany and Hitler used evolution as an excuse to murder millions of Jews, pols, gays, and others. Its not science.
thebig1 1 year ago
thebig1
Wow, u all just eat it up by the truckload!! You are full of shit!!!
This whole Hitler/Darwin thing is perpetrated by Creationist lies!
If you learn anything, try to understand that these so called Christians, lie thru their teeth. They rely on people like you who will rely on them filling your heads with crap
Look at ur answer to me when I tried to explain why different scientific disciplines are dependent on Evolution! That tells me how bad off u r.
They R dependent scientifically!!
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux And people like eat up everything the media, the universities, and the elites tell you whats the difference? I know some people lie and cheat and take advantage but I choose to follow the greater messege of Jesus Christ and what he did for us.
thebig1 1 year ago
thebig1
What I tried to convey to u, is that for example, Pharmaceutical technologies depend on Evolution being accurate...correct. If it weren't, they drug companies would not be able to manufacture their drugs chemically. They depend directly on Evolutionary principles. If Evolution weren't true, then their chemical processes wouldn't work!! It's just that simple.
I'm sorry if you're offended at having common ancestry with apes. Sometimes people have to just grow up & take it like an adult.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux We share traits with apes but we are a whole different species. I know the science my friend you don't.
thebig1 1 year ago
@Cootabux You people have to understand that evolution is still just a theory and has not been proven yet. We all just go with this theory because it's what we are taught in school. Religion actually doesn't have that much to do with creationism because religion implies eternal truth while science is based on observations that are subject to change. I'm not saying im creationist but just keep an open mind
greendaygew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#1
greendaygew
U said; "You people have to understand that evolution is still just a theory and has not been proven yet"
Obviously you don't know what a scientific theory is! It doesn't mean it's a hunch or a guess. A S. Theory is made up of a number observable facts, which together support the premise of the theory. The T. of Evol.is just as valid as the Germ Theory, the Atomic Theory, or the theory of gravity. A theory is never proven bcuz it's a never ending study, but that doesn't mean
Cootabux 2 months ago
#2
greendaygew
the Theory of Evolution hasn't explained itself to us! Variation over time in species takes place, & over a long enough period we see speciation.
There are thousands of transitional fossil forms, but even if we didn't have the fossil record, genetics alone proves Evolution. We've made some extraordinary advances in genetics over the past 20 yrs.
Change? Yes, but not overturned. Science is always seeking new info., but Evolution is well established.
Creationism is not science!
Cootabux 2 months ago
thebig1
I was a Xian for a half century. Do you know how I became an atheist? I decided to read the bible from front to back. both OT & NT, the early church, a number of the Codices, & the Ugaritic Texts (The last subject blows Judaism completely out of the water.).
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is...what they say is true. If you want to turn a Xian into an atheist, just have him read the bible!!
Cootabux 1 year ago
@thebig1 YES IT FUCKING IS SCEINCE!!!!!!!!!!!
MelvinThe42 1 year ago
@MelvinThe42 Wow. hahaha you both are arguing over a stupid point! Evolution and Creationism are both science! Science isn't based in fact but on evidence that is subject to change and over the years both theories have changed and been modified based on current observations of biology and geography
greendaygew 2 months ago
greendaygew
"Evolution and Creationism are both science! Science isn't based in fact but on evidence"
Creationism isn't science. It isn't supported by demonstrable evidence. This is why Creationism has no peer reviewed papers in science journals
Creationism also is not a Scientific Theory 4 basically the same reasons just stated.
Yes there's been changes in the T. of Evol. bucz of new data being uncovered all the time, & it always supports the T.of Evolution. Creat. is not supported by evidence
Cootabux 2 months ago
@greendaygew There is no evidence that supports creationism or that contradicts evolution. There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution and subsequently contradicts creationism.
MelvinThe42 2 months ago
I'd like to ask this genius to explain how Creation would cause us (man) to have atavistic dna. Humans grow tails in the early embryonic stage. Then the tails are reabsorbed. That's bcuz the dna 4 tails is from our common ancestry with apes/monkeys. And btw, some humans continue to develop tails & today there are about 100 people who have tails. I'm not talking about a fleshy appendage but tails with vertebrae w/ muscle & tendons.
We also have vestigial organs, i.e. Nictitating eye membranes.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux Contrary to belief we aren't from apes at all. We just had a common ancestry some 9 million years ago and that's the point when humans and primates separated into groups. The last known ancestor is call Sahelanthropus found in Africa if you want to look it up. Us forming tails is likely due to the fact that our DNA's replication went wrong when we were forming as zygotes due to lack of length of our DNA's telomeres
greendaygew 2 months ago
greendaygew
Evolution doesn't claim we come from apes. We share a common ancestry with them. Monkeys, apes, and our primate lineage, all followed separate branches on the PhylogeneticTree. And btw, we "are apes! We're just more modern in our branch of evolution
Tails sometimes occur in us bcuz of atavistic dna, remnants from a much earlier period when we needed them. I point them out to theists as just another piece of evidence demonstrating our Evolution. Same with Vestigial organs.
Cootabux 2 months ago
You people have really got to be more careful about who you set up as your spokesman. This guys ignorance about everything he's trying to discuss makes you and him look like fools. A 16 yr old biology student has more grasp of the simple concepts falling through Duane's fingers. Do some real research!
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101
Believe it or not, this guy is probably among the brightest of them. Picking a spokesman among the creationists is like looking for a functioning car in a garbage heap.
ml497 1 year ago
Obviously this man has no idea what is relieved in the fossil record. The fossil are layered and men are not found with dinosaurs.
yeudh 1 year ago
then why is it still only a theory? it cannot be 100 percent proven.
evan10c 1 year ago
@evan10c You need to look up "scientific theory" on wikipedia.
vozuluzov 1 year ago 8
Chicken come from a small planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. There is ample physical evidence to support this theory.
I just wanted to see if I could lie as much as this douche.
ApesAmongUs 1 year ago 2
I like the way Gish just boldly lies too. Animals all appeared fully formed, with no transitional forms? LOL, give me a break. Even nutty evolution critics like David Berlinski have admitted that there are transitional forms. Animals do not all just "appear suddenly." Life on earth appeared billions of years ago, where as primates appear 10's of millions of years ago, and humans appear 100,000's of years ago, with plenty of transitional forms predating the first humans.
adkinsjr 1 year ago 2
What you need to do, is continue to argue that "evolutionism" is an "atheist religion", and no transitional fossils exists. You also need to find a whole bunch of quotes from "evolutionary scientists," taken out of context, against evolution, and then post them in all caps. That's usually what real creanderthals do. Oh, and make sure you favorite a whole bunch of Kent Hovind videos, just in case someone sees your channel. Creanderthals LOVE idiots like Kent Hovind.
Good luck!
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr We'll see who's laughing one day won't we pal.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1
Oh, what's that supposed to mean? You trying to threaten me with hell fire?
adkinsjr 1 year ago 2
No, no, M. Gish, you're not a Homo sapiens. At best, you're a Homo moronicus simplex. Now, ready to evolve ?
mcshundess 1 year ago
@mcshundess Another mindless Evolutionist here flaming and showing his ignorance. Dr. Gish is absolutly correct in regard to the fossil record in that it shows support for evolution other than the ones MADE UP and lied about by evolutionists.
thebig1 1 year ago
I'm giving you the initial quantity. In order to understand how contamination is tested for, and the how the 'assumptions' about initial quantity can be tested, you have to understand the basic equations in the first place. This is step one, solve the equation. It should be easy since you're so much smarter than the scientists who developed the method, and who use it all over the world to piece together Earth's rich and vast natural history.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
What fossil record has he been looking at.
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos The correct one that truely exists not the one made up by evolutionists.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Why do you deny our animal heritage? Why do you deny that nature chose us through billions of years to grant us the gift of self awareness? We are apes, a highly intelgent species of ape.
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos If you choose to believe we came from apes thats your problem. I choose to believe I was created by God with Hopes, Dreams, abilities, and a destiny that was put into affect long before I was able to understand it. Nothing can create something...science can't do that but God can Create us and he did.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 To be eternally bent knee before a monster, that's no destiny. To rise from the earth to master the universe, that is a destiny. Our destiny. You wish to remain a slave, that is your choice, but do not teach truth for lies, and lies for truth, for it is an abomonation.
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos Its an abomonation to who...GOD? I thought you didn't believe in a higher power? Furthurmore you are the typical evolutionist moron. You say God is Evil, GOD is mean, God is this and that. A God who dies on the cross and only requires you to believe in him to saved is not a monster. This " Evil " God came down to earth and setup a new covenant between him and mankind. The deal was all men would have the free will to decide whom they would serve. God or Satan...Heaven or Hell!!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1
LOL, you're obviously trolling. You're doing OK, but I can tell you're not a real creanderthal. I like the spelling errors in your last comment:
"Its an abomonation to who...GOD? I thought you didn't believe in a higher power? Furthurmore you are the typical evolutionist moron."
That was pretty funny, and typical of a creanderthal. But I'm still not convinced. Real creanderthals don't actually talk about God and Jesus that much, they know humans don't take it seriously.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@thebig1 We are the higher power, we are the highest power in the known universe. You continue to deny that which exists such as evidence for evolution to support that which does not exist, your "lord and savour". Does the thought of being the product of natural selection on a cruel and unforgivng world and chosen to survive really scare you. Does it really comfort you to be the so called "product" of a creator who will burn you for the actions of 2 people you never met?
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos I don't have to worry about burning because I believe in him and serve him. Furthuremore I'm not a " product " but a creation with a unigue destiny. If you choose to believe you come from an ape thats your sad life not mine.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 I AM an ape. You are too. homo sapians is a species of ape. DNA shows this beyond reasonable doubt.
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos Well believe what you want but one day you'll see that your wrong. I just hope by then its not to late.
thebig1 1 year ago
thebig1
Tell me, how do u look at yourself in the mirror every day, after admitting that you have submitted to an evil tyrannical monster you call god?
If u r talking about the Xian god, then you're telling us that it doesn't bother you 1 bit that the Xian god was a mass murderer, who advocated slavery & misogyny! For anyone to be at ease for worshiping and serving an evil being who would create a hell, then send other sentient beings there, u must have lost your human decency & morals!
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Symos
I don't know about that. A lot of nothing exploding (Big Bang) created everything..
is that what you're saying?
rehzon 1 year ago
@rehzon What has the big bang got to do with the diverserty of life on earth?
Also I could easily make this argument. In the begining, there was nothing, then out of the nothing came an extremely complexe being known as "god"
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos
Well God couldn't have come from nothing, nothing can't create anything..that
goes for stars, planets etc. :) Alright, where do you believe life started from on earth?
rehzon 1 year ago
@rehzon Difference between you and I is I don't pretend to know. Saying "god did it" and leaving it at that isn't knowledge. You don't wanna beleive, fine, don't stop the rest of us trying to find out for sure.
Symos 1 year ago
@Symos
I agree. Science would seem to support intelligence/purpose behind every living thing being here though. Evolution..everything by chance/luck. Everything
forming in the ocean from some soup (or whatever they say) goes against
science.
rehzon 1 year ago
@rehzon The process of natural selection through survival and reproduction is the opposite of random - it is specific ; if an organism fulfills the two goals of surviving long enough, and eventually reproducing, it's genetes are entered into the next generation. Failure on either goal means the organism's genetic make-up dies with it and any mutations that set it apart from siblings and the parent population are selected against.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.
GronTheMighty 1 year ago 7
You really expect that creanderthal (neoverse) to respond with an answer? LOL, he's probably needing a diaper change right about now. AnswersinGenesis can't help him with that one. Crooked scientists corrupted by religion can provide these fanatics with a small arsenal of arguments to repeat, but when it comes down to it, the sheep have NO IDEA whether or not the nonsense they're repeating is actually tenable.
Jesussucksfagdick 1 year ago
@Jesussucksfagdick
Someone gave GoodScienceForYou a similar problem, since he's always making smug assertions about science. You're absolutely right about the creationists-sheep dynamic. Creationists don't understand that there isn't any doubt about evolution, the age of the earth, etc. WITHIN the scientific community. Creationists simply flock to the handful of zealots who have enough scientific qualifications to cast doubt in the minds of the scientifically illiterate.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@Jesussucksfagdick you expect anyone to take a jerk wit ha screen name like your serious, how pathetic can people be, you have reached a new low for Jesus haters
neoverse 1 year ago
BIG HINT, since the nature of radiometric decay is described by the differential equation y=k(dy/dx), solve it, and don't forget the constant of integration.
show your work.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr So how much C14 are we ASSUMING was there before we begin your equation? Yes I said ASSUMING. There is no possible way to know how much was there to begin with. The argument is not about how the math works, the argument is about ASSUMPTION. This is what you can't seem to wrap your mind around.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
The problem is that you're just regurgitating the nonsense you've read off of creationist websites, without understanding any of it, or knowing whether or not the information truly reflects what's in the scientific literature. Can you honestly tell me approximately of how many meteoric samples have been tested to determine the age of the earth? Which isotopes were used? How many different isotopes have yielded an age of 4.5 billion years?
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr You accuse him of spouting off creationist " talking points " yet you do the same thing with Evolutionist talking points. There is no evidence in the fossil record for Evolution NOT A SHRED. These creationists that you say are spouting off bible points...I HEAR NO BIBLE points all I hear is him and others talking about science in regard to biology, zoology, and others. Wake up and research both sides you might be surprised.
thebig1 1 year ago
What a wack job. Embarrassing to hear an Australian accent dribbling that rubbish.
lockedinreason 1 year ago
This man needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the archives of any major fossil collection. The 32 orders do not appear at the same time in the fossil record.
He is either willfully ignorant of the vast number of amphibian-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians (some present today) or he is lying (bearing false witness).
How did this guy get a doctorate? (shame on UCLA) How does anyone honor it?
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
the dumbest shit I've ever heared! LMFAO!
phantomcreamer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Viruses are not alive. Viruses don't produce other viruses; a virus ruptures the cell membrane or wall and inserts its DNA into the cell. As a result, the cell reproduces as a viral version of itself.
To answer the claim that viruses prove nothing: Viral activity could be used to prove Lynn Margolis' endosymbiotic theory, which works within the evolutionary framework
peasantsoul 1 year ago
This is in response to neoverse's reply that viruses prove nothing.
peasantsoul 1 year ago
Comment removed
peasantsoul 1 year ago
Comment removed
peasantsoul 1 year ago
We didn't come from apes; we descended from the same ancestor as apes.
peasantsoul 1 year ago
Next sentence:
"Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). "
boo hoo hoo
;'o_o';
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
In the results and discussion section:
First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24).
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
Really good example of an opinion bollstered by intellectual dishonesty .......science does its part by filling in the holes and accepting its own burden of proof by testing , studying documenting and fullfilling perdictions .. where is the intellectual rigor and study to offer proof of god??? the "faithful" point at gaps in science and call them proof of god. if religion is trying so hard to push science aside then wHy does religion itself try to use science AS proof of god??
thegliphic 1 year ago
Yet another so called "Dr" who doesnt understand evolution.Where the hell do these retads come from?
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61
The bottom third of their graduating class.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
@philster61 Well why don't you explain it to us since you must be an expert in the subject.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse . My qualification is history. BA(Hons). I am not a biologist. However that doesnt mean that I am ignorant of evolution. Not to the degree of Duane Gish. I understand the scientific process and know why theories are tested and scrutinized. Duane Gish should know better since he is learned in this subject
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61 tell me, how do you test evolution?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse What would suffice as an example. I could use thousands of different models. I can HIV as an example. It mutating is one of the reasons why its so difficult to find a cure.Theres an example of evolution of virus. DNA is able to trace back the genetic line of humans right back to the less than ten thousand of our species who populated the earth and of who we are their direct descendants. Now tell me, how do you test for God?
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61 Excuse my bad grammar. Its late.
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61 What test did you perform? Viruses adapt they don't evolve. Species of the different types of animals adapt they don't evolve into other types. Show one example of a type changing into another type. Show a fossil that proves it had an offspring different than it's self. There are none examples, none have been observed. Evolution cannot be tested, it is impossible.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse "Show one example of a type changing into another type" Types dont change" into another type overnight into another species.Changes occur over a long long time
.But hey if you wanna google "Tiktalik" theres an example of a "transitional species" if you wanna join the Kirk Cameron fan club. Then your half way there.
and you havent answered my question. How do you test for God? And you havent answered my question. How do you test for God.
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61 I never claimed I could test for God. But my religion isn't being force fed to students is it.
That's just an extinct fish. What does that prove? It proves nothing but it's a dead extinct fish. Coelacanth was suppose to be extinct also, If I were you I think I'd wait a while before jumping on the Tiktalik bandwagon.
insults already? tisk tisk
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse "But my religion isn't being force fed to students is it."
Not unless you live in the southern part of the US it normally isńt. And since there are more churches per head of population in the bible belt than in most other countries in the western world I think that the idea of getting away from a religious upbringing would be next to impossible.
And as for the "tiktalik Bandwagon" You wanted an example. There it is.
Wasńt insulting. Was using a bit of irony.
philster61 2 years ago
@philster61 What proof do you have of any religion being taught in a public school, that's an obvious opinion with no facts to back it up but you toss it out like it's a fact.
Do you propose that you have some kind of authority to decide if people should even learn a religion? As for any bones you toss out on the table for proof of evolution, it cannot be proof of anything but a dead and/or extinct animal.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse Of coarse your religion being forced down people throats . and what does any of that have to do with a rhetorical question that is much deserved. " where is your proof of god?" you never claimed to prove gods existence...great. nobody is saying you did. answer the question.
Demanding instant answers followed by selective ignorance when none are provided is a clear sign that" faith" can transcend and trump anything that can t be proven in a couple hunderd crumby words on youtubeLOL
thegliphic 1 year ago
are you a scientist? are you an evolutionary biologist? your question isn t easily answered or solved instantaniously on youtube as you would like it to be. its like admitting that if an answr takes time , study and pragmatism, than It doesn t count because its too complicated and not easily understood ,like the idea of religion. to assume evolution is as easily explained away like the idea of god is ridicules and shows a true lack of subtlety towards the efforts of science.
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic It can never be proven no matter how much time you have, it never happened. Time is the crutch upon which "evo" 7 "bb" stands. LOL
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse Can you prove that it can never be proven in an unlimited amount of time? Prove something never happened sir. And time is the crutch you count on as an uncertainty to fill in something many orders of magnitude more unlikely than evo. (god and its existance) which is quit entertaining. lets get down to it . you believe in God and you are a creationist, right??
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic Millions of years have never been observed. Evo has never been observed. What does my belief have to do with you not being able to prove the millions of years to back up your theories?
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse WOW! sweet straw-man argument ! I don t have theories . never claimed to have any . never put any forth.
actually your belief has alot to do with what YOU decide is unproveable . isn t your belief something that gives your opinion its subject matter.?? especially if u have a religious agenda.There are things I believe . scientific consensus is one . but what does that have to do with u avoiding the question.? answering a question with a question is the dumbing down of a debate.
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic LOL@strawman, your started building a straw man when you asked me about my belief. Why would I need an agenda to point out that no one has ever observed millions of years? How can I prove something didn't happen if no one was there to observe it? Are you saying "eve" & "bb" are true because no one was there to see it? That's very logical of you Spoc.
neoverse 1 year ago
Comment removed
thegliphic 1 year ago
@neoverse you don t need an agenda to point out an answer to a question a 5 year old could answer. off coarse nobody was physically there to observe millions of years of evo. no shit . is that it as far as what you are putting forth for an essentially vacuous argument. ?? " nobody was there to see millions of years happen so... therefore.........." what? what is your postion?? to just deny everything? its very easy to deny everything. an Idiots errand. what is your alternative theory????
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic The only reason a 5 year old could answer an "evo" question is because they start brainwashing in preschool. Other than that he would ignore you or give you a strange look. And the difference between denying all this "evo" crap and believing everything your heroes tell your is? My theory? It was all created by God, it didn't create it's, only an idiot would believe the universe created it's self out of nothing. And anyone who believes in "bb" theory believes exactly that.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse what is your def. of "brainwashing "here? teaching something that has been studied since Darwin that best explains our origins ?? just because you can t percieve it possible for the universe to be created from something you don t understand or bother to understand doesn t give you any intellectual credibility scientificly . thats a logical fallcy dick head. Argument from personal incredulity. which is basiclly like saying you are to stupid to bother . lol . lots of luck.
thegliphic 1 year ago
@neoverse I don t have any heros when it comes to the study of our existence . Science doesn t work like that. Heros are personal icons to which we attribute vicariousness via light hearted envy. What the fuck does a hero have to do with a scientific consensus ??
and who is saying that :" we were all created out of nothing"...? nobody is. another straw man. idiot! you don t even know what science is actually saying! idiot! you just fill in the gaps with your own stupidity/god . lots of luck
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic Are you telling me that just because a bunch of men agree on something it becomes fact? It is not a straw man, try again. Do you think time and space was just here with no cause? LOL, you resorted to criticism a lot faster than thought you would. So you deny what 'bb" theory, well that's a start.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse you obviously have zero grasp of science and its process. why do u feel u even have an argument??? I want to answer your first question but then i think : never argue with a fool because nobody will know the difference. Buddy your best argument so far : LOL
did i say space time was therewith no cause? no . you wish i did ...another strawman you halfwit. u r easy criticize because u offer nothing in terms of a worthy argument. what did you expect ? praise?
"god did it" BUFFOON!!
thegliphic 1 year ago
@thegliphic Are we suppose to take your word for your opinion of what I grasp and what I don't based on your self diluted proclamation of intelligence? Do you have anything to say that is relevant? Criticism and half baked logic is not an argument.
neoverse 1 year ago
Comment removed
thegliphic 1 year ago
@neoverse
I haven t made made any proclamations as to what I perceive as intelligence. I m just hinting at your general antics ,which i regard are ,a blatant representation of your level if intelligence. There is a difference. If you actually put forth any worthy subject matter rather than just posting short bursts of vacuous rhetoric , I might feel A subject is necessary . Do you have a question or are you waiting to stand of the shoulders of giants? what business do u have with evo?
thegliphic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoverse how is a asking question building a strawman argument.? a straw man is an erronious assumption based off ignorance that one uses to accuse the other of arguing for . I hate when debates turn into me educating somebody. You don t know what a strawman . I'm fine with that.
Pretty general statement you are making . nice and safe. Science does its best to observe millions of years . its the best thing we have to look at our past. name one thing that better documents our past than science.
thegliphic 1 year ago
@neoverse
No one's ever observed 'millions of years.'? You're a moron, we don't need to observe an event to deduce that it happened. It's called radiometric dating. It completely shatters the young-earth implied by the nursery rhymes in the bible.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Radiometric dating is a load of crap. it doesn't disprove anything. It's all based the assumption that things were in a particular condition so called millions of years ago. There is no way to know for sure except to guess(theorize).
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
LOL, I hope you're a troll, and just sort of messing with people. If you're being serious, then....hahahaha.
forum(dot)richarddawkins(dot)net/viewtopic(dot)php?f=46&t=110125
Copy and paste, replace the (dot) with a dot, read and weep, bible freaks.
;"o_o";
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@neoverse
GENETICS. Darwin didn't have genetics. Yet it agrees remarkably well with his hypothesis. Strange isn't it? Here's a good paper published in PNAS:
pnas(dot)org/content/96/18/10254(dot)full
Looks like the creation myths are being debunked. Read and weep, bible freaks.
;'o_o';
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF fail, viruses don't prove anything. A virus is a virus is a virus. Viruses produce viruses. When has any virus produced a non virus.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
LOL, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what it's about? It has nothing to do with viruses evolving, idiot. They're talking about provirus-containing LOCI in a genome. An ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a SINGLE INTEGRATION EVENT. Read and weep, bible freaks.
;'o_o':
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Yes I do agree, this neoverse is a complete imbecile !! its like arguing with my sister kids or something...
thegliphic 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Read and weep what? LOL you can't really believe any of that stuff in your article is anything more than speculation. I would weep if anyone thinks that is some kind of evidence for 'eve" seriously.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
WTF? Explain to me how it's speculation, and what points are incorrect? Is the math wrong? I challenge you to back to the forum, and post a thread refuting the validity of the methodology used in radiometric dating. Let's see if you can stump the geologists who post in that forum. Have fun, cupcake.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Why would you need to prove something doesn't work if it already doesn't work? You challenge me? How about you dispute what Gish is talking about in the video. You can't, you asked me before if I was a troll but you have yet to make any valid argument against this video, so who is the troll? Refute Gish if you can. And we don't want to hear a bunch of speculation and it take millions of unproven years for something to happen.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
"You challenge me? How about you dispute what Gish is talking about in the video. "
Run for the hills! LOL, I'm responding to YOUR comments right now, cupcake. Radiometric dating proves the age of the earth. You disagree right? Get your ass over to that forum I linked you to, and explain how the information given is incorrect. Show is were the math is wrong, or which assumptions cannot be verified. Have fun!
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@neoverse
"Why would you need to prove something doesn't work if it already doesn't work? "
Um.....because it does work, you fucking idiot! Nice try, but you're not getting out of this that easily. Just go to the forum and explain WHY it doesn't work. Enlighten everybody with your knowledge. It shouldn't be difficult right? LOL, COWARD.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Carbon dating is based on an assumption that the atmosphere was already saturated. That's why it doesn't work. Ignore the facts all you like but your just sounding more an more like a child with insults. Grow up, you sound like a 14 yr old. Coward, do tell,
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
They don't use carbon dating to date the age of the earth, you fucking idiot. LOL, you are really thick aren't you? You obviously don't have the capacity to refute radiometric dating, because you don't even understand how it's used. You think they use carbon dating to date the age of the earth? LMFAO!
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF You have anything to say where you don't sound like a 15 year old punk? You must feel your arguments are so lame that you can't respond with any amount of civility. Try again. All the dating methods are flawed, not my problem if you've been indoctrinated into the evo faith. You haven't once used any kind of intelligible statement to try and refute anything said in this video. Instead you focus on me drawing straw man arguments. So sorry you've been duped by mainstream science.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
LOL, obviously you've been indoctrinated by the nursery rhymes in the bible.
"you can't respond with any amount of civility."
Then stop responding to my comments, cupcake. Radiometric dating works and you can't explain why it DOESN'T work. So far you've only humiliated yourself by saying "carbon dating is based on assumptions." LMFAO, carbon dating used to date the earth? You're so funny! Now hurry! Hit that reply button like a good girl so I can have more fun with you.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF carbon dating aka radiometric dating is based on the assumption that that they know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere. Ignore the facts all you like your just proving to the rest of us that you don't care about real facts, on the ones you can you to spice up your little attempts at criticism.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse. Since you seem to be an expert in the flaws of radiometric dating, how about you list your credentials and qualifications. Lets see how much you now about this exacting process, which is NOT flawed. It is precise and quite complicated. If the only rebuttal you can offer is "civil conversation" then you deserve to be spoken to like the ignoramus you appear to be. Scientifically illiterate idiots like you deserve the abuse you get out of your sheer stupidity.
philster61 1 year ago
@neoverse
Carbon dating DOES not work that way. Radio carbon dating works in a very specific way: it measures the amount of carbon 14 decaying from an organic or non-organic material. Atmospheric saturation has nothing to do with it.
peasantsoul 1 year ago
@peasantsoul You have to know how much was there to start with. Therefore they are assuming how much was in the atmosphere based on how much there is today. Anyone with common sense can see the assumptions being made. (1.) they assume how much was there when the animal lived. (2.) they assume the accumulation of carbon 14 has continued at a specific rate. (! & 2 ) Are both assumptions which cannot be proven. Therefore carbon dating is a lie and everyone knows it.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
Carbon dating is a lie? LOL, you're a weirdo. Why the fuck would anybody lie about that? In fact, I just read an article about another discovery on Mt. Ararat. It turns out, some of your fellow bible fanatics use carbon dating on the scraps of wood they found.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr
1. You did nothing to refute what was i nmy first post.
2. You assume I am some how connected to someone in an article you read.
3. You assume because they are using carbon dating that I have their same beliefs.
This is why carbon dating is so fallible, to many assumptions, People can even make arguments without making numerous assumptions, just as you have.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
You obviously just regurgitated the garbage you read off of creationwiki or AIG, without understanding any of it. Since you think you know so much about this, let's see if you're as cowardly as GoodScienceForYou.
Given that lamda=ln(2)/(1/2 life), find the amount in grams after 4,000 years given an initial quantity of 15 grams.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr there;s no need repeat anything off a website when common since tells you it is flawed
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse
Just like GoodScienceForYou... He makes all these preposterous assertions about the 'flaws' of radiometric dating, yet he doesn't even understand the elementary derivation, which all undergraduate physics students learn. I learned it in calculus II. if you're so much more knowledgeable than the scientific community, then solve the problem I posted.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
Comment removed
peasantsoul 1 year ago
@neoverse
Oh, and good look trying to find an excuse NOT to post a thread in that forum refuting radiometric dating. i know you're not going to, because you're a fucking idiot, and you and I both know that you will be humiliated if you try to talk science. Have fun, religious idiot.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF @JohnEdwardIAF Do you think anyone beside someone who bows to the same "evo" worship as you would take any of your comments seriously with all the hatred and childish rhetoric in it? How about some of you people against this video stick to the topic of the video instead of going off on a beaten path of Christian bashing. Or maybe that's above you. Sorry for asking.
neoverse 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF LOL, call me some more names, it only shows your immaturity.
neoverse 1 year ago
Comment removed
peasantsoul 1 year ago
Gish is peddling pure lies. In the face of rampant evidence, he is oblivious to any of it. So bent on telling his fairy tale, he can stare at more than 750,000 fossil species of life on this Earth, many that do not resemble modern forms at all, and claim that evolution has not occurred. Priceless.
charadester 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is just funny
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Lack of evidence = evidence for its contrapositive. Would be bad logic.
Except, fossil records of the kind he denies do exist.
Perhaps this was recorded before genetic analysis. And the invention of logic.
Bertrandization 2 years ago
if you reckon you share so many similarities with apes then why arnt you picking your arse and swinging in the trees with them?
Boy! genuine retard=MrLogicalPositivist
G5macintosh 2 years ago
did he say we are exactly like them? are you fucking retarded? similar does not mean we act like them you dumb shit.
errskin 2 years ago
Similar does not mean they are from acommon ancestor either. This same logic can show we are from a common designer.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
evlution does not simply say things are similar. thats not even close.
errskin 2 years ago
You are right...it says this and contradicts this with about forty other ideas. You guys are beyond confused.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwin got it wrong , we do not come from fucking monkeys sorry.
convertibleboy 2 years ago