ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
I would like to take the time to thank the "designer" who came up with knees. Thank you so very much for such a crappy design. Were you high when you came up with that?
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
So what if he doubted that amino-acids could self assemble without DNA? It is a well established scientific fact that amino acids self assemble. This has been proven many times.
For those of you who believe this (and therefore believe that it is what scientists are saying when they admit we don't know all the answers). Take a step back and consider what YOU are saying as a result. You don't believe in the possibility of the very very complex therefore the answer must be even more complex?!
Those evil scientists with all their books and research, with all their proof and evidence. Universities……. They are nothing compared to the Christians who had homeschooling from the bible and the bible alone, who had books without science. Taught by those who themselves had homeschooling. If god wanted people to have scientific knowledge he would have given it to them by birth…………… right?
@oopscanada oooh "nano technology discoveries" Lol! Didn't you know the latest discoveries in quantum bioinformatic transformatics prove that Creationism makes people stupid enough to make shit up and believe it?
@fingleur1 Actually, you are wrong, as quantum "theory" presupposes the existence of matter/energy in the first place; so you cannot use those theories in this debate. Anything else? Or are you as ignorant as most atheists?
@oopscanada I was pointing out to you that if I make up some garbage scientific sounding bollocks you'd probably believe it - and, lo and behold, you don't disappoint.
Tell me - what 'nano technology discoveries' prove Darwin to have been incorrect?
@fingleur1 Why don't you inquire the balance found when nano-particles interact in proteins? I'm sorry my friend but there is no way that this property of living cells would just come up by chance. This nano particles are condition to behave like that every time. This is part of the design.
@oopscanada "there is no way that this property of living cells would just come up by chance" Why not? That would be like declaring that there must be some intelligent agent behind gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces simply because you can't imagine how it could occur without one.
@fingleur1 Their functions is all pre-coded, there is no chemical or physical mechanism for this nano-particules to behave like that. At this point, it is clearer and clearer that nano technology had been designed way before man could discover it. Sorry.
@oopscanada You're no different to a primitive human watching a coconut roll down a hill and smash open at the bottom. Only God could have designed the shape of the coconut to do that over and over again to roll and smash open so you can eat!
SO WHAT ABOUT THE ARSENIC MICROBE, WHY IS THAT HERE ITS COMPLETELY ALIEN TO ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, DID GOD MAKE IT AND IF GOD DID WHY, IS HE NOT PLEASED WITH US CARBON CREATURES?
the huge ego's also exist among those who oppose intelligent design. They have been caught throwing out research data when it didn't fit with their hypothesis. This vitreal towards Intelligent design continually prove God's words.
@TheSleepingbandit "They have been caught throwing out research data when it didn't fit with their hypothesis" You're definitely going to need a source to back up that claim.
How is it that I can rape Jesus Christ every night, fill his lower intestine with my sperm, get Allah and pedophile prophet Muhammad PBUH to snoball my cum from Jesus' asshole and none of these fake imaginary voodoo god concepts can do anything to stop me? Answer that question and you can own the universe religikids
@699backstab That's easy,because these guys you are consistantly having homosexual sex with,are not the real Jesus and such. Obviously the gay men that you so proudly admit to having sex with have similar names, but they're most likely just common mexican and arabic men.
@mrhyde2484 No its jesus alright. I jerk off on the bible and he cries blood. I push a raw pork chop in its mouth and he wimpers. Its your imaginary god concept. Dont deny the spirit of your fake god from your little book of horrors, the bible of death XD
@oopscanada Because none of that is actually true. Those structures could have evolved naturally via processes like exaptation and the mullerian two-step; genetic algorithms routinely arrive at seemingly irreducibly complex solutions while using such processes. Irreducible complexity is itself little more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity; just because you don't understand how it could have evolved doesn't mean that its impossible.
When it comes to logic, some people don't want to use what's usually known as common sense. *If* it's so clear, that the tiniest components of a cell cannot be produced slowly but they must exist all together at once to allow for cellular function and reproduction, then, why can't these people accept that a theory that proposes the contrary is false? I suppose it's easier to insult others than to put their brains to work!
@jagara1 No scientists claim intelligent design. Some may have been to university and got some qualifications before they lost their marbles, but anyone who claims intelligent design isn't being scientific - and they're no longer worthy of the title of scientist.
Excuse me but by definition mutations happen by chance and are not directed; otherwise, you would need accept a designer as the cause of it. Then, natural selection is assumed that intervenes on the best outcome. My point is not about the natural selection at the macro level, but about these supposedly random mutations, that somehow created all organs, systems, rna, dna, proteins, etc, etc etc. Please; not proven at all, nor it will ever be. Sorry.
@oopscanada An argument from incredulity like that is not a valid argument; just because you don't understand or can't imagine how it could be so doesn't mean that its impossible, it just means that you're lacking in understanding/imagination.
Oh please, it's easy to just label people as "you don't understand this". How about some concrete proof that natural selection is able to create dna, rna, molecules, etc? That has not been done, it cannot be done, and therefore, shows there is a big gap, there is a very important gap being misled when you want to assume that evolution can do this. It is obvious that the molecular/cellular system needs to exist all at once to be able to live. Go ahead and ....
... go ahead and study the cell all you want. Go ahead and be amazed at the complexity, exactness and completeness of the systems involved in cell reproduction. But from study it to come up with random theories, please. As a matter of fact, all monkey scientists should stop wasting tax payer dollars, and should start finding a cure for cancer, or Aids; where evolution, obviously has failed to find the best gene to survive it. STOP wasting our money.
@oopscanada you clearly have your head too far up your ass to see how studying evolution has helped scientists make bigger discoveries that have kept people alive
@oopscanada Ok. I don't know what logic is. Have fun worshipping the invisible man in the sky while you say I don't know logic. You morons are a good source of entertainment, I'll tell you that.
Excuse me? "natural selection as the differential survival and reproduction of genotypes, corresponding to particular phenotypes. Natural selection can only work on existing variation within a population. Such variations arise by mutation, a change in some part of the genetic code for a trait. Mutations arise by chance and without foresight for the potential advantage or disadvantage of the mutation. In other words, variations do not arise because they are needed."
@oopscanada Mutations are the only part of evolution that really involve chance. Even the likelihood of a mutation is affected by the non-random processes of evolution.
Not all organisms suffer mutations at the same rates and not all parts of their genomes mutate at the same rates either.
Mutations might be random, but natural selection is anything but random.
Natural selection at the macro level, I understand is not random; however, at the cellular level, how will a cell *know* that it's time to reproduce into a variation that together with other cells will start making an organized system where one was not there before. That is the part that has not been proven to exist.
@oopscanada "how will a cell *know* that it's time to reproduce into a variation..."
You are making an argument from ignorance. If you study genetics you can learn about the precise molecular mechanisms that lead to mutations.
Your argument is like saying "when I stir sugar into my coffee how does it *know* to dissolve" It does what it does because of the laws of physics and chemistry. The same applies to the interactions that cause mutations.
@fingleur1 Your argument has so many flaws. You assume that genetics explains how cells are able to mutate to make new organs, and it does not. It does explain how current changes are made in cellular reproduction;however, the process of the interaction between the molecules and it relation to dna/rna, is al already hard coded. All code to make the different organs is already there. What you cannot find is code out of nowhere that will make new unseen systems. Use your logic!
@oopscanada FFS all the genetic code to make all the various organs is there BECAUSE IT EVOLVED. It's explained by the theory of evolution; and if you'd care to study the subject then you'd see so for yourself.
You just have a cognitive problem that makes it impossible for you to conceptualise the reverse engineering of 3 billion years of evolution. Don't beat yourself up about it.
@fingleur1 - Excuse me: "all the genetic code to make all the various organs is there BECAUSE IT EVOLVED. It's explained by the theory of evolution". Ha ha; again; that's just a theory, that not only it's unproven, but it has been proved that it is IMPOSSIBLE for natural processes to create the DNA, the rna, the chromosomes, the molecules to act all together in sync, out of nowhere. Everything has to be in place for this to work. If that's the case, where is the evolution?
You don't even understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, how can you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously after that point?
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
what a load of shit. I believe in God but i also belief he created science and evolution, things just don't fucking appear here, and science is all trial and error, none of this can be proven factual. ladies and gentlemen i leave here with this piece of advice. QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AND ARE TAUGHT
@dEaDlYCoSmIcTiTaN "QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AND ARE TAUGHT", well then it just may pay to question evolution?, just as you have also put it, "things just don't fucking appear here", so to does the first living cell from non living matte, just doesant appear, its never been observed and it never will without the aid of intelligence..
@shakinahstorm "Questioning" evolution doesn't mean making up these ridiculous strawman objections, especially when what you're objecting to isn't even covered by evolutionary theory in the first place. To try faulting evolution for not explaining how life itself originated would be like trying to fault it for not explaining how the earth formed; its outside ET's purview.
@ArcanaKnight I guess because its tied in with the whole story within school text books, evolution has chosen to tie itself with the whole process from nothing exploding, to life springing up from non life, to the first cell evolving and mutating right up to we get modern man, not some type of mutant man, but a man complex and intelligent enough to get to the moon and back???
@shakinahstorm "I guess because its tied in with the whole story..." So by "story", you apparently mean science in general because those are 3 completely different theories in 3 separate fields; maybe if your knowledge about them came from somewhere other than creationist sources, you might know that. Evolution only explains how life developed , not how it originated, let alone how the universe began.
@shakinahstorm They are; the textbooks don't say that the theory of evolution tries to explain all these things. It makes sense that the textbook writers would put these topics to be studied around the same time, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't all explained by the same theory.
@ArcanaKnight Yes it does makes sense, and i guess its that which it is im getting at. However i understand at where you getting at aswell, although could it be said that abiogenisis is the evolutionary process of the first cell?, i mean it has to be said that life evolved from non living matter, so how exactly is it the evolutionists chooses to stay away from it?, and not including it in with the rest of the evolutionary theory?
@shakinahstorm "could it be said that abiogenisis is the evolutionary process of the first cell?" No, its just chemistry, there were no evolutionary forces involved.
"it has to be said that life evolved from non living matter" Except that the form of "evolution" you're referring to isn't the same as that covered by evolutionary theory.
Its not included because as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
Its impossible to create codes that work out of randomness. It doesn't even work with computers randomly generating 101001010101010. no program has ever been created out of randomness. that is just impossible. atheists are telling me a long long book can be written perfectly with a good story line without any grammatical error out of randomness and no one has to write it. what a scam.
@genoark Snowflakes do pretty well 'out of randomness' The beautiful jack-frost artwork on the outside of my window in the winter seems to do pretty well 'out of randomness'
"without any grammatical error" Tell that to all the millions of people worldwide plagued by hereditary disease.
@fingleur1 Molecular atoms also follow the law, written law of physics in patterns. it abides by it 100% just like you should follow God's laws written in your heart 100% but your evil desires want to go against God and do everything that pleases your senses just like the devil that's why God will judge you in the day and you will reap what you sowed. flesh will reap fleshly corruption, if you sowed in Spirit you will reap everlasting life. Wake up to realize there is LAW EVERYWHERE
@genoark "Molecular atoms also follow the law" Yep - and they combine according to the laws of physics to form amino acids and proteins and those proteins self catalyse and replicate and before you know it you have life.
@fingleur1 hereditary disease is just punishment of sin. lets say you hate God and have children, they will also have problems in life whether its marriage or sinning just like you had x100 because they are your children and satan guides them the spirit of the world will make them corrupt and God will do just enough so that they don't die unless they realize their sins and repent. but your heart will grow hardened because of ignorance and no matter what you see it will hardly affect your soul.
@genoark Just a thought genoark - using your Christogoggles, what's the score if someone has a hereditary condition - lets say diabetes which God obviously intended to kill this person with.
If a doctor comes along and prescribes insulin and saves that person's life - is he or she doing God's will - or will the doctor burn in Hell for trying to undo God's pervious will which was to kill this 'innocent' individual?
@fingleur1 you don't understand God also puts the doctors in place to give the person a chance to repent. God will give time to the person to realize that they might repent of their secret sins. Like all of us secretly we are sinners behind people's eyes you would lie, steal do bad things behind and conceal it. But God knows everything and will punish accordingly. Think about what you done that was hurting others or stealing or lying to conceal manners. wasn't your heart beating? knowing wrong?
@genoark So God gives someone hereditary type 1 diabetes to punish them for their parents' sins - and then provides a doctor to keep them alive so they have a chance to repent on behalf of their parents!
I take it they get to keep the cataracts and the kidney failure and stroke risk and all the rest as a reminder for themselves no to sin?
@fingleur1 It may seem so champ, however God has not given anyone any of those things. He has placed a universal law and system in place, and its because He gave us free will, it was us that has corrupted that system, however God is offering a solution that not to many want to take up, Jesus.
@fingleur1 Sorry but i choose to use this day to celebrate the birthday of my saviour instead, you are free to celebrate the pagans festival if you wish, it comes with free will. Anyhow, i pray and hope that you do choose to recieve what Jesus has done for you and me on the cross 2000 years ago. Sow to the flesh and reap death, sow to the spirit and reap life, life eternal.
@fingleur1 not all things are hereditary. if you live according to God's words eat according to His words you wouldn't get that hereditary genes activated. but because you act as sinful as your parents having their sins in your life activated, that's why you would get those traits. There is no accident. if your dad is Michael Jordan but you yourself don't play basket ball, you would not be good at it. Just like you wouldn't get the curse if you yourself live righteously and Holy fearing God.
@genoark Wow! You've actually given this some thought. Oh dear. Why does God kill newborn babies with hereditary disease?
I'm afraid you're completely wrong on all counts. Before a baby is even conceived we can test the parents tell whether their children will get a certain hereditary condition or the percentage chance of them acquiring it if not for certain.
How can we know this if your mumbo jumbo is correct?
@fingleur1 Very easy test it yourself. test yourself whether there are demons or devils sorcerers or witches. Seek God with truthfully humbly whether He is real or not. From the start you gotta acknowledge that this side you have no knowledge about spiritual realm, be humble and respect before you judge and be ignorant closing your heart before you even test and see for yourself. I can't show you unless you walk the path that I show, reach the place that I talk about. God bless.
@genoark "Seek God with truthfully humbly whether He is real or not" To even believe that god would speak to you isn't being humble.
"you have no knowledge about spiritual realm" Neither do you; what you have is belief supported by faith, not knowledge supported by facts. If you did have any actual knowledge, you wouldn't be doing all this hand-waving and making ad-hoc excuses for why you can't support any of your claims.
You don't really need to worry your head about it. If there really is a God then he's going to be the one sorting out the atheists like me - he wouldn't expect you to do the job for him would he?
You'd best hope that you're backing the right horse though. There are all sorts of Gods out there - Shiva, Allah, Vishnu, Ra, John Frum! They're all queuing up to rubber stamp your ass all the way to Hell.
@fingleur1 Im a believer in Jehovah, and i have to say Fingleur1, you have most cirtainly nailed it with that comment, its Gods job to do all the sorting, to many people try to do His job for Him!
@shakinahstorm Thank goodness a theist who makes sense! If a supreme being put me here on earth and decides that my salvation relies on me believing and trusting in him - then this supreme being must have the wherewithal to communicate the fact of his existence directly to me.
If I ever get a call - I'll let you know. If not - c'est la vie.
@fingleur1 and He may already have, its just that your preconcieved idea on how exactly He is to go about it, maybe a tad off?. When that moment of clarity comes and it leaves you feeling very uncomfortable, dont runaway from God, but to Him. Bless ya champion
@fingleur1 But you would still do it and your heart may have gotten hard and not feel it anymore. getting dull and insensitive that you don't cry no more or think about it less and forget it because now you're so busy with life everything moves fast, so you would forget those who did good unto you and remember everything that they have done against you. We must not forget the good things done to us. Do not forget God that created u and gave you life. Don't disregard Him as nothing. He is not 0.
Its videos like this one that has brought about Atheism popularity.
Scientists were all content to stay Agnostic, until religion decided the church wasn't enough. Lying and twisting science, facts, just to support religious bronze age beliefs.
Watch the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial on Nova. See who the Federal Court sided with?
So far, no RNA that could self replicate 100%. In addition the prebiotic condition for the formation of those properties required for formation of RNA only achieved in the lab with great deal of intervention by investigators (intelligent intervention). Prebiotic soup in the primitive earth still mystery. RNA world are only plausible explanation. Need to have more data and evidence to support, thus make it as merely theory.
With great care we've been made, great love. There must be a good reason why. Our Maker will come to visit us and see how well we're doing, that's for sure.
Man lets just be glad we are all here. Every single one of us has been here from the start and our blood lines had to make the right decisions for us to be here today, and we had better make the right decisions so the people we create can be here tommorow.
stupid hillbilly scientists. DNA isn't the only mechanism that creates proteins, ever hear of RNA? RNA can replicate and assemble proteins, and it's been around long before DNA ever got it's start.
Also early earth was in an ice age and had high levels of ammonia and cyanide. And its been proven that the combination of those two chemicals can arrange nucleotides, and amino acids, which leads to RNA replication.
@JWC2490 you don't even no what you're talking about and obviously aren't paying attention. RNA has nothing to do with this. You're just babbling. So stop for all of us.
@thinkagainism RNA has just as much to do with how life got started as DNA and amino acids. RNA predates DNA by millions of years, and RNA leads to self replication, this disproves the scientist in the videos main argument that it cant be done w/o DNA.
Oh, and I get these facts from peer reviewed scientific articles. While you get your 'facts' from a 15 year old video paid for by the creationist movement... And you claim I'M the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
@JWC2490 What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
Creationists seem to want a day-by-day account of evolution. Since that’s never gonna happen, here’s an analogy: your house is broken into: police find hair, fingerprints, and foot prints that are matched to suspect X. Although they’ll never know exactly what he was doing every second of the time he was in the house, they know suspect X did it. Evolutionary theory is similar: although we can never determine every detail, all available evidence supports evolution.
MAN has the ability to think logically,organize himself and has the ability to love,and has the capacity for higher intelligence,a conscience,and a concept of the past,present,and future.these are all the result of chemical reactions?....think again.evolution doesn't havethe answer,but the bible does....".GOD created man in his own image.in GODS image he created him. (GENESIS 1-27).
@shooey79 what you have told me makes absolutely no sense. you are still waving a magic wand and telling me that God created himself . and all the other things you have said on this page are flawed to. you said evolution is a religion (it is not). evolution is not based on faith, it is based on evidence and it is a testable theory, plus if you look at the fossil record you can find many intermediate species, vestigial Relics, and common ancestors. i would go on but im out of time and characters
we are told to accept evolution unconditionally...its a FACT we are told can we believe that?...so we are told to accept it,not because it has been observed to occur.....or can be proved by logical coherant evidence but because the only alternative is special creation ,and thats not naturalistic ,that implies GOD as creator....sir arthur keith "evolution is unproved and unprovable,but the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable....evolution IS a religion...
@shooey79 Evolution is very provable, it just takes a lot of time to do so, and it will be done. Creation on the other hand, is circular logic, thus cannot be proven.
@shooey79 Nope much quicker than that, recently scientists did an experiment to create multicellular yeast from a single-cellular variety and it took less than a month.
@shooey79 Also: even though Einsteins theory of special relativity was proven recently, it doesn't mean it is the best theory and that it explains everything, in fact it is STILL a theory even though it was PROVEN.
Just goes to show how strong a meaning the word "theory" has in a scientific realm.
@shooey79 EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution. Creationism/ID is no different than a fairy tale: it's nothing more than wishful thinking. Sorry: calling ID "wishful thinking" suggests mental exertion, when it's actually quite the opposite.
@chackers everything is evidence of devine creation i would suggest! the wishful thinking and fairy-tales are the product of evolution.ERNST HAECKEL fabricated drawings in science text books because he was so desperate to promote evolution.LUCY was another fabrication ,as was PILTDOWN MAN..i must admit it takes great faith to believe in evolution because the evidence is simply not there..MICRO evolution i accept but MACRO evolution has never been observed! and never will be!!
@shooey79 The con men you mention scammed for their own benefit, not to promote evolution; they are to evolution as televangelists are to religion. Evolution is science: to deny it is to ignore the capacity for reason with which your creator endowed you, which you should consider an insult, and which I consider hypocritical. And regarding macro- vs. microevolution: I don’t see how you can accept one, but not the other: living things are the product of their genes. Or don’t you believe in genes
@chackers i accept the changes within a species E.G.Darwin observed the different types of finches with their variety of beaks etc.to conform to their respective enviroments,this is completely different to macroevolution which is the theory of new transitional species this as never been observed.do you not agree that if evolution were true then we should be observing "new" species evolving (and i don't mean the discovery of new species) infact the opposite is true we are losing species!
@shooey79 It's misleading to make a distinction between micro- and macroevolution; it’s akin saying you believe in DROPS of water, but not BUCKETS of water. Makes no sense. I mean, why can’t you believe that god created evolution? It’s childish to take the bible literally. And regarding transitional species: ALL species are transitional species. How do you think you could tell a species from a transitional species, if that even means anything?
@chackers ofcourse there's a difference! it is evolution that claims weall originate from a single cell organism but 1,there is NO!evidence of transitional species in the fossil records 2,most species haven't changed at all 3,animal groups exploded! onto the scene, which is far more consistent with biblical creation ,4, and species that vanished they vanished in a heartbeat!. so time(billions of yrs) & chemical soup isnot what got us here! in 6 days GOD created everything...believe me...
@shooey79 evolution has tried and failed miserably to show random chance mutation (change in a genome) never happened there is no new information in the gene.many evolutionists cite "nylonase" as great evidence,but again this is false .the duplicates do not diverge enough to produce novel new cells.mutations only prove variations within a kind of gene,this is NOT! mutations producing new gene information.
@shooey79 "there is no new information in the gene." Wrong. We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any meaningful definition of the term "information", increases in it has been observed to evolve.
@shooey79 "there is no evidence of transitional species..." Wrong. Not only have we found countless transitional species in the fossil record, but we also have multiple methods of genetically determining ancestry, and they each confirm what we see in the fossil record. Your own denial of the facts doesn't actually make these facts disappear, no matter how inconvenient they are to you.
@ArcanaKnight ok....give me an example of a transitional fossil. there are no fossil records that prove gradual changes from one species to another,NONE!......even stephen.j.gould admitted it wasamajor problem,the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design .....hmmmm lets hear your response
CONT "even stephen.j.gould admitted it was a major problem" No, he didn't. I believe I know the quote you're talking about because its one that is commonly taken out of context by creationists. Gould was arguing in favor of punctuated equilibrium over gradualism, not against evolution as a whole; anyone at all familiar with his work would know that.
@ArcanaKnight anyone can make a list.......none of these examples show that they were transforming from one species to a completely different species....even your god DAWKINS admits there are NO transitional fossils...the late S.J.GOULD said and i quote "the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design is a nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"...or are you a punctuated believer,which is also false!
@shooey79 "S.J.GOULD SAID..." I was right about which quote you were using then; as I've already explained, Gould was arguing against gradualism and in favor of punctuated equilibrium, not against evolution as a whole. Quote mining people into making it look like they're arguing against something they're not is a dishonest, fundamentally flawed tactic.
"they were transforming from one species..." Speciation has been observed though, even in modern times; also, two words: ring species.
@ArcanaKnight anyone can make a list.......none of these examples show that they were transforming from one species to a completely different species....even your god DAWKINS admits there are NO transitional fossils...the late S.J.GOULD said and i quote "the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design is a nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"...or are you a punctuated believer,which is also false!
@shooey79 Evolution is too slow a process to "watch." Consider how much faster a blade of grass grows than evolution occurs, and you can't even see THAT happen! If in any sense you're "watching" a species, you're necessarily watching it evolve (so to speak). And how do you know a newly-discovered species isn't new, as well? That we're losing species isn't news: more than 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct.
@chackers so by what you say i can ascertain that you are a believer in the gradualistic (darwin) evolution theory.yet there are those in science that refute darwin and claim that punctuated evoution is far more probable. i suppose this theory came about due to the lack of evidence in the fossil records to support gradualistic evolution. so which is it? i suggest its EVO-LIE-TION.for me there are far too many accounts of "artistic inference" employed by evolution science.
« yet there are those in science that refute darwin and claim that punctuated evoution is far more probable »
To be precise: EVERY evolutionary biologist today accepts punctuated equilibrium or some similar model as a necessary addition to Darwin's original model.
The facts that need to be explained remain exactly the same as before: the nested hierarchies in zoology, the diverging progressions in traits in palaeontology, the distribution and variation in ERVs, human chromosome #2, atavisms, pseudogenes, and so on. If these facts have not disappeared, then why should their interpretation suddenly change?
@shooey79 Evolution, however haltingly or "gradually" it occurs, is impossibly slow to observe; either way, though, I don't see how it refutes Darwin. "Artistic inference?" What's THAT mean? It's incomprehensible to me that the devout base ANY belief on nothing, much more so their DEEPEST beliefs. Acceptance of evolution is virtually universal, in the scientific community; denial of evolution completely undermines the credibility of the denier. In order to believe, you have to deny genetics.
the fact is if humanity is millions of years old,we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet....some has claimed that there were less people on earth in 09 than in 08....yes thatsa result of demographic winter,the human race has become so insular and materialistic..believing that less child births will somehow benefit the world we live in...hmmm...check out japan,ageing population living longer,and not enough people being born to support them.....end of days...
« the fact is if humanity is millions of years old,we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet »
1. We are.
2. You're thinking malthusian exponentiation. But population growth doesn't work that way. No population in nature grows exponentially: growth is always limited by environmental factors. And until humans learned agriculture and medicine, it was the same for us too.
@shooey79 "we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet" We actually are.
The calculations YECs use for this sort of claim are fundamentally flawed; they don't take into account limiting factors which we've only recently (relatively speaking) been able to overcome because of advances in agriculture and medicine. They've essentially just taken the current population, picked a date in the past, and made-up the math to make it fit their preconceived conclusions.
The argument of intelligent design unfortunately falls on it's head because of the fact that the people who are trying to prove that a "god" created a very complex molecular system don't take to account that it would take an even more complex "creator" to have created this. You can't just say well god created himself because the argument that is always been pushed against evolutionary biologist is that "something cannot come from nothing" so it would be contradictory.
@killyou9614 GOD has always been...,he is GOD he has no boundaries....everything was created by him through him , in him.. time and space impose no restrictions on him.....HE IS GOD! .creation supports our "coming into existence" far more than random chance,dead,uninspired ,lucky,processes...your right life could not spontaneously come into being by dead matter.....however GOD can do anything,he is GOD...!
@Mogley None of that is really true. Your arguments rely upon ignorance, entirely subjective opinions, and a cherry-picking of the evidence.
ArcanaKnight 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 5 days ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 days ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 5 days ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 days ago
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 5 days ago
I would like to take the time to thank the "designer" who came up with knees. Thank you so very much for such a crappy design. Were you high when you came up with that?
RuddyIPA 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 4 weeks ago
So what if he doubted that amino-acids could self assemble without DNA? It is a well established scientific fact that amino acids self assemble. This has been proven many times.
parsivalshorse 1 month ago
For those of you who believe this (and therefore believe that it is what scientists are saying when they admit we don't know all the answers). Take a step back and consider what YOU are saying as a result. You don't believe in the possibility of the very very complex therefore the answer must be even more complex?!
Please, just consider what you are saying.
TheSmifffy1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jonathan Wells's book The Design of Life,
stating: "Many of the systems inside the cell represent
nanotechnology at a scale and sophistication that dwarfs
human engineering. Moreover, our ability to understand the
structure and function of these systems depends directly on
our facility with engineering principles."
explaining that biological systems display
"irreducible complexity" which requires a goal-directed
process or "'bottom up-top down' design"
oopscanada 1 month ago
Those evil scientists with all their books and research, with all their proof and evidence. Universities……. They are nothing compared to the Christians who had homeschooling from the bible and the bible alone, who had books without science. Taught by those who themselves had homeschooling. If god wanted people to have scientific knowledge he would have given it to them by birth…………… right?
lokitukker 1 month ago
@lokitukker Have you been hiding under a rock? With the latest nano technology discoveries, it has been proven that Darwin was wrong.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada oooh "nano technology discoveries" Lol! Didn't you know the latest discoveries in quantum bioinformatic transformatics prove that Creationism makes people stupid enough to make shit up and believe it?
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Actually, you are wrong, as quantum "theory" presupposes the existence of matter/energy in the first place; so you cannot use those theories in this debate. Anything else? Or are you as ignorant as most atheists?
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada I was pointing out to you that if I make up some garbage scientific sounding bollocks you'd probably believe it - and, lo and behold, you don't disappoint.
Tell me - what 'nano technology discoveries' prove Darwin to have been incorrect?
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 ; actually it's you the atheists who would believe whatever spits out of the science journals. Stop wasting our tax dollars.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada What 'nano technology discoveries' prove Darwin to have been incorrect? I do believe you have yet to back up your claim.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Why don't you inquire the balance found when nano-particles interact in proteins? I'm sorry my friend but there is no way that this property of living cells would just come up by chance. This nano particles are condition to behave like that every time. This is part of the design.
oopscanada 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oopscanada "there is no way that this property of living cells would just come up by chance" Why not? That would be like declaring that there must be some intelligent agent behind gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces simply because you can't imagine how it could occur without one.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@oopscanada "there is no way that this property of living cells would just come up by chance"
Why? You have, I presume, no evidence suggest otherwise? Thought not.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Their functions is all pre-coded, there is no chemical or physical mechanism for this nano-particules to behave like that. At this point, it is clearer and clearer that nano technology had been designed way before man could discover it. Sorry.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada "there is no chemical or physical mechanism for this nano-particules to behave like that" ...
...apart from their shape, the shape of folded proteins and the action of electromagnetic forces.
fingleur1 4 weeks ago
@fingleur1
Sure; as per design , of course.
oopscanada 4 weeks ago
@oopscanada You're no different to a primitive human watching a coconut roll down a hill and smash open at the bottom. Only God could have designed the shape of the coconut to do that over and over again to roll and smash open so you can eat!
Hallelujah praise be to God.
fingleur1 4 weeks ago
@fingleur1 That's it? That's your argument? a coconut? please, get a life.
oopscanada 4 weeks ago
@oopscanada Don't apologise. Interesting statement. Anyway to demonstrate that it is true or false?
Like a test, for example...
RationalThinker1859 3 weeks ago
SO WHAT ABOUT THE ARSENIC MICROBE, WHY IS THAT HERE ITS COMPLETELY ALIEN TO ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, DID GOD MAKE IT AND IF GOD DID WHY, IS HE NOT PLEASED WITH US CARBON CREATURES?
TheHONKYLIPS 1 month ago
why
godisn0where 1 month ago
Lies in the name of the lord. You will burn.
Zuigbot 1 month ago
So....what means that early life had to be self replicating?
Dickified 1 month ago
the huge ego's also exist among those who oppose intelligent design. They have been caught throwing out research data when it didn't fit with their hypothesis. This vitreal towards Intelligent design continually prove God's words.
TheSleepingbandit 1 month ago
@TheSleepingbandit "They have been caught throwing out research data when it didn't fit with their hypothesis" You're definitely going to need a source to back up that claim.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
How is it that I can rape Jesus Christ every night, fill his lower intestine with my sperm, get Allah and pedophile prophet Muhammad PBUH to snoball my cum from Jesus' asshole and none of these fake imaginary voodoo god concepts can do anything to stop me? Answer that question and you can own the universe religikids
699backstab 1 month ago
@699backstab rofl...nice one but jesus is still lord. Listen man, just read the book of Matthew. It's incredible.
BitchPus5 1 month ago
@699backstab That's easy,because these guys you are consistantly having homosexual sex with,are not the real Jesus and such. Obviously the gay men that you so proudly admit to having sex with have similar names, but they're most likely just common mexican and arabic men.
mrhyde2484 1 month ago
@mrhyde2484 No its jesus alright. I jerk off on the bible and he cries blood. I push a raw pork chop in its mouth and he wimpers. Its your imaginary god concept. Dont deny the spirit of your fake god from your little book of horrors, the bible of death XD
699backstab 1 month ago
@oopscanada Because none of that is actually true. Those structures could have evolved naturally via processes like exaptation and the mullerian two-step; genetic algorithms routinely arrive at seemingly irreducibly complex solutions while using such processes. Irreducible complexity is itself little more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity; just because you don't understand how it could have evolved doesn't mean that its impossible.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
When it comes to logic, some people don't want to use what's usually known as common sense. *If* it's so clear, that the tiniest components of a cell cannot be produced slowly but they must exist all together at once to allow for cellular function and reproduction, then, why can't these people accept that a theory that proposes the contrary is false? I suppose it's easier to insult others than to put their brains to work!
oopscanada 1 month ago
09:12 this is how computer developers insert their humour into their work... :)
jagara1 1 month ago
This whole program shows the arrogance of the scientists who claim intelligent design.
Because they do not understand something, in their huge egos they have to come up with an answer and this answer becomes GOD!
If only these people had the ability to say "I do not know, I do not understand..."
This program is so unscientific that it really is shameful!
jagara1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jagara1 No scientists claim intelligent design. Some may have been to university and got some qualifications before they lost their marbles, but anyone who claims intelligent design isn't being scientific - and they're no longer worthy of the title of scientist.
fingleur1 1 month ago
This is so incredible; I feel so sorry for those who still believe this is by chance. There is nothing worst that *choosing" to be an ignorant.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada Saying "this is so complex, it couldn't have happened by chance" is not a valid argument.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight
Excuse me but by definition mutations happen by chance and are not directed; otherwise, you would need accept a designer as the cause of it. Then, natural selection is assumed that intervenes on the best outcome. My point is not about the natural selection at the macro level, but about these supposedly random mutations, that somehow created all organs, systems, rna, dna, proteins, etc, etc etc. Please; not proven at all, nor it will ever be. Sorry.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada An argument from incredulity like that is not a valid argument; just because you don't understand or can't imagine how it could be so doesn't mean that its impossible, it just means that you're lacking in understanding/imagination.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight
Oh please, it's easy to just label people as "you don't understand this". How about some concrete proof that natural selection is able to create dna, rna, molecules, etc? That has not been done, it cannot be done, and therefore, shows there is a big gap, there is a very important gap being misled when you want to assume that evolution can do this. It is obvious that the molecular/cellular system needs to exist all at once to be able to live. Go ahead and ....
oopscanada 1 month ago
... go ahead and study the cell all you want. Go ahead and be amazed at the complexity, exactness and completeness of the systems involved in cell reproduction. But from study it to come up with random theories, please. As a matter of fact, all monkey scientists should stop wasting tax payer dollars, and should start finding a cure for cancer, or Aids; where evolution, obviously has failed to find the best gene to survive it. STOP wasting our money.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada you clearly have your head too far up your ass to see how studying evolution has helped scientists make bigger discoveries that have kept people alive
BigBallaShotCalla15 1 month ago
@BigBallaShotCalla15
It is obvious that atheists like you have no clue of what logic is.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada Ok. I don't know what logic is. Have fun worshipping the invisible man in the sky while you say I don't know logic. You morons are a good source of entertainment, I'll tell you that.
BigBallaShotCalla15 1 month ago
@oopscanada If you understood the theory of evolution you'd know that evolution isn't a process of chance!
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1
Excuse me? "natural selection as the differential survival and reproduction of genotypes, corresponding to particular phenotypes. Natural selection can only work on existing variation within a population. Such variations arise by mutation, a change in some part of the genetic code for a trait. Mutations arise by chance and without foresight for the potential advantage or disadvantage of the mutation. In other words, variations do not arise because they are needed."
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada Mutations are the only part of evolution that really involve chance. Even the likelihood of a mutation is affected by the non-random processes of evolution.
Not all organisms suffer mutations at the same rates and not all parts of their genomes mutate at the same rates either.
Mutations might be random, but natural selection is anything but random.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1
Natural selection at the macro level, I understand is not random; however, at the cellular level, how will a cell *know* that it's time to reproduce into a variation that together with other cells will start making an organized system where one was not there before. That is the part that has not been proven to exist.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada "how will a cell *know* that it's time to reproduce into a variation..."
You are making an argument from ignorance. If you study genetics you can learn about the precise molecular mechanisms that lead to mutations.
Your argument is like saying "when I stir sugar into my coffee how does it *know* to dissolve" It does what it does because of the laws of physics and chemistry. The same applies to the interactions that cause mutations.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Your argument has so many flaws. You assume that genetics explains how cells are able to mutate to make new organs, and it does not. It does explain how current changes are made in cellular reproduction;however, the process of the interaction between the molecules and it relation to dna/rna, is al already hard coded. All code to make the different organs is already there. What you cannot find is code out of nowhere that will make new unseen systems. Use your logic!
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada FFS all the genetic code to make all the various organs is there BECAUSE IT EVOLVED. It's explained by the theory of evolution; and if you'd care to study the subject then you'd see so for yourself.
You just have a cognitive problem that makes it impossible for you to conceptualise the reverse engineering of 3 billion years of evolution. Don't beat yourself up about it.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 - Excuse me: "all the genetic code to make all the various organs is there BECAUSE IT EVOLVED. It's explained by the theory of evolution". Ha ha; again; that's just a theory, that not only it's unproven, but it has been proved that it is IMPOSSIBLE for natural processes to create the DNA, the rna, the chromosomes, the molecules to act all together in sync, out of nowhere. Everything has to be in place for this to work. If that's the case, where is the evolution?
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada "that's just a theory"
You don't even understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, how can you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously after that point?
fingleur1 1 month ago
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
pompeycharlie 1 month ago
This is one very "decorous" video. =p
ernieconner718 2 months ago
*Kaboom!* Mind... blown
byteusa 2 months ago
The discovery institute is a fraud.All this science talk from people who think an invisible man in the sky did everything.
msc8472 2 months ago
@msc8472 no more ad hominem attacks! address the evidence!
finxoner 1 month ago
Praise be to God in the highest!!! Hallelujah
eltopus4747 2 months ago
what a load of shit. I believe in God but i also belief he created science and evolution, things just don't fucking appear here, and science is all trial and error, none of this can be proven factual. ladies and gentlemen i leave here with this piece of advice. QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AND ARE TAUGHT
dEaDlYCoSmIcTiTaN 2 months ago
@dEaDlYCoSmIcTiTaN "QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AND ARE TAUGHT", well then it just may pay to question evolution?, just as you have also put it, "things just don't fucking appear here", so to does the first living cell from non living matte, just doesant appear, its never been observed and it never will without the aid of intelligence..
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm "Questioning" evolution doesn't mean making up these ridiculous strawman objections, especially when what you're objecting to isn't even covered by evolutionary theory in the first place. To try faulting evolution for not explaining how life itself originated would be like trying to fault it for not explaining how the earth formed; its outside ET's purview.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I guess because its tied in with the whole story within school text books, evolution has chosen to tie itself with the whole process from nothing exploding, to life springing up from non life, to the first cell evolving and mutating right up to we get modern man, not some type of mutant man, but a man complex and intelligent enough to get to the moon and back???
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm "I guess because its tied in with the whole story..." So by "story", you apparently mean science in general because those are 3 completely different theories in 3 separate fields; maybe if your knowledge about them came from somewhere other than creationist sources, you might know that. Evolution only explains how life developed , not how it originated, let alone how the universe began.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight well then, maybe we should keep it that way within the schools text books?...
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm They are; the textbooks don't say that the theory of evolution tries to explain all these things. It makes sense that the textbook writers would put these topics to be studied around the same time, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't all explained by the same theory.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Yes it does makes sense, and i guess its that which it is im getting at. However i understand at where you getting at aswell, although could it be said that abiogenisis is the evolutionary process of the first cell?, i mean it has to be said that life evolved from non living matter, so how exactly is it the evolutionists chooses to stay away from it?, and not including it in with the rest of the evolutionary theory?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shakinahstorm "could it be said that abiogenisis is the evolutionary process of the first cell?" No, its just chemistry, there were no evolutionary forces involved.
"it has to be said that life evolved from non living matter" Except that the form of "evolution" you're referring to isn't the same as that covered by evolutionary theory.
Its not included because as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
Its impossible to create codes that work out of randomness. It doesn't even work with computers randomly generating 101001010101010. no program has ever been created out of randomness. that is just impossible. atheists are telling me a long long book can be written perfectly with a good story line without any grammatical error out of randomness and no one has to write it. what a scam.
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark Snowflakes do pretty well 'out of randomness' The beautiful jack-frost artwork on the outside of my window in the winter seems to do pretty well 'out of randomness'
"without any grammatical error" Tell that to all the millions of people worldwide plagued by hereditary disease.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Molecular atoms also follow the law, written law of physics in patterns. it abides by it 100% just like you should follow God's laws written in your heart 100% but your evil desires want to go against God and do everything that pleases your senses just like the devil that's why God will judge you in the day and you will reap what you sowed. flesh will reap fleshly corruption, if you sowed in Spirit you will reap everlasting life. Wake up to realize there is LAW EVERYWHERE
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark "Molecular atoms also follow the law" Yep - and they combine according to the laws of physics to form amino acids and proteins and those proteins self catalyse and replicate and before you know it you have life.
No God required.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 hereditary disease is just punishment of sin. lets say you hate God and have children, they will also have problems in life whether its marriage or sinning just like you had x100 because they are your children and satan guides them the spirit of the world will make them corrupt and God will do just enough so that they don't die unless they realize their sins and repent. but your heart will grow hardened because of ignorance and no matter what you see it will hardly affect your soul.
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark "hereditary disease is just punishment of sin ... lets say you hate God and have children, they will also have problems in life"
Woo - top marks for the education where you come from!
fingleur1 2 months ago
@genoark Just a thought genoark - using your Christogoggles, what's the score if someone has a hereditary condition - lets say diabetes which God obviously intended to kill this person with.
If a doctor comes along and prescribes insulin and saves that person's life - is he or she doing God's will - or will the doctor burn in Hell for trying to undo God's pervious will which was to kill this 'innocent' individual?
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 you don't understand God also puts the doctors in place to give the person a chance to repent. God will give time to the person to realize that they might repent of their secret sins. Like all of us secretly we are sinners behind people's eyes you would lie, steal do bad things behind and conceal it. But God knows everything and will punish accordingly. Think about what you done that was hurting others or stealing or lying to conceal manners. wasn't your heart beating? knowing wrong?
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark So God gives someone hereditary type 1 diabetes to punish them for their parents' sins - and then provides a doctor to keep them alive so they have a chance to repent on behalf of their parents!
I take it they get to keep the cataracts and the kidney failure and stroke risk and all the rest as a reminder for themselves no to sin?
Your God is one sick MoFo.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 It may seem so champ, however God has not given anyone any of those things. He has placed a universal law and system in place, and its because He gave us free will, it was us that has corrupted that system, however God is offering a solution that not to many want to take up, Jesus.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Nah. But thanks.
Merry Subverted Pagan Festival to you.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Sorry but i choose to use this day to celebrate the birthday of my saviour instead, you are free to celebrate the pagans festival if you wish, it comes with free will. Anyhow, i pray and hope that you do choose to recieve what Jesus has done for you and me on the cross 2000 years ago. Sow to the flesh and reap death, sow to the spirit and reap life, life eternal.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@fingleur1 not all things are hereditary. if you live according to God's words eat according to His words you wouldn't get that hereditary genes activated. but because you act as sinful as your parents having their sins in your life activated, that's why you would get those traits. There is no accident. if your dad is Michael Jordan but you yourself don't play basket ball, you would not be good at it. Just like you wouldn't get the curse if you yourself live righteously and Holy fearing God.
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark Wow! You've actually given this some thought. Oh dear. Why does God kill newborn babies with hereditary disease?
I'm afraid you're completely wrong on all counts. Before a baby is even conceived we can test the parents tell whether their children will get a certain hereditary condition or the percentage chance of them acquiring it if not for certain.
How can we know this if your mumbo jumbo is correct?
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Very easy test it yourself. test yourself whether there are demons or devils sorcerers or witches. Seek God with truthfully humbly whether He is real or not. From the start you gotta acknowledge that this side you have no knowledge about spiritual realm, be humble and respect before you judge and be ignorant closing your heart before you even test and see for yourself. I can't show you unless you walk the path that I show, reach the place that I talk about. God bless.
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark "Seek God with truthfully humbly whether He is real or not" To even believe that god would speak to you isn't being humble.
"you have no knowledge about spiritual realm" Neither do you; what you have is belief supported by faith, not knowledge supported by facts. If you did have any actual knowledge, you wouldn't be doing all this hand-waving and making ad-hoc excuses for why you can't support any of your claims.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@genoark So, if I abandon all reason and truly believe in your 'spirit realm' guff, then I really will believe in your spirits, magic and God? Wow!
Self-lobotomisation isn't my bag.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 see? the thing is you're just a mocker and truth will never be revealed to the likes of you. Have Good day sir.
genoark 2 months ago
@genoark
You don't really need to worry your head about it. If there really is a God then he's going to be the one sorting out the atheists like me - he wouldn't expect you to do the job for him would he?
You'd best hope that you're backing the right horse though. There are all sorts of Gods out there - Shiva, Allah, Vishnu, Ra, John Frum! They're all queuing up to rubber stamp your ass all the way to Hell.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Im a believer in Jehovah, and i have to say Fingleur1, you have most cirtainly nailed it with that comment, its Gods job to do all the sorting, to many people try to do His job for Him!
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Thank goodness a theist who makes sense! If a supreme being put me here on earth and decides that my salvation relies on me believing and trusting in him - then this supreme being must have the wherewithal to communicate the fact of his existence directly to me.
If I ever get a call - I'll let you know. If not - c'est la vie.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 and He may already have, its just that your preconcieved idea on how exactly He is to go about it, maybe a tad off?. When that moment of clarity comes and it leaves you feeling very uncomfortable, dont runaway from God, but to Him. Bless ya champion
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@fingleur1 But you would still do it and your heart may have gotten hard and not feel it anymore. getting dull and insensitive that you don't cry no more or think about it less and forget it because now you're so busy with life everything moves fast, so you would forget those who did good unto you and remember everything that they have done against you. We must not forget the good things done to us. Do not forget God that created u and gave you life. Don't disregard Him as nothing. He is not 0.
genoark 2 months ago
Didn't really want to comment on the content, just wanted to point out that the subject and verb in the title don't agree.
Daruqe 2 months ago
Is this satire?
magicsam66 3 months ago
Its videos like this one that has brought about Atheism popularity.
Scientists were all content to stay Agnostic, until religion decided the church wasn't enough. Lying and twisting science, facts, just to support religious bronze age beliefs.
Watch the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial on Nova. See who the Federal Court sided with?
Faith only works in churches...not in courtrooms?
Desdenova262 3 months ago
So far, no RNA that could self replicate 100%. In addition the prebiotic condition for the formation of those properties required for formation of RNA only achieved in the lab with great deal of intervention by investigators (intelligent intervention). Prebiotic soup in the primitive earth still mystery. RNA world are only plausible explanation. Need to have more data and evidence to support, thus make it as merely theory.
gameofman 4 months ago in playlist More videos from VipChannel
With great care we've been made, great love. There must be a good reason why. Our Maker will come to visit us and see how well we're doing, that's for sure.
codergames 4 months ago in playlist DNA & Coded Information
This has been flagged as spam show
guys, IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THEN HOW COME WE STILL HAVE CHARMANDERS??
insectlover602 4 months ago
Man lets just be glad we are all here. Every single one of us has been here from the start and our blood lines had to make the right decisions for us to be here today, and we had better make the right decisions so the people we create can be here tommorow.
kadarrow 4 months ago
stupid hillbilly scientists. DNA isn't the only mechanism that creates proteins, ever hear of RNA? RNA can replicate and assemble proteins, and it's been around long before DNA ever got it's start.
Also early earth was in an ice age and had high levels of ammonia and cyanide. And its been proven that the combination of those two chemicals can arrange nucleotides, and amino acids, which leads to RNA replication.
How outdated is this video?
JWC2490 5 months ago
@JWC2490 you don't even no what you're talking about and obviously aren't paying attention. RNA has nothing to do with this. You're just babbling. So stop for all of us.
thinkagainism 4 months ago
@thinkagainism RNA has just as much to do with how life got started as DNA and amino acids. RNA predates DNA by millions of years, and RNA leads to self replication, this disproves the scientist in the videos main argument that it cant be done w/o DNA.
Oh, and I get these facts from peer reviewed scientific articles. While you get your 'facts' from a 15 year old video paid for by the creationist movement... And you claim I'M the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
JWC2490 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JWC2490 What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@thinkagainism i disagree with you. Surely you have heard of the RNA world hypothesis?
Casshyr 4 months ago
Fucking moron.
Hellblazer311 5 months ago
So some invisible man in the sky with a white beard did it?..
OldJong 5 months ago
evolution is a religion
ikawpipa 6 months ago
Creationists seem to want a day-by-day account of evolution. Since that’s never gonna happen, here’s an analogy: your house is broken into: police find hair, fingerprints, and foot prints that are matched to suspect X. Although they’ll never know exactly what he was doing every second of the time he was in the house, they know suspect X did it. Evolutionary theory is similar: although we can never determine every detail, all available evidence supports evolution.
chackers 6 months ago
MAN has the ability to think logically,organize himself and has the ability to love,and has the capacity for higher intelligence,a conscience,and a concept of the past,present,and future.these are all the result of chemical reactions?....think again.evolution doesn't havethe answer,but the bible does....".GOD created man in his own image.in GODS image he created him. (GENESIS 1-27).
shooey79 6 months ago
Whats with all this religious crap? If I want that I will invite the jehovas witnesses in DNA manipulation is done in a test tube....
SuperTomcatUk 6 months ago
@shooey79 what you have told me makes absolutely no sense. you are still waving a magic wand and telling me that God created himself . and all the other things you have said on this page are flawed to. you said evolution is a religion (it is not). evolution is not based on faith, it is based on evidence and it is a testable theory, plus if you look at the fossil record you can find many intermediate species, vestigial Relics, and common ancestors. i would go on but im out of time and characters
killyou9614 6 months ago
we are told to accept evolution unconditionally...its a FACT we are told can we believe that?...so we are told to accept it,not because it has been observed to occur.....or can be proved by logical coherant evidence but because the only alternative is special creation ,and thats not naturalistic ,that implies GOD as creator....sir arthur keith "evolution is unproved and unprovable,but the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable....evolution IS a religion...
shooey79 6 months ago
@shooey79 Evolution is very provable, it just takes a lot of time to do so, and it will be done. Creation on the other hand, is circular logic, thus cannot be proven.
krandaman1 6 months ago
@krandaman1 yeah time,plus slime plus billions of years!!
shooey79 6 months ago
@shooey79 Nope much quicker than that, recently scientists did an experiment to create multicellular yeast from a single-cellular variety and it took less than a month.
krandaman1 6 months ago
@shooey79 Also: even though Einsteins theory of special relativity was proven recently, it doesn't mean it is the best theory and that it explains everything, in fact it is STILL a theory even though it was PROVEN.
Just goes to show how strong a meaning the word "theory" has in a scientific realm.
krandaman1 6 months ago
@shooey79 EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution. Creationism/ID is no different than a fairy tale: it's nothing more than wishful thinking. Sorry: calling ID "wishful thinking" suggests mental exertion, when it's actually quite the opposite.
chackers 6 months ago
@chackers everything is evidence of devine creation i would suggest! the wishful thinking and fairy-tales are the product of evolution.ERNST HAECKEL fabricated drawings in science text books because he was so desperate to promote evolution.LUCY was another fabrication ,as was PILTDOWN MAN..i must admit it takes great faith to believe in evolution because the evidence is simply not there..MICRO evolution i accept but MACRO evolution has never been observed! and never will be!!
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 The con men you mention scammed for their own benefit, not to promote evolution; they are to evolution as televangelists are to religion. Evolution is science: to deny it is to ignore the capacity for reason with which your creator endowed you, which you should consider an insult, and which I consider hypocritical. And regarding macro- vs. microevolution: I don’t see how you can accept one, but not the other: living things are the product of their genes. Or don’t you believe in genes
chackers 5 months ago
@chackers i accept the changes within a species E.G.Darwin observed the different types of finches with their variety of beaks etc.to conform to their respective enviroments,this is completely different to macroevolution which is the theory of new transitional species this as never been observed.do you not agree that if evolution were true then we should be observing "new" species evolving (and i don't mean the discovery of new species) infact the opposite is true we are losing species!
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 It's misleading to make a distinction between micro- and macroevolution; it’s akin saying you believe in DROPS of water, but not BUCKETS of water. Makes no sense. I mean, why can’t you believe that god created evolution? It’s childish to take the bible literally. And regarding transitional species: ALL species are transitional species. How do you think you could tell a species from a transitional species, if that even means anything?
chackers 5 months ago
@chackers ofcourse there's a difference! it is evolution that claims weall originate from a single cell organism but 1,there is NO!evidence of transitional species in the fossil records 2,most species haven't changed at all 3,animal groups exploded! onto the scene, which is far more consistent with biblical creation ,4, and species that vanished they vanished in a heartbeat!. so time(billions of yrs) & chemical soup isnot what got us here! in 6 days GOD created everything...believe me...
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 evolution has tried and failed miserably to show random chance mutation (change in a genome) never happened there is no new information in the gene.many evolutionists cite "nylonase" as great evidence,but again this is false .the duplicates do not diverge enough to produce novel new cells.mutations only prove variations within a kind of gene,this is NOT! mutations producing new gene information.
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 "there is no new information in the gene." Wrong. We've observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any meaningful definition of the term "information", increases in it has been observed to evolve.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@shooey79 "there is no evidence of transitional species..." Wrong. Not only have we found countless transitional species in the fossil record, but we also have multiple methods of genetically determining ancestry, and they each confirm what we see in the fossil record. Your own denial of the facts doesn't actually make these facts disappear, no matter how inconvenient they are to you.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight ok....give me an example of a transitional fossil. there are no fossil records that prove gradual changes from one species to another,NONE!......even stephen.j.gould admitted it wasamajor problem,the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design .....hmmmm lets hear your response
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 All fossils are transitional fossils; here are the ones between land mammals and whales: Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ichthyolestes, Gandakasia, Ambulocetus, Himalayacetus, Attockicetus, Remingtoneceus, Dalanistes, Kutchicetus, Andrewsiphius, Indocetus, Qaisracetus, Takracetus, Artiocetus, Babiacetus, Protocetus, Pappocetus, Eocetus, Georgiacetus, Natchitochia, Dorudon, Ancalacetus, Zygorhiza, Saghacetus, Chrysocetus, Gaviacetus, Pontogeneus, Basilosaurus, Basiloterus.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
CONT "even stephen.j.gould admitted it was a major problem" No, he didn't. I believe I know the quote you're talking about because its one that is commonly taken out of context by creationists. Gould was arguing in favor of punctuated equilibrium over gradualism, not against evolution as a whole; anyone at all familiar with his work would know that.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight anyone can make a list.......none of these examples show that they were transforming from one species to a completely different species....even your god DAWKINS admits there are NO transitional fossils...the late S.J.GOULD said and i quote "the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design is a nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"...or are you a punctuated believer,which is also false!
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 "S.J.GOULD SAID..." I was right about which quote you were using then; as I've already explained, Gould was arguing against gradualism and in favor of punctuated equilibrium, not against evolution as a whole. Quote mining people into making it look like they're arguing against something they're not is a dishonest, fundamentally flawed tactic.
"they were transforming from one species..." Speciation has been observed though, even in modern times; also, two words: ring species.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@shooey79 Have you ever read his book? There are shitloads of them. He just says that we don't need them to prove our point.
VJHP 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight anyone can make a list.......none of these examples show that they were transforming from one species to a completely different species....even your god DAWKINS admits there are NO transitional fossils...the late S.J.GOULD said and i quote "the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design is a nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"...or are you a punctuated believer,which is also false!
shooey79 5 months ago
@shooey79 Evolution is too slow a process to "watch." Consider how much faster a blade of grass grows than evolution occurs, and you can't even see THAT happen! If in any sense you're "watching" a species, you're necessarily watching it evolve (so to speak). And how do you know a newly-discovered species isn't new, as well? That we're losing species isn't news: more than 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct.
chackers 5 months ago
@chackers so by what you say i can ascertain that you are a believer in the gradualistic (darwin) evolution theory.yet there are those in science that refute darwin and claim that punctuated evoution is far more probable. i suppose this theory came about due to the lack of evidence in the fossil records to support gradualistic evolution. so which is it? i suggest its EVO-LIE-TION.for me there are far too many accounts of "artistic inference" employed by evolution science.
shooey79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« yet there are those in science that refute darwin and claim that punctuated evoution is far more probable »
To be precise: EVERY evolutionary biologist today accepts punctuated equilibrium or some similar model as a necessary addition to Darwin's original model.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« which is it? »
The facts that need to be explained remain exactly the same as before: the nested hierarchies in zoology, the diverging progressions in traits in palaeontology, the distribution and variation in ERVs, human chromosome #2, atavisms, pseudogenes, and so on. If these facts have not disappeared, then why should their interpretation suddenly change?
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@shooey79 Evolution, however haltingly or "gradually" it occurs, is impossibly slow to observe; either way, though, I don't see how it refutes Darwin. "Artistic inference?" What's THAT mean? It's incomprehensible to me that the devout base ANY belief on nothing, much more so their DEEPEST beliefs. Acceptance of evolution is virtually universal, in the scientific community; denial of evolution completely undermines the credibility of the denier. In order to believe, you have to deny genetics.
chackers 5 months ago
the fact is if humanity is millions of years old,we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet....some has claimed that there were less people on earth in 09 than in 08....yes thatsa result of demographic winter,the human race has become so insular and materialistic..believing that less child births will somehow benefit the world we live in...hmmm...check out japan,ageing population living longer,and not enough people being born to support them.....end of days...
shooey79 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« the fact is if humanity is millions of years old,we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet »
1. We are.
2. You're thinking malthusian exponentiation. But population growth doesn't work that way. No population in nature grows exponentially: growth is always limited by environmental factors. And until humans learned agriculture and medicine, it was the same for us too.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@shooey79 "we would be encountering overpopulation on the planet" We actually are.
The calculations YECs use for this sort of claim are fundamentally flawed; they don't take into account limiting factors which we've only recently (relatively speaking) been able to overcome because of advances in agriculture and medicine. They've essentially just taken the current population, picked a date in the past, and made-up the math to make it fit their preconceived conclusions.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
There IS more densely packed information. Have been for quite a while. Man made.
Hopefulfilment 6 months ago
The argument of intelligent design unfortunately falls on it's head because of the fact that the people who are trying to prove that a "god" created a very complex molecular system don't take to account that it would take an even more complex "creator" to have created this. You can't just say well god created himself because the argument that is always been pushed against evolutionary biologist is that "something cannot come from nothing" so it would be contradictory.
killyou9614 6 months ago
@killyou9614 GOD has always been...,he is GOD he has no boundaries....everything was created by him through him , in him.. time and space impose no restrictions on him.....HE IS GOD! .creation supports our "coming into existence" far more than random chance,dead,uninspired ,lucky,processes...your right life could not spontaneously come into being by dead matter.....however GOD can do anything,he is GOD...!
shooey79 6 months ago