Actually, if a fish really did just jump out of the water and started breathing air, that'd be a miracle. I'd rather follow the less ignorant idea that there were small changes over a long time.
You're not going far enough - a better question, in all seriousness, for those idiots that think that fuckin book is the word of the creator of the universe - is why would the creator of the universe choose the same media format (ie. rumored chineze whispers converted into a written text) that blatantly false cults use, when he could have chosen supernatural means (i dunno - use ur imagination - maybe a 10 kilometer tall Guidestone for example - something not common and fakeable!)
The real comedy is that the eye is a superb piece of evidence for *lack* of a creator. Or, rather, lack of a competent creator - if God is an engineer, he's a fairly shitty one, as the optic nerve is connected to the wrong side of the retina (thus the existence of a blind spot).
Huh. Going through all the comments, I'm surprised no tropers have popped out of the woodwork. That's how I got here, anyway... Anyways, I've seen this video several times now, and it never ceases to be entertaining.
But seriusly as much as creationism peanut theory was hilarious,,athiest abiogenesis is also hilarious..and also the last video translation was fake :)
@NUTCASE71733 .I just wanted to stop the stupid and wrong information spread by thiS UPLoADER..at leaSt hE shoUlD havE rEsearchEd something b4 uploading last part....and he is telling abiogenesis as it is proven fact...Iam 100% sure even the uploader is not having science degree...well the fact is that we are still dont know the orgin of life..it may be from god or from that fluid..you cant tell..in this video he is explaining his stupidity along with religious stupidity as well :lol..
The peanut butter theory is baffling to me. If I'm not mistaken, people used to believe in the Middle Ages that rats would suddenly pop up into existence by putting breadcrumbs in bedsheets, since according to them god creates all life... so wasn't it originally a pro-theist argument to find life suddenly popping into existance like that?
The peanut butter theory is baffling to me. If I'm not mistaken, people used to believe in the Middle Ages that rats would suddenly pop up into existence by putting breadcrumbs in bedsheets, since according to them god creates all life... so wasn't it originally a theist argument to find life suddenly popping into existance like that?
Where did you get the idea that we need your pompous know-it-allisms? Do you think we even need a reply to our comments? But that is the crux of your convictions. You've become so addicted to your own ultra-reasonable definitions, you just will not be able to resist.
@mrbearbear83 That is the evolutionists strategy to bury unbelievers in Darwin with tons of pseudo-scientific gibbering. An atheistic evolutionary creation whereas species would have grown or alter organs and limbs in order to evolve into something else is pure nonsense. Atheism cannot answer for the exquisiteness of the designing, programming and engineering of the species. Darwinism is an opium for atheists
"Atheism cannot answer for the exquisiteness of the designing, programming and engineering of the species".
1. Atheism =/= Evolutionary science. 2. Evolutionary science can account for all those things and more, and if you did even a small amount of research on pretty much any of the biological field, you would know that. If you really believe evolution was bogus, you would never take antibiotics, vaccines or most pathogenic medicine.
@hi5blast Antibiotics, not antibodies. Do you even now why you need to take different kinds of antibodies every few years? Or why you need to keep on top of your vaccines? Because the pathogens evolve to be immune to these methods, so they must be rapidly changed to keep ahead of them so you don't get ill. If you don't believe in evolution, you needn't bother getting a flu jab each year.
To quote yourself; "you should do better research buddy".
@TheBanile ..any how i was just questioning the validity of videos and the lies spread in the last part>...regarding the evolution part>>do u think the african counterparts are still same species even though they are seprated from european?asian part by 2 millions yrs>>y this concession is given only to human and no to other species..i dont know Any SpECiEs sEpratED by 2 millionS IS still cAllEd thE samE speCEis..
@TheBanile hAHAH FAST At pointinG MiStAkES :D..I know whAT iS antibodiEs..and pathogEns adapt..they dont evolve..same applies to mosquito or cockroaches when we spread pesticides..that doesnot mean that we have new species..they are still the same species>
@hi5blast Yes, and eventually, variations adapt in different ways and after a very long time these changes sometimes become very big, so big ha the two are not that much alike any more. Like that bacteria that was found that eats nylon, a substance man-made for not that long a time and that no other animal can eat; in adapted in a new way and eventually became too different from it's fellows to be considered the same species. Small changes over short times, big changes over long times.
not to mention that viruses, such as the flu, mutate (evolve) to become something different every, what....3-5 years? at least that's what i've heard.
@defiantwon33 Yes, most do. It's why diabetics like me need a new flu jab each year :) so many new strains. Somehow, creations feel that adaptation, mutation or variations are different from evolution, which they aren't really; they are all methods in which a species changes to evolve over time!
@TheBanile my knowledge of diabetics is not complete...but what does flu jab have to do with diabetics? You guys get insulin shots, not flu shots. Flu shots are for everybody. Or maybe i'm misunderstanding u..
@Casshyr Well particularly diabetics, as well as those with heart problems and of certain ages etc, are particularly susceptible to contracting flu and also can suffer more severe side-effects from having flu (it can play havoc with blood sugar levels and more likely to develop pneumonia and other complications too too from what my doctor has told me). So it's doubly important we're kept up to date with flu jabs, with new strains and all or things can go downhill quickly...
@defiantwon33 They want to see something dramatic, like a monkey giving birth to a human lol, which ironically, is actually against what evolution theory states. If a monkey gives birth to a human, this would be proof against evolution, not for it.
How come nobody's connected peanut butter biogenesis AND young-earth fossils? If I grab a random jar, shouldn't one of them come to life -- and then turn into a fossil? Maybe even before the expiration date?
lol i love your voice... its like a teacher scolding little children...but all the candidates are grown men so maybe they should sue the schools they went too.
I need more islam debunks please. It's way harder to debunk this religion. Christianity is obviously bullshit as it has been proven trillions of times. In fact even muslims don't agree with the bible.
Islam is way more difficult to debunk, give it a try. There are tons of videos on youtube that provide signs that the Coran is apparently true
@rkyeun obviously it comes from the Coran. It's pretty hard to find a flaw within that book; I mean it even has a Sourat in which it speaks of the expansion of the Universe. It's simply mentionned in one small verse but it's there.
I haven't read the Koran very extensively, I'm sorry. If you can point me to a particular English translation which you would agree is viable and valid for purposes of refuting, and which you will be bound to defending should I find something flawed, I'll have a look.
We could of course start with the largest flaw, which is that it's a religious book.
@InfinityDz My God, your're right! Mohammed's mythological fairy tales are so patently superior to all other religions' fairy tales, how can you not believe them??! It is almost as if Mohammed's silly-ass stories about flying horses to heaven, etc. are a really good basis for one's entire intellectual foundation! Plus, the words of a pedophile/polygamist/thief/murderer are OBVIOUSLY the true & inerrant words of the Muslim Magical Sky Daddy!
@donfishmaster I'd like to have your point of view about the whole thing but the facts are there, what can you say to deny them? There are plenty of signs you wonder how the fuck they can be true. It's not all fairy tales.
@InfinityDz The Koran states that the Earth is still flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth because the Sun is smaller than Earth, and many of its followers still believe this. In fact, they look only to the Koran as scientific fact. Believers also still insist that doctors don't understand how the eye works.
I know we all get het up about idiotic creationists but think about this. A few hundred years ago pretty much everyone believed in god. Now, non-belief is more and more prevalent. Perhaps it's due to better education but maybe... just maybe, our brains are EVOLVING to question more... oh the irony!! Wish we could speed the process up a bit more....
Im a Creationist, and I would just like to point out to you guys that we can also tell our solar system is young because of the amount of meteoroidial matter yet present to bombard the moon and that comets still exist and orbit the sun. Theres a fun fact for you guys, and cant wait to here what your excuse for that "old mith" is. Thx :)
@BlueCosmology God created a mature world. In the Bible, when trees were created, it didn't take the trees years to grow to full size like they do now. They were made as adult trees. That can be related to the stars too. When God made the sun, moon, and stars to give off light, he said 'and it was so' which means the starlight could already be seen. He didn't create the light in transit to Earth, he made the stars mature just the the trees and animals, and even Adam.
AgApE010 Regarding stars, there is something called gravitational time dilation, which states that time can flow at different rates at different places. The speed of time is 186,000 miles/second, but that can be different in space due to Carmalean physics. and aging a tree by the rings isn't reliable, since some trees can have more rings than it's age, or less.
@ikerocky98 You've got the "speed of time" mixed up with the speed of light. And yes time dilation exists and it changes the rate of flow of time. It does NOT however change the velocity of light. Time dilation ensures that light always travels at the same velocity relative to everybody.
"Cause I'm trying to picture this animal coming out of the water, breathing for a few breaths and then going back into the water, and then going up to breathe again until lungs develop?" - I am paraphrasing Ray Comfort.
One point which nobody ever seems to make regarding peanut-butter man is HOW does he know there's no new life inside a jar of peanut butter? Has he tested hundreds of jars for unknown DNA or maybe some other form of reproductive molecule? It seems like when he claims "life" should come out of a jar of peanut butter, he's expecting something multi-cellular, big enough to be seen by the naked eye.
I am reminded of Father Ted explaining perpectives to Dougal with the toy cows "These are small... but the ones out there are far away. Small... far away"
I am reminded of Father Ted explaining perpectives to Dougal with the toy cows "These are small... but the ones out there are far away. Small... far away"
@thegalwegian... Thanks for correcting my sarcasm. Basically what I am saying is just because humans discovered these properties, physical laws, the cosmos, etc; it doesn't mean they weren't put in place for a reason. There's plenty of physical evidence that everything around you is by design.
It's funny that neither atheists or Christians ever seem to recognize or acknowledge the fact that Christianity itself has evolved over the years. What if God created evolution? What if God created physics and chemistry and... all forms of science for that matter. You know, since things have to work somehow. And of course free will; so we can use what we learn to make up our own minds. It seems like atheists are using Gods creations to disprove the existence of God. Quite a conundrum.
@t5tuber What if God has evolved from a primitive misogynous, genocidal and insecure guy? Nah, if so, he'd already shut up all his own predicators, imams, rabbis and priests who promote hate, anger, violence and stupidity
@t5tuber ," What if God created physics and chemistry and... all forms of science for that matter. You know, since things have to work somehow." That sentence is just so wrong, what it should say is "what if it was god who created matter, space and natural laws". So far no evidence of a god even existing has been found but all available evidence so far points to the universe (cosmos) could have come about without the need for an intelligence behind it.
Dude... All for knowing the truth, but if you're going to debunk things then at least pick smart people to debunk.. Debunking dumb people with a sarcastic voice makes you look equally dumb.
when ray comfort was told that the banana was cross-breed for hundreds of years to look the way it is in today, you would think he would appoligize, but he said that god allowed humans to cross-breed them. (not his exact quote but it was along those lines). so ignorant. u could prove to these types of people wrong- with all the facts in the world and they would say something about god.
The comparison between the peanut butter jar and the "primordial sludge/soup" is inaccurate; Remember to include the primordial sludge/soup of all planets in the universe. Just because it happened here on Earth (probably) it could have been anywhere and we would be there talking about it now.
Sometimes when I open a jar of salsa some of the seeds, usually the tomato seeds, occasionally the jalapeno seeds have small roots growing out of them. That proves life can arise in a jar.
Why do you depend on derision as an alternative to contrary evidence.Furthermore why not disprove the propositions rather than ridicule them.The mud was a much better grade of primordial sludge.SO WHY NOT REPRODUCE PRIMORDIAL SLUDGE how hard can it be? after all it happened spontaneously!
@MrNewkingjames this is what is know as a "red herring", everyone. its combined with a straw man. look closely.
1. how much proof has been given? plenty, the goal post are moved everytime you are given proof.
2. you deride the stupid. the stupid being people who refuse to accept tested, retested evidence, and instead rely on pseudoscience to prop up their view.
3. primordial sludge? you need to brush up on abiogenics, and theory of evolution. you've regurgitated what stupid people say.
Also, what would it matter even if bananas had been that way for a long time? Are we saying that this is the ideal shape of fruit? Then why are so many fruits roughly round? Why is only one (notably - the one most associated with the monkeys we couldn't possibly share a common ancestor with!) being this way suddenly proof of god's existence? I like watermelons more than bananas and they are definitely not suited for the human hand. Pineapples too. The whole reasoning is unbelievably flawed.
Haha me again. Back to peacerines. Yes, it's a new variety but peaches and necterines are both Drupes. Same with apricots, so a peachcot is also not an example of evolution. If you could successfully cross breed a drupe and a legume, and then have that legupe or drume (whatever you want to call it) successfully reproduce, THAT would support evolution.
@MySpaige Actually, it wouldn't. I'm sure you've heard of the crocoduck. Well, if we actually did find a crocoduck, it would completely baffle scientists worldwide, because a crocoduck can't possibly have come to exist through evolutionary means. Evolution can only make new species by the differentiation of species of the same family/genus already existing.
So if you made a peacerine, it's supporting evolution, because it's a variation of two species from the same family.
@MySpaige However, if you made a legupe or drume, that would make a huge dent in the theory of evolution, because by evolutionary means, you can't possibly cross those two species. They are too far apart in the tree of life, their genomes are too different, reproduction modes, mating methods, everything is too separate, they have evolved too far apart, to be able to be hybridized.
If ever you do find a legupe or drume, make sure to bring it to the closest university, it'll be earth-shattering
@kurayamisidekick So what your saying is basically the same thing as me- that a new species can only come from something of the same family. And as this is the truth, how could humans have evolved, as we are genetically different to all other animals (chimps, apes, monkeys, oranutans etc included).
@MySpaige However, orang-utans share something like 99% identical genes with humans, who have about 96% or so identical genes with gorillas, and dogs of different breeds share something similar to that with wolves. However, we know they are related. What sets humans apart?
The answer? Nothing. Just small changes and fine-tuning of the DNA. The human ancestor branched away from the monkey ancestor and they both evolved differently into the modern animals we see today. And yes, we are animals.
@kurayamisidekick The fact that humans have a soul is what sets us apart. The fact that we can connect to a supernatural world and nothing else in the world can. And I know, evolution doesn't pay attention to or think that there is anything supernatural, but there is. Otherwise why would people turn to a higher power, or to a psychic or anything of the sort.? And how exactly did we evolve from this "monkey ancestor"? Knowing that evolution is ALWAYS a bad thing (ie- cell mutations causing cancer
@MySpaige One cannot quantify a soul, detect a soul, measure a soul in any way or form. While I admit souls may be ghosts or whatever, I feel the only way for us to have souls is to believe we do. One of the greatest mysteries is the human brain, I do not pretend to know anything about it, but I personally think a soul is not part of the equation.
What about elephants burying their dead? Could they not connect to a spiritual world too? Or monkey parents, who grieve the death of their children?
@kurayamisidekick It's true that science can't quantify, detect or measure a soul in any way or form, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is much in this world yet to be discovered! Elephants and monkeys (and other animals too) do have emotions, but as for connecting to a spiritual world, no.
@MySpaige However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we can't prove there is no soul, doesn't mean there is either. But anyways, it's all a matter of belief. Just curious, but what are your beliefs regarding souls and death?
I completely agree. The universe is wonderful
Why not? What are the qualifications for having a soul?
@kurayamisidekick Exactly. In the end it all comes down to belief. I'm a christian, so I believe that we do have souls, we can connect to the spiritual world and I do believe in the afterlife. Animals only have an emotional element, not a spiritual element. Thats just the way it is.
@MySpaige You believe despite there being zero evidence for or against it. You believe because you want to believe, and there's nothing wrong about that.
However, why do we have souls? Why no other animals? How does this process work? How do you know that's what is really happening, that it's the truth? You can't verify after all.
And why only humans? Just because is not an explanation, nor is the bible. Think about it. A human-shaped god made the earth specially for us to inhabit it.
@MySpaige Despite hurricanes, earthquakes, disease, poverty, God loves us anyways. And what about the animals? Doesn't God love them too? What tells you God created this world specifically for us, say he did it for elephants instead. After all, elephants are very intelligent, feel emotions, are very loving and caring. They'd make a perfect "chosen species". Why us?
And further more, if you can arbitrarily bestow souls to whom you want (humans but not animals), what stops you from saying
@MySpaige ... what stops you from saying black people don't have souls? Or asian? If only humans have souls, and they don't, well then they're not human are they? If there's no iron rule to prevent such abuse, it will be used. It has been many times, history is full of such examples.
But with no souls, no "chosen species", we are all related, we are all the same, no one is better than anybody else. There is only us, each other, and the wonders of the universe.
@MySpaige For people, look at the Rastafarians and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People turn to a higher power because they want to believe.
As for evolution, mutations happen. Whether they are good or bad depends on the context, but the majority of mutations are neutral. Natural selection kills off those with bad mutations and those whose mutations enable them to survive can reproduce and pass on their genes.
@kurayamisidekick Yes mutations do happen, but they are never good, only bad or neutral. And evolution does exist in certain areas (ie socially, technolgically etc), but not to create totally new and different organisms. I believe what I believe because I think nature and science points to creation rather than evolution. Sorry to get religious, but I do think that man is created in the image of God. Not in the sense of appearance (we can't know what he looks like) but with an intellegence and
@kurayamisidekick an understanding that surpasses anything else in this world. Yes, God loves us in every circumstance, good or bad, and he loves the animals too. It doesn't matter what colour we are, we are all human and equal, with a soul, and no one race, sex etc is better than the other, despite what some people may think. And in response to the not humans argument, yes they're human because we are still a physical being as well.
@MySpaige Anything in this world? Or is it out of this world? Because if he is in this world, we should be able to find him,but if he's out of this world, there's no way we can contact him.
I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble seeing the god who sent the ten plagues on Egypt as loving. And the god willing to send people to hell. Just not my cup of tea.
"But they're black! They must be inferior! It said so in the bible!" Sorry, but religious arguments have a tendency to win over physical fact
@MySpaige I prefer to believe people are good and bad in equal measures, they just choose to express their love out of the pure goodness of their heart, rather than because they are threatened with hell (or denied paradise, or whatever) if they don't.
Whereas biologically, it shows unequivocally we are all equal and there's no going around it. Humans are not the pinnacle of life on earth, merely one of many species who share the same planet.
@kurayamisidekick Both, but if you're looking for a physical God in this world, it won't ever be found. And yes we can contact God. Not only is God loving, but he is just. It's not like God wants to send people to hell, but there needs to be consequences for our actions, either good or bad, otherwise it wouldn't be just. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that black people are in inferior in fact, it says God does not show favouritism (rom 2:11).
Then what validates this god? If god has never appeared on our insignificant little planet, where did we get this little idea? As I would say it, even if there was a god, man should not pretend to know him because should his existence be real, we would never know of his true intent and your own projections of his traits would be just as wrong as those who do not believe in him at all. The bible as a result has always been used as a weapon in the past, like in Salem and of course racism.
@Machdude He did appear on our planet in human form- Jesus. All his traits and intent are in the Bible. As for it being a weapon, yes it has been, but those people didn't truly understand it.
Jesus can be interpreted as a man who was elevated to that status. The bible as I said before is not a source that I would trust because of its nature as a book written by man. On the other hand there are artifacts and sources that can trace both Jesus' descendants and his ancestors. While those too may have dubious value (just as the bible is as such), it does not change the simple fact, he is what we interpret him to be.
Quite frankly, I would trust the bible far less with its validity due to its history in the past. With its uses to justify crusades, genocides, oppression and greed, I hardly see any reason to trust it at all, especially those who wrote and rewrote it. Is that the word of god? No, it is the words of man! Why would you want to search for god? Because it gives god a purpose. What we have in the bible is just words. If we cannot know god, then we can never know what it asks for. Simple as that.
@Machdude OH please, just STFU with the crusades and do some research.
The first crusade happen becuase of muslims conquering European countries like Spain for example and becuase the first Christian city Constantinople was conquered by muslim oppressors.
the first Crusade was to recover christian lands from muslim oppression, and yes they were christian before muslim
Everything is in the eyes of the beholder and what you said just proved my point. From your point of view it would be muslim oppressors, but from the other side, Christians would be the same. But its purpose? Nothing much, just the use of the bible as justification for what is effectively manifest destiny. And what before Christians? The Jews. Yep.
There is only one truth and its the FACTS, im not Christian, im an Secular Jew so logically i have all the reasons to bash Crusades, but i dont at least not for the initial reason why they happened.
Christianity came before Islam, and all those lands where Christian (Spain, Constantinople and others)
When Muslims conquered Constantinople the Pope didn't do shit but when they came to Europe took over Spain and other lands he had no choice but to assemble an army to free Christian lands
Land too is in the eye of the beholder and as it is, wars have been fought over it for ages. But the main justification behind it? Religion. It doesn't matter who owned what and what did who, the methods were the same, a one sided drive to claim land in the name of their god. Its not hard when people readily believe something to such ends, of course there will be followers. This is not a one sided affair, Christians and Muslims have fought each other for land since the beginning of civilization.
@kurayamisidekick We have the ability to think for ourselves, so you can believe whatever you want. I won't try to stop you. Bioloigically we may have some similarities, but all that says to me is that we came from the same source as everything else in the world.
Biologically, most if not all organisms are derived from the same source. Its in the evolutionary structure. Changing environments create changing adaptations. With all the evidence compiled on animal relationships, it can be concluded that many of the animal subtypes like mammals and reptiles were branched off from a single source. Now it would be impossible to really know 100% what happened in the past, but with all the evidence at hand, it is not 0% because there is proof.
Nobody knows that because we have never gone back that far yet. But it is for certain that first was not human, nor remotely, a being that we can relate to. If god truly created life in his own image, then whatever it was he looked like certainly is not us and would bare us no favoritism. But I know one thing is for sure. What we see around us is proof and until god shows himself, there is no reason to believe in him.
Simple, through the use of carbon dating, radioactive dating and good old geological surveying, you can easily tell what age things are from. Human remains date back to barely a couple hundred thousand years, I'll even err it to the million to 2 million (where humanlike primates existed). But a million years is chump change to the earth. Dinosaurs date back to at least 63 million years before us (we haven't even lived long enough to see them die) and they aren't even as old as other extincts.
And I think that the concept of god has overstayed its welcome. When the only outcome is such chaos such as this, one has to disappear. But the concept of god is hanging on through faith and stubbornness, and not logic.
@Machdude Do you mean chaos as in natural disasters etc? That I could somewhat understand. But nature and they way organisms are built is not at all chaotic. Yes the concept of God is still around, but I think it's through both faith and logic, same reasons as to why the concept of evolution is still around.
No, what is meant by chaos is the fact that the war between god and that which contradicts it reaches the apex, the only result is Chaos because humans will fall to their petty squabbles. But the clear difference is in that which has more proof. God can never be proven which is integral to it but also its greatest fallacy in this argument. Science may not be 100% accurate (we only know what we discover and test), but it has far more proof to it than religion ever will.
You removed it, but I'll answer anyway. It's not the Scientists whom are at fault. Many scientists are Christian/Jewish/Islam/etc. as well as men of learning. But it is those who devote themselves to the Creationist mythos that try to debunk Science as fake. Not everyone wants conflict. But when the vocal side of the argument actively provoke them to retaliate, the only result is chaos. It's not that scientists do not want god to exist, it is that they have no PROOF of his existence.
@Machdude Science isn't fake. I don't know of anyone who believes that. Science shows us the facts, but how they get interrpreted is related to how you think. For example, the fossil record is used to support evolution, but it is also used to support creation.
That's not the case because you cannot conclusively say that a fossil record can show it as creation when nearly all of it points to evolution. I've seen articles where they try to justify that a fossil being near a volcano as the fossil being placed there by Satan. It just does not make any sense. The reason why there is such a strong opposition to creationism is that the people who are writing it aren't even doing any actual research into the subject.
@Machdude That's not true. There are plenty of creationist scientists around today. Here's some examples for you- Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology, Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist ,Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology ,Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer ,Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics) ,Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering ,Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering, Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist. And there are many more!
@Machdude And I agree about the fossil being put there by satan. That doesn't make any sense. Don't lump all us creationists together. Some of us do have brains! It was probably an average joe who thought that idea up. But as you can see from my previous comment, there are creationist scientists doing research and furthering science.
Well that in itself is also up in the air. We often have Christian scientists who just do it for science and others who try to find ways to stay true to the biblical way. There are all kinds. But as it is, I'm firmly in the "science until proven biblical" area because as it is, there is little that the bible has claimed that science has not disproved. It's just too one sided.
@Machdude I disagree with you on that. I'm very much in the "science and creation can co-exist" area . But hey, we are all free to think what we want.
@MySpaige LOL. That's funny. Scientifically a creator cannot exist. It's an oxymoron. God is untestable by any known scientific method. And yes you are free to think whatever foolishness you want to. It would just be better for mankind if people stuck to testable facts.
@MySpaige I'm sure they are adding huge amounts of relevent information to the pool of facts that the scientific world has accumulated. Do you believe this shit that you spew?
@MySpaige Possibly, at some point in time, a monkey/human common ancestor was faced with a choice for survival. Stick to the trees, or go explore the plains? Selecion drove monkeys who chose trees away from plains and those who chose the plain away from trees. Both species continued to gradually change thanks to mutations, (natural selection killing off the 'bad' mutations) according to changing environments and selective pressures, until humans and monkeys were separate and modern species.
@MySpaige Define what you mean by "the same family". Define what you mean by a "new species", Are you envisioning the first member of some new species suddenly popping out of some woman's womb?
I would hardly expect that. But... humans today are notably taller and different than the humans that were popping out of the wombs of 19th century women.
The two could interbreed. But give it some more time and problems would likely arise.
Stop thinking in black and white, in a full color world,
@sbergman27 I mean family and species as in the classification system, but it's pretty faulty as it has been altered over time to suit evolution (this system was actually invented pre darwin). In what ways are we different to 19th century humans? We're all "homo sapians" right? And the fact that we are notably taller coud have to do more with environmental factors rather than DNA. We couldn't interbreed because all people from the 19th century are dead!
@sbergman27 But if they weren't dead, then yes we could interbreed, and being that we are all "homo sapiens" and not inbred and it would be successful.
Cont again.. because although peaches and necterines are different, they belong to the same family (or in creation speak, kind). So, for evolution to be true, something would have to have come from something completey none related AND be able to reproduce. For example, a liger (cross between a lion and tiger) would have to be able to reproduce (which is not possible because they are mostly infertile), thus creating a new kind, not a new species. THIS would then support evolution. Make sense? :)
cont.. For example, a labradoodle is a cross breeding of a labrador and a poodle, but at the end of the day they're the same type of thing (a dog). Different breeds, yes, but a dog never the less. Same goes with the bananas. They are all different species, yes, but they are all bananas. Hence this supports the creation theory and not evolution. If that banana had come from a different type of thing (eg an apple) then THAT would support evolution. Even peacherines are not an example of evolution
To Bananna Man: What about Pineapples?
Ctserber2237 2 weeks ago
@Ctserber2237
.
"god" designed pineapples to fit inside creationists' anal orifices..
The backward pointing barbs are a special feature to ensure unsafe removal.
.
tellnet 1 week ago
Damn, and here I thought that the Earth was covered in seas of stagnant peanut butter 3.5 billion years ago before life developed fully formed.
pat5168 4 weeks ago 2
y u know what else fits in your hand banana man ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Silent33091 1 month ago 2
Actually, if a fish really did just jump out of the water and started breathing air, that'd be a miracle. I'd rather follow the less ignorant idea that there were small changes over a long time.
therealjammit 1 month ago
banana man is my favorite for the award !!!
EdyMar77 1 month ago
You're not going far enough - a better question, in all seriousness, for those idiots that think that fuckin book is the word of the creator of the universe - is why would the creator of the universe choose the same media format (ie. rumored chineze whispers converted into a written text) that blatantly false cults use, when he could have chosen supernatural means (i dunno - use ur imagination - maybe a 10 kilometer tall Guidestone for example - something not common and fakeable!)
BiggerThinking1 2 months ago
The way he says "peanut" in peanut butter makes me feel all warm inside.
yakovgolyadkin 2 months ago
if you need saturn rings to prove the existence of god you are stupid..
TZMrazvitie 2 months ago
The real comedy is that the eye is a superb piece of evidence for *lack* of a creator. Or, rather, lack of a competent creator - if God is an engineer, he's a fairly shitty one, as the optic nerve is connected to the wrong side of the retina (thus the existence of a blind spot).
oooooooooorly 3 months ago
@oooooooooorly Plus, there are animals with far better eyesight. Why not give us the best eyes? Weren't we the favoured species?
PointlessSteel 2 months ago 3
Huh. Going through all the comments, I'm surprised no tropers have popped out of the woodwork. That's how I got here, anyway... Anyways, I've seen this video several times now, and it never ceases to be entertaining.
maniakkid25 3 months ago
Not to mention the peanut butter is an existing form of life.
WingZero75 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
But seriusly as much as creationism peanut theory was hilarious,,athiest abiogenesis is also hilarious..and also the last video translation was fake :)
so plss remove it from that award nominations..
hi5blast 3 months ago
@hi5blast
This is a 2 year old video. If you aren't being sarcastic, I hope to whatever god may be out there you get your head examined.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 .I just wanted to stop the stupid and wrong information spread by thiS UPLoADER..at leaSt hE shoUlD havE rEsearchEd something b4 uploading last part....and he is telling abiogenesis as it is proven fact...Iam 100% sure even the uploader is not having science degree...well the fact is that we are still dont know the orgin of life..it may be from god or from that fluid..you cant tell..in this video he is explaining his stupidity along with religious stupidity as well :lol..
hi5blast 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The peanut butter theory is baffling to me. If I'm not mistaken, people used to believe in the Middle Ages that rats would suddenly pop up into existence by putting breadcrumbs in bedsheets, since according to them god creates all life... so wasn't it originally a pro-theist argument to find life suddenly popping into existance like that?
Flitteriffic 3 months ago
The peanut butter theory is baffling to me. If I'm not mistaken, people used to believe in the Middle Ages that rats would suddenly pop up into existence by putting breadcrumbs in bedsheets, since according to them god creates all life... so wasn't it originally a theist argument to find life suddenly popping into existance like that?
Flitteriffic 3 months ago
Bummer... I thought the banana man was gonna show me how to put on a condom... :-(
cornelisvz 3 months ago
Where did you get the idea that we need your pompous know-it-allisms? Do you think we even need a reply to our comments? But that is the crux of your convictions. You've become so addicted to your own ultra-reasonable definitions, you just will not be able to resist.
dotjoiner 4 months ago
puerile patronising Potholer
dotjoiner 4 months ago
@ pat5168
Lmao!! Great point!
tekbarrier 4 months ago
stop using the word catalyst, creationists don't understand complex terms!
mrbearbear83 4 months ago 3
@mrbearbear83 That is the evolutionists strategy to bury unbelievers in Darwin with tons of pseudo-scientific gibbering. An atheistic evolutionary creation whereas species would have grown or alter organs and limbs in order to evolve into something else is pure nonsense. Atheism cannot answer for the exquisiteness of the designing, programming and engineering of the species. Darwinism is an opium for atheists
alexthasy 3 months ago
@alexthasy
"Atheism cannot answer for the exquisiteness of the designing, programming and engineering of the species".
1. Atheism =/= Evolutionary science. 2. Evolutionary science can account for all those things and more, and if you did even a small amount of research on pretty much any of the biological field, you would know that. If you really believe evolution was bogus, you would never take antibiotics, vaccines or most pathogenic medicine.
TheBanile 3 months ago
@TheBanile hahaha antibodies/vaccines proof of evolution :lol ...you should better reserach buddy..
hi5blast 3 months ago
@hi5blast Antibiotics, not antibodies. Do you even now why you need to take different kinds of antibodies every few years? Or why you need to keep on top of your vaccines? Because the pathogens evolve to be immune to these methods, so they must be rapidly changed to keep ahead of them so you don't get ill. If you don't believe in evolution, you needn't bother getting a flu jab each year.
To quote yourself; "you should do better research buddy".
TheBanile 3 months ago
@TheBanile ..any how i was just questioning the validity of videos and the lies spread in the last part>...regarding the evolution part>>do u think the african counterparts are still same species even though they are seprated from european?asian part by 2 millions yrs>>y this concession is given only to human and no to other species..i dont know Any SpECiEs sEpratED by 2 millionS IS still cAllEd thE samE speCEis..
hi5blast 3 months ago
@TheBanile hAHAH FAST At pointinG MiStAkES :D..I know whAT iS antibodiEs..and pathogEns adapt..they dont evolve..same applies to mosquito or cockroaches when we spread pesticides..that doesnot mean that we have new species..they are still the same species>
hi5blast 3 months ago
@hi5blast Yes, and eventually, variations adapt in different ways and after a very long time these changes sometimes become very big, so big ha the two are not that much alike any more. Like that bacteria that was found that eats nylon, a substance man-made for not that long a time and that no other animal can eat; in adapted in a new way and eventually became too different from it's fellows to be considered the same species. Small changes over short times, big changes over long times.
TheBanile 3 months ago
@TheBanile
not to mention that viruses, such as the flu, mutate (evolve) to become something different every, what....3-5 years? at least that's what i've heard.
defiantwon33 2 weeks ago
@defiantwon33 Yes, most do. It's why diabetics like me need a new flu jab each year :) so many new strains. Somehow, creations feel that adaptation, mutation or variations are different from evolution, which they aren't really; they are all methods in which a species changes to evolve over time!
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile my knowledge of diabetics is not complete...but what does flu jab have to do with diabetics? You guys get insulin shots, not flu shots. Flu shots are for everybody. Or maybe i'm misunderstanding u..
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Well particularly diabetics, as well as those with heart problems and of certain ages etc, are particularly susceptible to contracting flu and also can suffer more severe side-effects from having flu (it can play havoc with blood sugar levels and more likely to develop pneumonia and other complications too too from what my doctor has told me). So it's doubly important we're kept up to date with flu jabs, with new strains and all or things can go downhill quickly...
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile ah ic thanks.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr You're welcome.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@defiantwon33 They want to see something dramatic, like a monkey giving birth to a human lol, which ironically, is actually against what evolution theory states. If a monkey gives birth to a human, this would be proof against evolution, not for it.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
Yea, and let us read from the book of Rush, 21:12
"We are the priests of the Temple of Syrinx,
All the gifts of life are held within our walls,"
And so it is written, all praise and glory be to almighty Getty,
Amen
Zeroethorder 4 months ago 3
@Zeroethorder Lmfao, priceless.
\m/ Rush \m/
DaretoContemplate 4 months ago
I would dedicate myself to christ in a heart beat if a living t-rex ever jumped out of a jar of peanut butter...
TheyCallMeGawd 4 months ago 39
He is funny...that guy is delusional, open a jar of peanut butter, guess what there is peanut butter. banana man and Koran man = lunitics
timdnwd 4 months ago
How come nobody's connected peanut butter biogenesis AND young-earth fossils? If I grab a random jar, shouldn't one of them come to life -- and then turn into a fossil? Maybe even before the expiration date?
coraltuber 4 months ago
"So far, no doctor Has succeeded in understanding how the eye works." He says while wearing glasses.
pat5168 4 months ago 72
@pat5168 xDDD I love you forevers
HAAKONNSKER 4 weeks ago
"You don't judge the age of a teenager by the age of the pimple on his nose"
LOL
tfd829 5 months ago
lol i love your voice... its like a teacher scolding little children...but all the candidates are grown men so maybe they should sue the schools they went too.
james911jca 5 months ago
I love how peanut butter man confuses evolution theory with quantum physics at 4:54.
wesselbindt 5 months ago
I need more islam debunks please. It's way harder to debunk this religion. Christianity is obviously bullshit as it has been proven trillions of times. In fact even muslims don't agree with the bible.
Islam is way more difficult to debunk, give it a try. There are tons of videos on youtube that provide signs that the Coran is apparently true
InfinityDz 5 months ago
@InfinityDz
Just follow the simple rules.
1) Find out what they say.
2) Find out where what they said comes from.
3) Track down the source.
4) Find out what the source actually says.
5) Use that instead.
rkyeun 5 months ago
@rkyeun obviously it comes from the Coran. It's pretty hard to find a flaw within that book; I mean it even has a Sourat in which it speaks of the expansion of the Universe. It's simply mentionned in one small verse but it's there.
InfinityDz 5 months ago
@InfinityDz
I haven't read the Koran very extensively, I'm sorry. If you can point me to a particular English translation which you would agree is viable and valid for purposes of refuting, and which you will be bound to defending should I find something flawed, I'll have a look.
We could of course start with the largest flaw, which is that it's a religious book.
rkyeun 5 months ago 2
@InfinityDz My God, your're right! Mohammed's mythological fairy tales are so patently superior to all other religions' fairy tales, how can you not believe them??! It is almost as if Mohammed's silly-ass stories about flying horses to heaven, etc. are a really good basis for one's entire intellectual foundation! Plus, the words of a pedophile/polygamist/thief/murderer are OBVIOUSLY the true & inerrant words of the Muslim Magical Sky Daddy!
donfishmaster 5 months ago
@donfishmaster I'd like to have your point of view about the whole thing but the facts are there, what can you say to deny them? There are plenty of signs you wonder how the fuck they can be true. It's not all fairy tales.
InfinityDz 5 months ago
@InfinityDz Queue The Doobie Brothers:
"What a fool BELIEVES...
He sees...
A wise man has the power...
To REASON away..."
donfishmaster 5 months ago
@InfinityDz The Koran states that the Earth is still flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth because the Sun is smaller than Earth, and many of its followers still believe this. In fact, they look only to the Koran as scientific fact. Believers also still insist that doctors don't understand how the eye works.
UncleJayLo 5 months ago
@donfishmaster when muslims have no logical answer they say its in qoran
imotkhan 4 months ago
@InfinityDz
OK....Mohamad didn't ride a Fly-ing Donkey.
Mother Mary didn't recieve instructions from a talking palm tree where to find food.
The Mountains didn't fall from the sky and cause rain.
Urfullobull 4 months ago
I know we all get het up about idiotic creationists but think about this. A few hundred years ago pretty much everyone believed in god. Now, non-belief is more and more prevalent. Perhaps it's due to better education but maybe... just maybe, our brains are EVOLVING to question more... oh the irony!! Wish we could speed the process up a bit more....
kerosenezen 5 months ago
Surely a disproof of bananaguy's theory is just: a pineapple. Tasty, but god made it spiky and difficult to get into.
instantn00dle 5 months ago
@instantn00dle Don't forget that it doesn't fit in your hand either ;)
rAmen
bushiyo2 5 months ago
Im a Creationist, and I would just like to point out to you guys that we can also tell our solar system is young because of the amount of meteoroidial matter yet present to bombard the moon and that comets still exist and orbit the sun. Theres a fun fact for you guys, and cant wait to here what your excuse for that "old mith" is. Thx :)
Creationistify 6 months ago in playlist Potholer54 debunks series and more!
@Creationistify Haha. You're trolling right. You,re not that stupid, are you?
MrG0TH1ER 5 months ago
Can we give these crazy fucks Darwin Awards instead?
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu that's reserved for crazy fucks who remove themselves from the gene pool. these crazy fucks are still breeding
smthngdffrnt 5 months ago
@smthngdffrnt But I'm more than willing to give them reasons to win the Darwin Awards.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@BlueCosmology God created a mature world. In the Bible, when trees were created, it didn't take the trees years to grow to full size like they do now. They were made as adult trees. That can be related to the stars too. When God made the sun, moon, and stars to give off light, he said 'and it was so' which means the starlight could already be seen. He didn't create the light in transit to Earth, he made the stars mature just the the trees and animals, and even Adam.
ikerocky98 6 months ago
AgApE010 Regarding stars, there is something called gravitational time dilation, which states that time can flow at different rates at different places. The speed of time is 186,000 miles/second, but that can be different in space due to Carmalean physics. and aging a tree by the rings isn't reliable, since some trees can have more rings than it's age, or less.
ikerocky98 6 months ago
@ikerocky98 You've got the "speed of time" mixed up with the speed of light. And yes time dilation exists and it changes the rate of flow of time. It does NOT however change the velocity of light. Time dilation ensures that light always travels at the same velocity relative to everybody.
BlueCosmology 6 months ago
9 billion years. lol. try 6 thousand. everything points to that age of the earth.
ikerocky98 6 months ago
@ikerocky98
Including stars that are billions of light years away and tree rings that are around 10,000 years old? Hmmmmmm?....
AgApE010 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pearl Trees Of Life [a vast Biblical Resource Tool]:
[3w dot] pearltrees [dot com] [forwardslash] awhn
Freely you have received, freely give...
AWHNNOH 6 months ago
"Cause I'm trying to picture this animal coming out of the water, breathing for a few breaths and then going back into the water, and then going up to breathe again until lungs develop?" - I am paraphrasing Ray Comfort.
Are you sure no one believes in that?
ImAnotherZang 6 months ago
Oh Shit! The dark ages are trying to make a comeback! (change a quote from Monty Python) "Nobody expects the Muslim Inquisition"
kirkoyer 6 months ago
Very nice demonstration of Poe's law in the beginning.
mynameisdarthtater 6 months ago
Lol at the muslim @ 8:24
"We still do not understand how the eye works!... But these glasses my doctor subscribed to me work very well (-;"
DrewsAreGood 6 months ago 2
One point which nobody ever seems to make regarding peanut-butter man is HOW does he know there's no new life inside a jar of peanut butter? Has he tested hundreds of jars for unknown DNA or maybe some other form of reproductive molecule? It seems like when he claims "life" should come out of a jar of peanut butter, he's expecting something multi-cellular, big enough to be seen by the naked eye.
DavidMTRutten 6 months ago
@DavidMTRutten Exactly.
Raidoton 6 months ago
ray comforts already got this golden crocaduck in the bag....i dont even need to see other contenders
DeathProphet187 7 months ago
i'm an ex-muslim , and i know alot of people in my societ who said that earth is flat , too
one of them was the Chairman of the Department of Scientific Research and Ifta with the rank of Minister , he's called Ben Baaz
crazy world !
amro0od 7 months ago
PINAT BATA
Metallosaurus 7 months ago
May I recommend this article by an ex-creationist:
Why I left Young-earth Creationism by Glenn R. Morton
Easy to find online.
tanfoukdance 7 months ago
Egads... the Peanut Butter Man is an engineer?? Really? That's very depressing. I hope he isn't responsible for any bridges or buildings.
StevenBee2 7 months ago
I love the way you said peanut butter when comparing it to the primordial soup. xD
Offensivebunny 7 months ago
They think the sun is smaller than the earth...
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep
I am reminded of Father Ted explaining perpectives to Dougal with the toy cows "These are small... but the ones out there are far away. Small... far away"
jamesulyett 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@f00tstep
I am reminded of Father Ted explaining perpectives to Dougal with the toy cows "These are small... but the ones out there are far away. Small... far away"
jamesulyett 7 months ago
Poe's Law, FTW
mkbcoolman 8 months ago
wheres number 3?
seanmitchell88 8 months ago
I have no offically started to lose faith in humanity.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@montrealwatcher
Exactly.....it's time for cleaning
sonykroket 8 months ago
@montrealwatcher
Hmm, first check the vatican and mecca.
sonykroket 8 months ago
@montrealwatcher
I hear ya!
sonykroket 8 months ago
@thegalwegian... Thanks for correcting my sarcasm. Basically what I am saying is just because humans discovered these properties, physical laws, the cosmos, etc; it doesn't mean they weren't put in place for a reason. There's plenty of physical evidence that everything around you is by design.
t5tuber 8 months ago
@t5tuber
You need help
sonykroket 8 months ago
It's funny that neither atheists or Christians ever seem to recognize or acknowledge the fact that Christianity itself has evolved over the years. What if God created evolution? What if God created physics and chemistry and... all forms of science for that matter. You know, since things have to work somehow. And of course free will; so we can use what we learn to make up our own minds. It seems like atheists are using Gods creations to disprove the existence of God. Quite a conundrum.
t5tuber 8 months ago
@t5tuber What if God has evolved from a primitive misogynous, genocidal and insecure guy? Nah, if so, he'd already shut up all his own predicators, imams, rabbis and priests who promote hate, anger, violence and stupidity
sourhfire 8 months ago
@t5tuber ," What if God created physics and chemistry and... all forms of science for that matter. You know, since things have to work somehow." That sentence is just so wrong, what it should say is "what if it was god who created matter, space and natural laws". So far no evidence of a god even existing has been found but all available evidence so far points to the universe (cosmos) could have come about without the need for an intelligence behind it.
thegalwegian 8 months ago
Poe's Law is something we will have to deal with
sonykroket 8 months ago
Dude... All for knowing the truth, but if you're going to debunk things then at least pick smart people to debunk.. Debunking dumb people with a sarcastic voice makes you look equally dumb.
VeryUncoolUsername 8 months ago
when ray comfort was told that the banana was cross-breed for hundreds of years to look the way it is in today, you would think he would appoligize, but he said that god allowed humans to cross-breed them. (not his exact quote but it was along those lines). so ignorant. u could prove to these types of people wrong- with all the facts in the world and they would say something about god.
arsenalskate123 8 months ago
Peenat Battah? Backscratcha?
wikuk 8 months ago
its funny that the least insane sounding one is the satirist.
viking977 8 months ago
I have a craving for peanut butter now.
Mayokitty7 9 months ago
The comparison between the peanut butter jar and the "primordial sludge/soup" is inaccurate; Remember to include the primordial sludge/soup of all planets in the universe. Just because it happened here on Earth (probably) it could have been anywhere and we would be there talking about it now.
DogBoots77 9 months ago
Sometimes when I open a jar of salsa some of the seeds, usually the tomato seeds, occasionally the jalapeno seeds have small roots growing out of them. That proves life can arise in a jar.
TheIntolerantAtheist 9 months ago
I love how this ray comfort banana flaw never gets old. Priceless.
01101100d 9 months ago
I love your accent :)
Ravencullen95 10 months ago
You have not addressed the question but rather have resorted to name calling which is a proof of your character.
MrNewkingjames 10 months ago
Why do you depend on derision as an alternative to contrary evidence.Furthermore why not disprove the propositions rather than ridicule them.The mud was a much better grade of primordial sludge.SO WHY NOT REPRODUCE PRIMORDIAL SLUDGE how hard can it be? after all it happened spontaneously!
MrNewkingjames 10 months ago
@MrNewkingjames this is what is know as a "red herring", everyone. its combined with a straw man. look closely.
1. how much proof has been given? plenty, the goal post are moved everytime you are given proof.
2. you deride the stupid. the stupid being people who refuse to accept tested, retested evidence, and instead rely on pseudoscience to prop up their view.
3. primordial sludge? you need to brush up on abiogenics, and theory of evolution. you've regurgitated what stupid people say.
hollaboutit 10 months ago
@MrNewkingjames abiogenesis. its a typo.
hollaboutit 10 months ago
Also, what would it matter even if bananas had been that way for a long time? Are we saying that this is the ideal shape of fruit? Then why are so many fruits roughly round? Why is only one (notably - the one most associated with the monkeys we couldn't possibly share a common ancestor with!) being this way suddenly proof of god's existence? I like watermelons more than bananas and they are definitely not suited for the human hand. Pineapples too. The whole reasoning is unbelievably flawed.
Stairc 10 months ago
hey potholer...these videos are great keep up the good work!!!
maciverandy 11 months ago
the guy at the end: "Yeah, nobody knows how the eye works at all....that's why I'm wearing these glasses my doctor prescribed."
Ledwix 11 months ago 47
@Ledwix HAHAHAHAHA!!!! no, seriously, THAT was a quality troll right there. hey, here's another one:
no glasses, everything's fuzzy. put glasses on, everything clear. you can't explain that.
ethermeister 8 months ago 15
Haha me again. Back to peacerines. Yes, it's a new variety but peaches and necterines are both Drupes. Same with apricots, so a peachcot is also not an example of evolution. If you could successfully cross breed a drupe and a legume, and then have that legupe or drume (whatever you want to call it) successfully reproduce, THAT would support evolution.
MySpaige 11 months ago
@MySpaige Actually, it wouldn't. I'm sure you've heard of the crocoduck. Well, if we actually did find a crocoduck, it would completely baffle scientists worldwide, because a crocoduck can't possibly have come to exist through evolutionary means. Evolution can only make new species by the differentiation of species of the same family/genus already existing.
So if you made a peacerine, it's supporting evolution, because it's a variation of two species from the same family.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige However, if you made a legupe or drume, that would make a huge dent in the theory of evolution, because by evolutionary means, you can't possibly cross those two species. They are too far apart in the tree of life, their genomes are too different, reproduction modes, mating methods, everything is too separate, they have evolved too far apart, to be able to be hybridized.
If ever you do find a legupe or drume, make sure to bring it to the closest university, it'll be earth-shattering
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick So what your saying is basically the same thing as me- that a new species can only come from something of the same family. And as this is the truth, how could humans have evolved, as we are genetically different to all other animals (chimps, apes, monkeys, oranutans etc included).
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige However, orang-utans share something like 99% identical genes with humans, who have about 96% or so identical genes with gorillas, and dogs of different breeds share something similar to that with wolves. However, we know they are related. What sets humans apart?
The answer? Nothing. Just small changes and fine-tuning of the DNA. The human ancestor branched away from the monkey ancestor and they both evolved differently into the modern animals we see today. And yes, we are animals.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick The fact that humans have a soul is what sets us apart. The fact that we can connect to a supernatural world and nothing else in the world can. And I know, evolution doesn't pay attention to or think that there is anything supernatural, but there is. Otherwise why would people turn to a higher power, or to a psychic or anything of the sort.? And how exactly did we evolve from this "monkey ancestor"? Knowing that evolution is ALWAYS a bad thing (ie- cell mutations causing cancer
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige One cannot quantify a soul, detect a soul, measure a soul in any way or form. While I admit souls may be ghosts or whatever, I feel the only way for us to have souls is to believe we do. One of the greatest mysteries is the human brain, I do not pretend to know anything about it, but I personally think a soul is not part of the equation.
What about elephants burying their dead? Could they not connect to a spiritual world too? Or monkey parents, who grieve the death of their children?
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick It's true that science can't quantify, detect or measure a soul in any way or form, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is much in this world yet to be discovered! Elephants and monkeys (and other animals too) do have emotions, but as for connecting to a spiritual world, no.
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we can't prove there is no soul, doesn't mean there is either. But anyways, it's all a matter of belief. Just curious, but what are your beliefs regarding souls and death?
I completely agree. The universe is wonderful
Why not? What are the qualifications for having a soul?
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick Exactly. In the end it all comes down to belief. I'm a christian, so I believe that we do have souls, we can connect to the spiritual world and I do believe in the afterlife. Animals only have an emotional element, not a spiritual element. Thats just the way it is.
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige You believe despite there being zero evidence for or against it. You believe because you want to believe, and there's nothing wrong about that.
However, why do we have souls? Why no other animals? How does this process work? How do you know that's what is really happening, that it's the truth? You can't verify after all.
And why only humans? Just because is not an explanation, nor is the bible. Think about it. A human-shaped god made the earth specially for us to inhabit it.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige Despite hurricanes, earthquakes, disease, poverty, God loves us anyways. And what about the animals? Doesn't God love them too? What tells you God created this world specifically for us, say he did it for elephants instead. After all, elephants are very intelligent, feel emotions, are very loving and caring. They'd make a perfect "chosen species". Why us?
And further more, if you can arbitrarily bestow souls to whom you want (humans but not animals), what stops you from saying
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige ... what stops you from saying black people don't have souls? Or asian? If only humans have souls, and they don't, well then they're not human are they? If there's no iron rule to prevent such abuse, it will be used. It has been many times, history is full of such examples.
But with no souls, no "chosen species", we are all related, we are all the same, no one is better than anybody else. There is only us, each other, and the wonders of the universe.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige For people, look at the Rastafarians and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People turn to a higher power because they want to believe.
As for evolution, mutations happen. Whether they are good or bad depends on the context, but the majority of mutations are neutral. Natural selection kills off those with bad mutations and those whose mutations enable them to survive can reproduce and pass on their genes.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick Yes mutations do happen, but they are never good, only bad or neutral. And evolution does exist in certain areas (ie socially, technolgically etc), but not to create totally new and different organisms. I believe what I believe because I think nature and science points to creation rather than evolution. Sorry to get religious, but I do think that man is created in the image of God. Not in the sense of appearance (we can't know what he looks like) but with an intellegence and
MySpaige 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick an understanding that surpasses anything else in this world. Yes, God loves us in every circumstance, good or bad, and he loves the animals too. It doesn't matter what colour we are, we are all human and equal, with a soul, and no one race, sex etc is better than the other, despite what some people may think. And in response to the not humans argument, yes they're human because we are still a physical being as well.
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige Anything in this world? Or is it out of this world? Because if he is in this world, we should be able to find him,but if he's out of this world, there's no way we can contact him.
I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble seeing the god who sent the ten plagues on Egypt as loving. And the god willing to send people to hell. Just not my cup of tea.
"But they're black! They must be inferior! It said so in the bible!" Sorry, but religious arguments have a tendency to win over physical fact
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige I prefer to believe people are good and bad in equal measures, they just choose to express their love out of the pure goodness of their heart, rather than because they are threatened with hell (or denied paradise, or whatever) if they don't.
Whereas biologically, it shows unequivocally we are all equal and there's no going around it. Humans are not the pinnacle of life on earth, merely one of many species who share the same planet.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick Both, but if you're looking for a physical God in this world, it won't ever be found. And yes we can contact God. Not only is God loving, but he is just. It's not like God wants to send people to hell, but there needs to be consequences for our actions, either good or bad, otherwise it wouldn't be just. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that black people are in inferior in fact, it says God does not show favouritism (rom 2:11).
MySpaige 10 months ago
Then what validates this god? If god has never appeared on our insignificant little planet, where did we get this little idea? As I would say it, even if there was a god, man should not pretend to know him because should his existence be real, we would never know of his true intent and your own projections of his traits would be just as wrong as those who do not believe in him at all. The bible as a result has always been used as a weapon in the past, like in Salem and of course racism.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude He did appear on our planet in human form- Jesus. All his traits and intent are in the Bible. As for it being a weapon, yes it has been, but those people didn't truly understand it.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Jesus can be interpreted as a man who was elevated to that status. The bible as I said before is not a source that I would trust because of its nature as a book written by man. On the other hand there are artifacts and sources that can trace both Jesus' descendants and his ancestors. While those too may have dubious value (just as the bible is as such), it does not change the simple fact, he is what we interpret him to be.
Machdude 10 months ago
Quite frankly, I would trust the bible far less with its validity due to its history in the past. With its uses to justify crusades, genocides, oppression and greed, I hardly see any reason to trust it at all, especially those who wrote and rewrote it. Is that the word of god? No, it is the words of man! Why would you want to search for god? Because it gives god a purpose. What we have in the bible is just words. If we cannot know god, then we can never know what it asks for. Simple as that.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude OH please, just STFU with the crusades and do some research.
The first crusade happen becuase of muslims conquering European countries like Spain for example and becuase the first Christian city Constantinople was conquered by muslim oppressors.
the first Crusade was to recover christian lands from muslim oppression, and yes they were christian before muslim
NoBodysGamer 10 months ago
Everything is in the eyes of the beholder and what you said just proved my point. From your point of view it would be muslim oppressors, but from the other side, Christians would be the same. But its purpose? Nothing much, just the use of the bible as justification for what is effectively manifest destiny. And what before Christians? The Jews. Yep.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude
There is only one truth and its the FACTS, im not Christian, im an Secular Jew so logically i have all the reasons to bash Crusades, but i dont at least not for the initial reason why they happened.
Christianity came before Islam, and all those lands where Christian (Spain, Constantinople and others)
When Muslims conquered Constantinople the Pope didn't do shit but when they came to Europe took over Spain and other lands he had no choice but to assemble an army to free Christian lands
NoBodysGamer 10 months ago
Land too is in the eye of the beholder and as it is, wars have been fought over it for ages. But the main justification behind it? Religion. It doesn't matter who owned what and what did who, the methods were the same, a one sided drive to claim land in the name of their god. Its not hard when people readily believe something to such ends, of course there will be followers. This is not a one sided affair, Christians and Muslims have fought each other for land since the beginning of civilization.
Machdude 10 months ago
@kurayamisidekick We have the ability to think for ourselves, so you can believe whatever you want. I won't try to stop you. Bioloigically we may have some similarities, but all that says to me is that we came from the same source as everything else in the world.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Biologically, most if not all organisms are derived from the same source. Its in the evolutionary structure. Changing environments create changing adaptations. With all the evidence compiled on animal relationships, it can be concluded that many of the animal subtypes like mammals and reptiles were branched off from a single source. Now it would be impossible to really know 100% what happened in the past, but with all the evidence at hand, it is not 0% because there is proof.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Yes, all organisms are derived from the same source- God.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Nobody knows that because we have never gone back that far yet. But it is for certain that first was not human, nor remotely, a being that we can relate to. If god truly created life in his own image, then whatever it was he looked like certainly is not us and would bare us no favoritism. But I know one thing is for sure. What we see around us is proof and until god shows himself, there is no reason to believe in him.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude If we haven't gone that far back yet, then how can we know for certain that first was not human or a being we can relate to?
MySpaige 10 months ago
Simple, through the use of carbon dating, radioactive dating and good old geological surveying, you can easily tell what age things are from. Human remains date back to barely a couple hundred thousand years, I'll even err it to the million to 2 million (where humanlike primates existed). But a million years is chump change to the earth. Dinosaurs date back to at least 63 million years before us (we haven't even lived long enough to see them die) and they aren't even as old as other extincts.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Meh. I think all those methods will be proved wrong one day. But hey, what do I know. I'm not a scientist.
MySpaige 10 months ago
And I think that the concept of god has overstayed its welcome. When the only outcome is such chaos such as this, one has to disappear. But the concept of god is hanging on through faith and stubbornness, and not logic.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Do you mean chaos as in natural disasters etc? That I could somewhat understand. But nature and they way organisms are built is not at all chaotic. Yes the concept of God is still around, but I think it's through both faith and logic, same reasons as to why the concept of evolution is still around.
MySpaige 10 months ago
No, what is meant by chaos is the fact that the war between god and that which contradicts it reaches the apex, the only result is Chaos because humans will fall to their petty squabbles. But the clear difference is in that which has more proof. God can never be proven which is integral to it but also its greatest fallacy in this argument. Science may not be 100% accurate (we only know what we discover and test), but it has far more proof to it than religion ever will.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Righto. There is no reason why science and religion can't go hand in hand, except people don't want them to.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Comment removed
MySpaige 10 months ago
You removed it, but I'll answer anyway. It's not the Scientists whom are at fault. Many scientists are Christian/Jewish/Islam/etc. as well as men of learning. But it is those who devote themselves to the Creationist mythos that try to debunk Science as fake. Not everyone wants conflict. But when the vocal side of the argument actively provoke them to retaliate, the only result is chaos. It's not that scientists do not want god to exist, it is that they have no PROOF of his existence.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Science isn't fake. I don't know of anyone who believes that. Science shows us the facts, but how they get interrpreted is related to how you think. For example, the fossil record is used to support evolution, but it is also used to support creation.
MySpaige 10 months ago
That's not the case because you cannot conclusively say that a fossil record can show it as creation when nearly all of it points to evolution. I've seen articles where they try to justify that a fossil being near a volcano as the fossil being placed there by Satan. It just does not make any sense. The reason why there is such a strong opposition to creationism is that the people who are writing it aren't even doing any actual research into the subject.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude That's not true. There are plenty of creationist scientists around today. Here's some examples for you- Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology, Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist ,Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology ,Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer ,Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics) ,Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering ,Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering, Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist. And there are many more!
MySpaige 10 months ago
@Machdude And I agree about the fossil being put there by satan. That doesn't make any sense. Don't lump all us creationists together. Some of us do have brains! It was probably an average joe who thought that idea up. But as you can see from my previous comment, there are creationist scientists doing research and furthering science.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Well that in itself is also up in the air. We often have Christian scientists who just do it for science and others who try to find ways to stay true to the biblical way. There are all kinds. But as it is, I'm firmly in the "science until proven biblical" area because as it is, there is little that the bible has claimed that science has not disproved. It's just too one sided.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude I disagree with you on that. I'm very much in the "science and creation can co-exist" area . But hey, we are all free to think what we want.
MySpaige 10 months ago
@To each their own. Only time will tell.
Machdude 10 months ago
@Machdude Definitely.
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige LOL. That's funny. Scientifically a creator cannot exist. It's an oxymoron. God is untestable by any known scientific method. And yes you are free to think whatever foolishness you want to. It would just be better for mankind if people stuck to testable facts.
buddcinder 8 months ago
@MySpaige I'm sure they are adding huge amounts of relevent information to the pool of facts that the scientific world has accumulated. Do you believe this shit that you spew?
buddcinder 8 months ago
@MySpaige Possibly, at some point in time, a monkey/human common ancestor was faced with a choice for survival. Stick to the trees, or go explore the plains? Selecion drove monkeys who chose trees away from plains and those who chose the plain away from trees. Both species continued to gradually change thanks to mutations, (natural selection killing off the 'bad' mutations) according to changing environments and selective pressures, until humans and monkeys were separate and modern species.
kurayamisidekick 10 months ago
@MySpaige Define what you mean by "the same family". Define what you mean by a "new species", Are you envisioning the first member of some new species suddenly popping out of some woman's womb?
I would hardly expect that. But... humans today are notably taller and different than the humans that were popping out of the wombs of 19th century women.
The two could interbreed. But give it some more time and problems would likely arise.
Stop thinking in black and white, in a full color world,
sbergman27 10 months ago
@sbergman27 I mean family and species as in the classification system, but it's pretty faulty as it has been altered over time to suit evolution (this system was actually invented pre darwin). In what ways are we different to 19th century humans? We're all "homo sapians" right? And the fact that we are notably taller coud have to do more with environmental factors rather than DNA. We couldn't interbreed because all people from the 19th century are dead!
MySpaige 10 months ago
@sbergman27 But if they weren't dead, then yes we could interbreed, and being that we are all "homo sapiens" and not inbred and it would be successful.
MySpaige 10 months ago
Cont again.. because although peaches and necterines are different, they belong to the same family (or in creation speak, kind). So, for evolution to be true, something would have to have come from something completey none related AND be able to reproduce. For example, a liger (cross between a lion and tiger) would have to be able to reproduce (which is not possible because they are mostly infertile), thus creating a new kind, not a new species. THIS would then support evolution. Make sense? :)
MySpaige 11 months ago
cont.. For example, a labradoodle is a cross breeding of a labrador and a poodle, but at the end of the day they're the same type of thing (a dog). Different breeds, yes, but a dog never the less. Same goes with the bananas. They are all different species, yes, but they are all bananas. Hence this supports the creation theory and not evolution. If that banana had come from a different type of thing (eg an apple) then THAT would support evolution. Even peacherines are not an example of evolution
MySpaige 11 months ago