Evolution professors can’t think of a single proof

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Clips and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Evolution professors can’t think of a single proof

  1. Nate says:

    I love it how each interviewee’s clip is like 5 seconds at a time. Quote mine much? I wish Ray would put the full interviews up, too bad he probably won’t 😦

    • raymond says:

      it will break your heart if you have seen the full interview.

    • Shawn Hare says:

      Nate, so if someone keeps repeating the same nonsense for an hour, it’s illegitimate to break it down to the five seconds or so where they said the original thought, which they repeated, ad nauseum, all the while either ignoring, or purposefully avoiding the REAL QUESTION being asked. If you have something NEW, then tell us all so we can know. Give us the answer to the question. NOT the answer that the evolutionists kept giving, that of adaptation within the same KIND, but a KIND changing into ANOTHER, DIFFERENT kind.

      • Nate says:

        You don’t realize that that kind of evolution can’t be observed over a lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that it never happened, as we can see the clues as to what happened. What they gave is by definition darwinian evolution.

      • raymond says:

        OK…so space dust naturally turn in to a complicated life forms after billions of years? come on!!

      • Nate says:

        that’s still not evolution

      • raymond says:

        ok then where did life form started?

      • stegokitty says:

        “You don’t realize that that kind of evolution can’t be observed over a lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that it never happened, as we can see the clues as to what happened. What they gave is by definition darwinian evolution.”

        You do realize your answer is a non-answer, right?
        And what you do you mean by “a lifetime”? What lifetime? Mine and/or another humans, as in we can’t observe this sort of thing in our own lifetime? OR do you mean the “lifetime” of the creature, changing from one kind into another? Please try to be clear when you speak. I’m not a mind reader.

        Beside that, SCIENCE is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. To suggest that evolution is science, yet has no observable nor experimental evidence is to negate it’s connection to science. There should be BILLIONS of transitional fossils, showing the gradual change from one KIND of animal into another KIND of animal, but none exist. So this fact would also bring either type of claim of “lifetime” to nothing, as no one can observe, in his own lifetime a kind becoming another kind, NOR is there any evidence in the fossil record of such a thing.

        And to assert (while admitting) that, even though we haven’t any fossil record of such a single change, YET it “doesn’t mean that it never happened”. Really? So just because we don’t have any evidence for fairies that doesn’t mean they don’t exist? Gee willikers.

      • Nate says:

        1. I meant a human lifetime. My mistake
        2. To claim that there are NO transitional fossils is an outright lie. There are thousands. A quick google search can show you them.

        “Beside that, SCIENCE is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. To suggest that evolution is science, yet has no observable nor experimental evidence is to negate it’s connection to science”

        To quote PZ Myers:
        “All scientific evidence is observational, but not in the naive sense that all that counts is what you see with your eyes. There is a sense in which some science is regarded as historical, but it’s not used in the way creationists do; it does not refer to science that describes events in the past.

        Maybe some examples will make that clearer.

        We can reconstruct the evolutionary history of fruit flies. We do this by observation. That does not mean we watch different species of fruit flies speciate before our eyes (although it has been found to occur in reasonable spans of time in the lab and the wild), it means we extract and analyze information from extant species — we take invisible genetic properties of the flies’ genomes and turn them into tables of data and strings of publishable code. We observe patterns in their genetics that allow us to determine patterns of historical change. Observation and history are intertwined. To deny the history is to deny the observations.

        Paleontology is often labeled a historical science, but it doesn’t have the pejorative sense in which creationists use it, and it is definitely founded in observation. For instance, plesiosaurs: do you think scientists just invented them? No. We found their bones — we observed their remains imbedded in rock — and further, we found evidence of a long history of variation and diversity. The sense in which the study of plesiosaurs is historical is that they’re all extinct, so there are no extant forms to examine, but it is still soundly based on observation. Paleontology may be largely historical, but it is still a legitimate science built on observation, measurement, and even prediction, and it also relies heavily on analysis of extant processes in geology, physics, and biology.”

      • stegokitty says:

        LOL! You’re doing PRECISELY what the nimrods in the video were doing. Your’e confusing ADAPTATION with Darwinian evolution, a change of kind to ANOTHER kind. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, or are you really as obtuse as your idiot friends in the video?

        You bring up fruit flies and the changes in FRUITFLIES that can be observed, or not observed, but there NO INSTANCE of a fruit fly becoming anything OTHER than a fruit fly. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

        That the Creator included in the genetic code of His creatures, the ability to adapt to different environmental changes is abundantly clear, and it’s also clear that, just as the Scriptures say, that creatures procreate after their own KIND.

        Oh, and the good ol’ pat answer of “Google transitional fossils” is an utter laugh.
        Have YOU ever tried Googling transitional fossils?
        Of COURSE not! Otherwise you wouldn’t be so utter stupid as to make such a suggestion.
        None, son.
        There are NONE.
        There exists NO transitional fossil of ANY creature ever becoming another creature.
        And like I said, and which OBSERVABLE SCIENE has proven in the observation of the Galapagos finches, et al., that these adaptations of the creature to it’s new environmental challenge is that which happens quickly — often within the very next generation. If there were any connection between this kind of adaptation of a KIND, then it should, scientifically speaking, be that which shows itself, in some fashion to a kind becoming another kind.

        But it doesn’t.
        And that’s the point.
        Evolution is the foundation of the religion called Secular Humanism, and is utterly divorced from Science.

      • Nate says:

        “LOL! You’re doing PRECISELY what the nimrods in the video were doing. Your’e confusing ADAPTATION with Darwinian evolution, a change of kind to ANOTHER kind. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, or are you really as obtuse as your idiot friends in the video?

        You bring up fruit flies and the changes in FRUITFLIES that can be observed, or not observed, but there NO INSTANCE of a fruit fly becoming anything OTHER than a fruit fly. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

        That the Creator included in the genetic code of His creatures, the ability to adapt to different environmental changes is abundantly clear, and it’s also clear that, just as the Scriptures say, that creatures procreate after their own KIND.”

        That’s still evolution.

        “Oh, and the good ol’ pat answer of “Google transitional fossils” is an utter laugh.
        Have YOU ever tried Googling transitional fossils?
        Of COURSE not! Otherwise you wouldn’t be so utter stupid as to make such a suggestion.
        None, son.
        There are NONE.
        There exists NO transitional fossil of ANY creature ever becoming another creature.
        And like I said, and which OBSERVABLE SCIENE has proven in the observation of the Galapagos finches, et al., that these adaptations of the creature to it’s new environmental challenge is that which happens quickly — often within the very next generation. If there were any connection between this kind of adaptation of a KIND, then it should, scientifically speaking, be that which shows itself, in some fashion to a kind becoming another kind.

        Yes, I have googled the large amount of transitional forms.

        “But it doesn’t.
        And that’s the point.
        Evolution is the foundation of the religion called Secular Humanism, and is utterly divorced from Science.”

        Evolution =/= secular humanism, nor is it a religion.

        Wow. Just wow. You’ve just proved how ignorant you are. I think we’re done here.

      • Raymondo says:

        Nate, may you find God our creator and have mercy on your soul.

      • stegokitty says:

        Nice dodge, coward.
        You’ve answered nothing nor proven (not proved) anything, but instead have sought to find an opportunity to feign righteous offense.
        How about actually answering the question, eh?
        Once more, adaptation of a SPECIES is not evolution.
        Changing from one species to ANOTHER species is.
        This does not exist, has never existed, and there’s not a shred of evidence for its existence, yet these fakers, who call themselves scientists, shove this nonsense down our throats on a daily basis.
        I’ll bookend my comment Floyd-style.
        Coward.

  2. Julie Ball says:

    Nate. It seems to me that this is an add for a full length dvd. Maybe the interviews are longer there. The people being interviewed were asked a question and answered it. I would love to see the full interviews as well but I don’t have that much time to watch people avoid answering a simple question. If they gave a legitimate answer I am sure he would show it. It’s not like he could hide that someone answered it legitimately because the response on the internet would be someone actually answering the question–which they can’t.

  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ The full-length DVD is the newly released “Evolution vs. God” by Ray Comfort.

  4. Nancy McManus says:

    The full interviews might have revealed more, but there is no context to support “experts” with PhDs claiming adaptation is macro-evolution. Except Romans 1, maybe.
    Well done.

  5. raymond says:

    How do you know God exists? – common sense… =)

  6. raymond says:

    Because simply there is no such thing as evolution. Its a bogus. Believe that there must be somewhere out there that created all things here in the earth and the universe. It doesn’t matter what you call it. But Christians call it God. God the Creator of all things. And Christ Jesus is God in human form. 100 % God and 100 % human.

  7. Julie Ball says:

    Nate, the only way you can understand is to study both evolution and creationism and try to have no bias when doing so. I have a question that I have always wanted to ask an evolutionist and maybe you can help.
    So let’s take just one system of the human body or one organ, like the eye, for example, and think about how it developed in an evolutionary sense. First examine the facts about the eye:
    -it is a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems including the retina, pupil,iris cornia, lens and optic nerve
    -the retina has approx. 137 million cells (rods and cones) that receive light impressions which are translated into electrical impulses and sent to the brain through the optic nerve. Then the visual cortex of the brain interprets the pulses to color , contrast, etc that we can see the world around us
    -the eye, the optic nerve and the visual cortex are totally separate subsystems
    -1.5 million pulse messages are sent to the brain and interpreted in a millisecond
    – Darwin said that ‘to suppose the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree”. (Look up quotes by Darwin. You might be surprised by what he says of his own theory)
    So here is my question. When the animals began crawling up on shore how did they know there was light and color to see? And with all systems and organs in the body this can be applied. Like respiratory. How could they sense air and gradually begin to breath over millions of years without dying off before that system was finished developing? Multiply that by the number of systems and organs in the body. Digestion–they would die of toxicity before they could have offspring and so on.

    Ok. I lied, I have another question. If you could pick up a jagged rock and throw it into eternity could it become round, have an orbit of its own, locate itself (I realize a rock doesn’t have choices but please play along), locate the right distance from a sun and moon (so the evolving life would not burn up or freeze and have the perfect gravitational pull)? It would also have to be able to rotate around that sun at 67,000 mph while rotating on its axis to properly cool and heat the earth every day.

    You can get these facts at http://www.everystudent.com.

    Can you believe that this happened in any amount of time, even billions of years? Evolutionist scientist can explained all the gaps in their theories by adding a few more million years. Even Darwin said that if you can’t find the transitional forms between species then his theory completely falls apart.
    I can only urge you to way both sides, study both sides and then come to your own conclusion. You seem a very intelligent person so just keep your mind open and test each side.
    God bless

  8. Julie Ball says:

    Also Nate, the Bible makes reference to dinosaurs. Most creationist will tell you that they are not made up and there is a true fossil record.

  9. Julie ball says:

    Stegokitty and Ramond.
    Stop the name calling. You sound ridiculous. Mocking and name calling are exposing your true selves. Why would anyone want to believe as you are when you are so childish and call them stupid. Please stop responding unless you an have intelligent, kind thought to add and by all means don’t use God as your scapegoat for this behavior. Jesus would never act this way.

    • stegokitty says:

      Julie,
      1) You’re not my mother.
      2) I haven’t done any unjustified name-calling. He’s behaving like a coward, and I call the shots as I see them.
      3) Jesus used pejorative name-calling when it fit: He called some hypocrites, fools, and children of Hell; blind guides, serpents, brood of vipers, and murderers. He also described Herod as a fox, not merely implying him being sly (though that might’ve been so) but because he was comparing him to an unclean animal.
      4) When someone is behaving like a coward, there’s nothing wrong with calling them on their actions.
      5) Mockery also is not overruled in the Scriptures, as God mocks people again and again, especially in the OT, by giving them (often lewd) names that sound like their own name. And the Apostles, especially Paul, used sarcasm to an art.

      Am I suggesting that I have the ability to look into the heart of a man to know what he is? No. But I can judge a man by what he does. And the sort of dodging that Nate’s been doing (along with his deceived and deceiving evolutionist idols) is cowardly, and dishonest.

      Furthermore to suggest to Nate “the only way you can understand is to study both evolution and creationism and try to have no bias when doing so” is an absurdity. EVERYONE comes to the Scriptures, and to everything in life with a bias, either for Christ or against Him. Only those who’ve been spiritually awakened by the Spirit of God (regenerated) stop rebelling against Him, and stop acting like cowards when it comes to reality. Nate cannot approach anything without a bias. His bias is for the philosophy of this world and against God and cannot be otherwise. To deny this is to embrace the heresy of Pelagianism.

      Now, if we can get passed this in-fighting, and if everyone would refrain from dog-piling on Nate, perhaps we MIGHT get a reasonable (highly doubtful) response from him on the QUESTION that’s been raised again and again, concerning one KIND of animal, changing into another KIND of animal.

      Bringing up a bunch of other issues isn’t helping the situation. This thread is about the VIDEO content, which is about the question that I’ve asked Nate again and again. So really you’re only exacerbating the problem with all the other dozens of issues you bring up.

      Cheers.

  10. Julie ball says:

    I thought about calling you out, point by point but you are blinded by your own hatred. It seems Nate has walked away from this conversation and I really would love to hear from him(Nate, if you’re reading). You are twisting scripture and I won’t discuss it further. If any man looks into the scripture and seeks truth he will find it. It might surprise you to hear that God is just as crazy in love with Nate as he is me or even you. What good does it do to win a conversation with someone and still lose their soul? Off topic or not, it is not worth it.

    • stegokitty says:

      Hatred? Pardon me?
      Ah, so now who is it who’s declaring to know the motives of another man’s heart?
      Whoo boy.
      “You are twisting scripture and I won’t discuss it further.”
      Nope, I’ve done nothing of the sort, and you just made a completely blind, bald, and unsupported accusation against a brother. It’s called slander. Now, if you want to actually SHOW me where I’ve “twisted Scripture” then please proceed. Otherwise, you’re sinning, as you’re lying.
      But I can see why you make such claims as you (very obviously) are basing your faith upon your emotions rather than on the Scriptures. Jesus said “No one has the ability to come to me UNLESS the Father draws him …” You, my dear, have basically stated that the work of the Holy Spirit is not necessary in order for a sinner to come to repentance and faith. Certainly anyone with access to the Bible can look into it and understand the claims being made in it, but they CANNOT repent of their rebellion and believe those things UNTIL and UNLESS the Spirit of God works that in them, and He owes this to none. Yet, it pleases Him to reveal Christ to as many as the Father gave Him from the foundation of the world.

      This is the Faith once delivered to the saints.
      Does it offend you?
      It shouldn’t … but it DOES offend Nate, and everyone who does not have the Spirit of God in them.

  11. regularfellow says:

    To ask the question of whether we have observed one “kind” evolve into another “kind” is an admission of not understanding the evolutionary process. A parent will always have so much in common with their offspring that we would associate them as being of the same kind. If you compared that offspring to its extremely distant ancestor, you would not associate them as being of the same kind because the small incremental changes over a long period of time will result in vastly different life forms. Here is an analogy that should help you better understand how this can happen. Imagine that you are standing on the Missouri/Kansas border. Very slowly you begin to take small steps towards Colorado. With each individual step you will not notice any significant changes in the landscape. By the time you reach Colorado, it will look nothing like eastern Kansas… even though you didn’t notice any significant changes along the way. Now just imagine what millions of years of speciation can do.

    • Raymn Q says:

      OK. Let me give you a head start. If you leave a garbage in a perfectly controlled environment. Temperature…Sunlight.. water…etc… So that the bacteria will survive easily. As if the bacteria will live a perfect life. And leave it for billions years. Do you think it will evolve into a canine, feline, bird, dinosaur, man…

      • regularfellow says:

        Natural selection was never subject to a perfectly controlled environment as you describe. Quite the contrary. A diverse environment on Earth is a catalyst for speciation to occur. For example, consider what follows if a group of one specie becomes geographically separated. Each geographically separated group will eventually become incapable of breeding with each other. The distant descendants from one group that took vastly different paths of speciation will look so different from the distant descendants of the other group that you would label some of them as being different “kinds.” The most relevant way to think of different “kinds” is to think laterally, not lineally. The term “kinds” best represents the end-of-the-line species resulting from extremely different paths of evolution. When I say “end-of-the-line,” I am just referring to the species that exist today that have much in common with others who took a similar path of evolution, e.g. canines, felines, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s