Comments by "thewaytruthandlife" (@thewaytruthandlife) on "Richard Dawkins on The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" video.

I am really surpriced that people so easily accept evolutionistsic ideas. no scientist has ever made a living cell (as we know them) from 100% dead material/chemicals NOR let those artificially living cells (as we know them) EVOLVE into worms (as we know them)..... but yet it is accepted world wide as PROVEN science ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? well hold on for a minute....... when a new way for making methanol was found this was reproduced by other scientists to confirm this scientific corrrect new synthesisroute.... fact is this has been done for the most if not all NEWLY found synthesisroutes for all kinds of chemical components EXCEPT for the SUPPOSED CHEMICAL origen of LIFE that SUPPOSEDLY happend 3,8-3,5 billion yrs ago that one has NEVER been tested in reality YET IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED to be PROVEN science ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? isnt that weird ???? methanol production with a new synthesis route needed to be reproduced in order to gain sceintific status.... which is fine since that is the way science works and should work.... newly found fenomenon SHOULD be reproducted in order to get a reality check so to say..... thats correct science..... a reality check...... but for the most important issue.... the suppossed chemical origen of life does NOT need that in order to get scientific status ?????? I am baffled ...... this isnt much of science but rather de defence mechanism of a religion....... a wrong evil religion well sounds like PSEUDO science to me then.
3
Mcalister IF .... you are right and abiogenesis-evolution is not proven according to science it self .......then why indoctrinate children with it as only option how life came to be ?????? and tell them it is proven science and deliver them false arguments as though it is proven ???? Evolution hypothesis has not explained any thing since no has seen it happening so its still part of unproven hypothesis. No one has made a worm out of bacteria still so till so far it doesnt explain any thing but proviong that people are highly gullible swallowing everything that scientists bring up without any questions.... and if evolution is proven then start from the beginning: make us living cells (as we know them) out of 100% dead materials / chemicals and let THESE evolve into worms (as we know them). haven seen that happen yet..... start at the start not half way down the line....
1
Mcalister OK question: what was the very very first item that the processes of the supposed evolution could lay its hands on ??? .... ..... need a dime ?? ... .... and where did that came from ?? .. you see THATS the supposed link between abiogenesis-evolution.... there IS simply NO evolution without abiogenesis first.... you cannot build an airplain without wings so to say but neither can you build an airplain with no airplain-body you cannot have a plant without water if the theory say evolution then it automatically must say abiogenesis..... other wise there would be no evolution atleast according to your belove hypothesis...
1
No body has ever deteted gain of genetic information ..... millions of so called "evolutionistic" proceses have been studied and documented and serearched for that.... evolution thrives only by the gain of genectic information. growth of DNA and its information. due to mutations a) thrue radiation (cosmic and radioactive) b) thrue copymistakes c) thrue chemical interactions d) elemetnal decay like C14 to N14 only destructive - degenerative mutations have been observed FACTUAL ! so mutations are neutral at best but in most cases destructive its even stronger the whole planets population of what ever kind of animal or human are at he brionk of a genetic meltdown since the destructive forms of mutations is enhancing intself in a destructive way.... in short: all kind of species are losing thier ability to reproduce 100% healthy ofspring... and since errors in DNA are coppied and each coppie does factual make mistakes.... this is an ever increasing problem... and no the repair mechanisms have only limited influence to counter that.... and we are at the brinck of the way of no return.... and there is NOTHING we can do about it.... unless we are able to have perfect copies and save that data in computers and make artificial DNA.. as craig venter did and put that in humans. biologists have no sollution to this genetic meltdown... well we have... there is simpley no evolution.....only degeneration..... sorry thats scientific fatual reality....
1
so to get it short no there is no evolution and indeed no one has seen a KIND animal A turn into another KIND B a bacteria has always been a bacteria and always remain a bacteria.... and since millions of yrs are NOT part of observation it is also out side of observable testable science so testable observable fatcs that support evolution are all goneand non observable.... evolution is PURELY 100% hypothetical.... the ony stuff that has been observed is variation within the kinds... thats all.... and next to that variation within the kind siusualy counter evolutionistic.. look at dogs.... what is the evolutionistic value of a chiwawa ??? it will never survive in nature.... its lunch to most predators....and it reduces the genetic value of the kind ...dog....
1
Mcalister never seen the proof for your claims... sorry to dissappoint you and since millions of yrs are NOT observable it is still part of imagination... you have to assume millions billions of yrs have taken place... you have no proof for that there is no evidence... yes i know you going to throw RadioActive Dating RAD into the game etc etc sorry to inform you RADs have no fundament to build upon.... your assumptions fail to backup these methodes..... If science need assumptions to keep up their believes sorry the science has fallen back to a believe system.... we call that religion.... in seculair science (dealing with where we come from, not the hard practical science to make TVs and rockets !!) the most words that are used are: might be, might have been, would have been, imagen, assumed, supposed, we think, theory, hypothesis, and all these kind of suggestive type of words.....why ??? what happend to repeatable facts ?? I mean I can put a laser infront of a 2 slit and there it is an interference patern: repeatable by any person.....and I did......thats controlable....testable visible THATS the ways science is supposed to work but it doesnt when it comes to our origens.... its all hypothetical.... imagination... when do you folks open your eyes for the truth instead of imagination and yes I agree the pictures/animation look great... but animations can fool you in picturing a fantasy... i prefer hard reality ... not animated suggestions..... thats not science thats make believe, fairytale telling.... and no mutations have the property of being destructive or neutral never constructive.... constructive or beneficial mutation has never been reported. and milions and millions of mutation has factually been studied for it.... its never beneficial... and thats what you see in society as well people get weaker and weaker over the 100's of yrs of ages. more sicknesses more, allergic reactions even with babies etc etc... people get older just because the better healthcare and better hygene not due to improved genetics.... in Jezus days people were like what we call todays athlethes.... just ordinairy people like you and me.. today being an athlethe is exceptional. micro evolution is no more then variation WITHIN the KIND like you have danish dogs and chiwawa's.... but ist NEVER going to be an other KIND. it will always remain a DOG-kind... So evolution is NOT a part of observable science and thus imagination..... and in that way its easy to fool people: just imagen that it happend long ago and far away..... fairy tale telling..... they have tried to nuke al kinds of short living animals like fruit flies and 1 day flies etc ..... they all deteriorated upon mutative influences. not even after multiple generations they didnt improve ooh lenski you will reply.... sorry pall but bacteria ALL of them have always a citric cycle in them... With living organisms it is: use it or loose it...... What happens when you put those kind of bacteria expossed to citric acid again ?? they reuse the old system to digest citric acid..... its like fixing back an old rusty car back to work.... just fix it shine it clean it put parts in the right place together and uppa you go..... so even lenski didnt prove eovlution ... he just shows the ability of bacteria to put an old citric-cycle-system that was already present back to work again.... nothing more nothing less..... no evolution sorry to disappoint you again.
1
Mcalister and no radioactive dating is a fraud too... you see you need to do at least 3 unprovable assumptions 1) that a rock is not leaking; its assumed its a clossed system which is provably NOT 2) that decay rates have always been the same.. which has been rpven that they are NOT even the sun has influence on radioactivoty via its neutrino's 3) that all daughter elements originate from the mother element, which is NOT valid as stevenaustin has proven with the K-Ar dating on mt st helens samples.... name me geological evidence since i have not heard of proof for it please show me
1
Mcalister you maybe sure but you can be surely wrong .... einstein proved time relativity due to gravitation and thus proved light from far far far (billion light yrs away galaxies can come to us in matter of just days since time distortion due to gravity....
1
Mcalister that maybe the old version; ythe new version is that einsteins relativity plays the key rol in this entire proces. watch this: http://www.ek-sight.nl/page/universe at the piece I wrote on gravtiational time dilatation... its pretty simple actually. more mass ditalated the tiem so in the past when mass was mor close together time near the universe centre passed slower from the edge of the universes point of view... sam as with a black hole; when you move closer to a black hole time relative to far away from it moves slower....well so light in a faster time scale moves faster... and traverses bigger amount of space in lesse time.... and there you go: 6 days on earth can pretty well mean billions of yrs on the edga of the universe..... so due to einstein it SEEMS from earths perspective billions of yrs passed by while on earth only 6 creation days (24 hour days) passed by.. you see time is relative......
1
Mcalister OK i'll show you where time near heavy masses is reduced... http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/gtd.htm here it is....this means time runs 6 million km from the sun 60 seconds faster in 1 yr then on the surface of the sun..... and you are right one of the effect is that the wavelength changes... and that is even measured by pound and rebka in 1959-60.... and indeed the speed of light doesnt change ........ relative to a lokal observer....but NOT from the reference frame of a distant observant..... If I stand far from a black hole and I throw in a blinkering flash light I see several things.. a) the frequency of the blinkering slowes down ( b) the light becomes redder and more and c) more delayed that is lesser fotons due to time dilataition on the speed of light so a light bundle is more streched...because in the reference frame of the flashlight it sends out light at a constant light speed but since its time is more and more streched in reference to our time reference frame the beam becomes more stretched and thus fotons will come more and more as individual particles due to time dilatation of course they will have the same light speed as we expect them to have since in our time frame they have sped up again to normal light speed that we expect in our reference frame. but strongly reduced in wave length. thing is our reference frame is a different one then the flashlights.... our reference fram is much less distorted in time and space then is the reference frame of the flash light... so by the time the light is passing us it has sped up to our perception of light speed If I send in a blue led light at constant lighting (not blinkering) then I see it turn redder and redder and lesser and lesser amount of fotons due to beam strechting due to time dilatation at the reference frame of the led light. thing is it cannot do different since time AND space are streched and everything in it becomes streched so from our point of reference light speed slowes down closer to a black hole. it cannot because from our point of reference the space gets more streched.... since space time (4D are equealy streched... and THAT fact that the 4D space tiem is streched makes also that light speed slows down in my view point... simple.. while suppose I hold the led lamp then I measure a constant speed of light at a constant amount of fotons lets say 500 per second. and suppose you were standing far away... you would also measuring a constant speed of light from the light particles passing by.... but you would see only 50 fotons pass by in 1 second. that would mean that time would have been delayed by a factor 10 (beam stretching) the other 450 will also come but NOT in that same second.... that will come in the remaining 9 seconds.... why? 4D space time stretching. einstein made the same mistake too in the beginning of his discovery.... the effect is twice as big as you expect since its AND space that gets stretched AND time that gets streched.... so yes wavelength shift AND slowed down light speed.... its pretty much like light send thrue a glass... in the glass light is slowed down but once its out of the glass again it has sped up to he same light speed as we are used to.... but it lags behind a beam that has not passes thrue the glass. and in the same way you could measure the speed of light being slowed down> send a beam of light in open space and at a same distance close to the surface of a heavy object... then it wil be bend off toward the heavy object and ariving later at the detector... both at the normal speed of light since you are in your own reference frame of time measurment. but one beam will be delayed which is logical since it traveresed more (bend) space-time. And that will appear to us a slowing down of the speed light....
1
Mcalister thing is IF light speed was truely remaining the same .. then atomic clocks (which are based on light speed) could NEVER detect the different time when it would be used (and have been) at the earths surface AND at higher level like an airplaine or higher mountain..... IF the speed of light would remain the same every where it would NOT be noticed by atomic clocks.... and it has been.... so that proves light speed does factually slow down near heavy masses.
1
it doesnt change speed if you watch it in your own reference frame but it does when its in a reference frame close to a heavy body... due to the stretching of space time... and in deed if you are in the same reference fram as the measured light beam you will not see a change close to a heavy body.... but is you are far away you will see the effect of alowing it down... same as with a glass.. light in a glass slowes down and wil lag behind to a beam that doesnt....
1
Mcalister OK Alice and Bob and (maybe Charlie if needed). A B&C Alice she is a woman (from the woman and children first to safety decency) is the far away observering at a safe place.. she is measuring the speed of light at the place where she is: 0,3M km/s (M= Mega= 10^6) Bob is positioned at a distant from a black hole where time runs 1000 times slower and he is also measuring light speed with exactly the same type of instruments as Alice.... he also measures 0,3M km/s... now you would say see you admit that light speed doesnt change .. I say then: yes you are right. for ANY LOKAL!!!! observer the lightspeed he observes LOKALY IS the same thats true BUT !!! now Alice and Bob also have a radioactive sample that radiates gamma-rays and decays at a half life rate of 10 days and they are also with the same instruments measuring this. Alice ath the safe place and bob at the position where time is slowred down 1000 times. now Alice and Bob also measure eachothers data which is send to each other. so alice measures the light speed of bobs light beam and bob measures the light ray of alice also for the decay of the radio active goodie. what alice sees at bobs place is that the light that bob has send will also pass her with the speed of light she is used to: 0,3M also bob measures the light of alice at 0,3M.. you see I was right ...you might respond.... NO wait hold your horses.... alice also measures the gama ray bursts from bobs radioactive source from which she knows that its the same as hers since before leaving they have splitted the homogenious sample in 2; 1 for bob 1 for alice. alice measures her own sample 10 days as a halflife, bob measures his 10 days of half life. now alice measures also bobs decay rate by measuring the incoming redshifted gamma rays from bobs sample...... the redshift is 1000 times next to the fact that she will measure not 10 days of decay but 10.000 days of halflife decay... hee something has changed bob on the other hand measures alices gamarays blueshifted and become 1000 times more energetic next to the fact that thehalf life decay rate of her radioactive sample has decreased to 0,01 day what does this tell us... it shows us that yes where we are we measure the speed of light the same every where..... but an other observer doesnot measure that from a distance LOKALY the speed is the same everywhere as measured ..... but looking to other people in another reference frame(position/lokation where the time is different then the speed of light THERE must also be different) so this is due to the time dilatation due to gravity since gravity distorts time then also the speed of light MUST be affected.... in order to make bobs light speed measurements measure 0,3M (FOR HIMSELF !!!!) that can only be true IF time has an effect on light speed seen from a distant point (alice) and the fact that radioactive decay proofs that time indeed has been affected AND the fact that bob measures light at 0,3M this can only mean that the light speed also MUST have been affected..... sorry thats how physics works.... listen dr russle humpreys is not a stupid guy: he is a physics guy... I am a chemistry guy who also studied physics (i never said i have a degree in physics... please show me where is said that i have a degree in physics...I dont and i never said that either) but dont worry i have studied einsteins theory long before i went to college..... at the age of about 15-20 yrs old so so yes light speed is everywhere the same IF you travel along with the light beam.....(if you could) so where ever YOU ARE light speed is the same.... BUT if you look to a far way happening, light speed does slow down IF it comes close to a heavy body like a black hole..... since time slowes down there and a lokal observer wold measur light speed 0,3M only in HIS time reference frame..... it also makes sence from this perspective: light is a wave and EM wave...EM is alternating electric and magnetic wave propagation. this requires time to propagate. an alternating E field induces a alternating magnetic field. now since time slows down if i look to a black hole then also these processes must slow down, down there closer to the blackhole schwartsschild radius.... but if i would travel along with the light wave i would see no change in alternating wavespeed and thus no alteration is light speed.... but ONLY due to the fact that i travel along with the light.. so LOKALY !!! i notice NO difference. time measurement has all got to do with the position i am as an observer..... in respect to a gravitation field.....
1
Leland Shennett scienctist have not created a universe....... then why call it science ???? that is ... how to say that neatly... unscientific... as well... and based on 100 speculations too. why speculate... whats wrong with the good old factual truth ? or do people prefer imaginations rather then the absolute truth... ?? so calling me dumb doesnt change the fact that you have no....facts... but rather pure speculations on many issues in science now jsut be honest about that ....
1
roamnnz indeedyou said it correctly: you imagen......
1
Greg W who says i dont believe in God and in correct science ????? i never said that.. science is my bread and butter for many years now.... i happen to be a chemist. evolution is NOT a fact.... and no you assume you have a evolution of humans but you dont since it is assumed that apes and humans have a similar back ground but that is NOT a proven fact its an assumption..... evolution is purely based on assumptions and unprovable hypothesis.... so its purely hypothetical you seek proof for life originating from 100% dead material ??? ok then do it again: make us living cells (as we know them) from 100% dead materials/chemicals and let these cells (as we know them) evolve into worms (as we know them). 1st in the lab as proof of concept and then the real deal: real life as long as science is NOT able to do that then there is no shred of evidence AT ALL...ONLY highly imaginative speculations... nothing more.... thats the proof science MUST deliver in order to make abiogenesis-evolution ful;y acceptable.... loose ends and loose parts is NO evidence ... we dont buy building blocks as evidence so don talk to me about urey miller etc science demands the FULL 100% proof
1
RedStarBelgradefan ok IF evolution is an observed proces then show me proof of it that one type of animal- or plant has evolved into anothe type of animal or plant in such a way that they could NOT reproduce..... show me proof it to me. that has never been observed. you see IF evolution is true that THOSE are key featuires to test it.... a) an organism MUST be genetically different b) they must NOT be able to reproduce like apes and roses do not reproduce if you can show me OBSERVABLE evidence for that then you might have a case.... next to that i like you to make a living cell (as we know them) out of 100% dead materials that is bare elements AND letting THESE artificial cells (as we know them) evolve into, lets say.....a worm (as we know them). if you can OBSERVABLY do that in front of the entire planet you might have a case for life emerging spontaniously out of 100% dead stuff without interference of God. In all other case life from dead material (abiogenesis-evolution) is 100% CRAP and based on pure UNOBSERVABLE BALONY and pure speculation.... so deliver me te proof please.... and NO building blocks like amino acids DNA starnds in lipid vesticles are NOT proof for that... we demand the 100% FULL proof... dead chemicals to living worm as we know them..... you see an amino acid/DNA strand is NOT a living cell its nothing more then a building block... and NO craig venters experiment is NOT valid since he just replaced a spare part .... we call that SURGERY... humans do that already for 1000's of yrs and ints NOT making living cells out of 100% dead materials/chemicals. and NO lenski did NOT show evolution ... he only showed restoration of an already present citrus cycle mechanism that wssnt used for a long time... but still was present in ANY bacteria. ALL bacteria have it present in theyir interior whether ist used is a differnt matter but it is present non the less... it may be broken down but present non the less... just like fixing an old car with spaer parts from other old cars.... so again deliver me proof...
1
RedStarBelgradefan what you say is a modern anti biblical defenition..... and no lizards remain lizards mouse remaind mouse flowers etc remaint flowers ect bacteria remained bacteria... simpel and yes mutations are happening that true but beneficial is also not observed.... gene duplication yes but they contain the same info still and all mutation that occurs in duplicated genes are not beneficial since from creation on the genes were perfect to strat with and only degeneration is observed OR at best neutral mutations.... lizards never obsevably gained wings or fins or hairs.... THAT would be evolution and THAT has never been observed... what IS observed and that is all ove the site you refer to is VARATION within the species or kinds lets look at the origen of mutations: there are several origens of mutations a) false copying which is not evolution but degeneration... its an error in all cases leading to 1) neutral or 2) damaging the organism (like cycle cell anemia for example) b) radioactivity within the chemical components of the organism in organisms are several elements that can decay (like C14) and cause a mutation c) external radiation; cosmic radiation is hitting our bodies every single second and that causes damaging of genetic material... more then we like too. d) chemical agences that influence our bodies. all these mutations alter things in such a way that the effects are at best neutral and have no effect the rest is all damaging and degenerating organisms... yes there are repair systems but if repair systems get damaged what is there to repair. ever heared of the genetic melt down ?? you scientists KNOW that our gene pool is degenerating and that repair systems are failing more and more. this causes problems for the next generations since the kinds on earth are degenerating and tha=e degeneration is due to failing reoairsystems excelerating well this KNOW effect is TOTALY counter evolutionistic... but NOT many people know this ... since it is destroying evolutionistic world views.... where the OPPOSITE of genetic melt downs is expected..... in contrast to evolution.... sorry pal we dont buy your crap
1
RedStarBelgradefan next to that where do you get the billiosn of yrs from required to supposed evolution ??????? yousee C14 has been found in diamonds and dinosaur tissues.... and you see 1 KG of pure c14 is all gone in 600.000 yrs and unmeasurabe in only 90.000 yrs yet STILL we do find c14 in these items while their should be non.... contamination ?? after 50 yrs of c14 science ??? better close those laboratories then.... and fire all personell if they still contaminate these stuffies..
1
RedStarBelgradefan no you didnt deliver me anything yet... only in your mind... they are still lizards mouse and bacteria etc etce no different type of animal nor a differnt type of plant nor a different type of baxteria.. lizards remained lizards bacteria remained bacteria mice remained mice so where is your observable evolution ??? i havent seen nothing yet... except a site full of crap for gullible people .... the rest one has to IMAGEN..... and BELIEVE... its a religious site for evolution religion.... its the same crap as darwin himself presented with his finches..... its VARIATION and youi sell it as evolution... and you want to swallow it like a child does.... sorry pal.... next to this where is the artificial cell (as we know them) from dead materials/chemicals,, and where is the evolved worm there of ???
1
RedStarBelgradefan ooh dont worry I do understand evolution hypothesis its fake..... yousee you dont even have the billions of yrs required for evolution.... so i know its crap... crap made up just in order to be able to deny Gods plans for you.... tell me explain me the c14 in diamonds and dino tissue ??? diamonds are supposedly billions-millions of yrs old yet still contain c14..... how is that possible ? please explain me the saltiness of the worlds oceans 3,6% as it is today is achieved in les then 10.000 yrs altogether please explain met a shrinking sun... you see the shrinkage rate of the sun is WAY far to high (on top of the oscilating motions) to account for a billlions yrs old hypothesis.... you see about 20- 100 million yrs ago (at the rate the sun shrinks) the sun was simply to hot for the earth that water could be present here.... ther goes your evolution... please explain me living fossils... couclancanth, frogs, dragon fleis all look the same as their preflood counterparts... seems to me evolution never took place..... and since these animals are still aruond ALIFE thats a big issue for your supposed evolution even MORE since lots of these critters are highly sencitive for environmetal changes... yet they still look the same as their found fossils.....exactly the same.... please exlain me the fresh blood vessels in Trex bones that mary schweitzer found a couple of yrs ago AND these tissues still containing c14 while evolution hypothesis dictates that they became extinct 60-70 million supposed yrs ago... please explan me the graphical recordings of DINO-DRAGONS....carvings and drawings that were made by humans only several 100s yrs ago ....?? and guess what they 100% resemble how we NOW KNOW how the looked... my conclusion would be that these people a several 100 tyrs ago just plain SAW them with their own eyes... GET IT ??? and I dont deny mutations occur.... thing is at best mutations are NEUTRAL and worst case they are degenerative..... thats why people develope more allergies for all kinds of goodies..... Genetic MELTDOWN..... we grow worse and worse genetically every year...
1
RedStarBelgradefan feel free to believe lies and lies debunking truth with more lies... talk origens is full of crapp i know this site.... its debunking truth with more false assumptions and lies..... it was nice knowing you bye now keep on dreaming
1