Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Excellent joke. Your wacky naive pretend-arguments really cracked me up. Keep them coming!



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer ohhhhhhh i was hoping to piss you atheist off .anyway explain the problem ? .so i can address it .







































dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer you never actually said anything i said was wrong so i suposse you agree with me . okay good no find a good church that adhere the bibcal roles for men and woman and then get baptised . GOD BLESS







































Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 I don't understand why you are suddenly talking about evolution and abiogenesis.



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 You are quoting several thinfs I'm supposed to have said which I don't remember and which I certainly didn't write in this thread.



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer i am talking about how secualr scientist produce theories which contradict scienctific laws . i am using biology as a example to undermine the naturalist narrative while creation narrative as if gensis is undermined the whole chrisitna narrative fails . that is why is spoke of it hmm it seem i got a bit carried away . anyway



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Just out if curiosity, I had a more thorough look at your "2 comment 4 of 5" post. Apart from what I said above, the following point about debating scientific facts: You quote Youtube vids and newspapers as sources for your information. Youtube and newspapers aren't sources that meet any scientific standards. If you want to present scientific evidence, you have to quote from peer-reviewed sources like articles in scientific journals and peer-reviewed books. The result of not doing that is, for example, your view that the human genome has decayed over time, supposedly explaining why we don't get much older than 100 years these days. This is not consistent with what actual scienve says. If you maintain this is the case, come up with some peer-reviewed sources that prove this is actually the case.



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer i recived notifcation . from you Doug Brown Doug Brown 2 days ago My day is always better whenever I see a new Paulogia video ready to watch ;-) 105 Diedert Spijkerboer Highlighted reply Diedert Spijkerboer 4 hours ago @dsf111 000 The answer to why Israel exists today: 1 Jewish culture stayed alive, although in a very different form. 2 A movement of Zionism started in the 19th century that gained more and more support among Jews. 3 European powers and the US felt guilty about having done nothing about the holocaust during the war and. 4 There is a powerful Jewish lobby in the US, with support from Jews and Christians like you. Why does Israel have them as allues today: see reasons 3 and 4 above. The answers are so obvious that your question sounds ridiculously naive, hence my comment. BTW: Obviously my comment tickled you so much that you replied twice. Doug Brown Doug Brown 2 days ago My day is always better whenever I see a new Paulogia video ready to watch ;-) 105 Diedert Spijkerboer Highlighted reply Diedert Spijkerboer 3 hours ago @dsf111 000 In response to your third question : has this ever happened before : maybe not. There must be a first for everything and some events are more rare than others. All your Bible quotes: the Bible is not a reliable historical document and various prophecies have already been disproved. The book of Revelations is furthermore so vague that the end of the world has been predicted many times already, but failed to materialize so far (as far as I'm aware). Furthermore, there are some clues in it that only scholars can understand which point to Roman times. For example : It mentions the whore of Babylon, which was a nickname for the emperor of Rome at the time. Do some studies into what the general scientific view of the Bible is and you won't say that "The bible is the truth" in capital letters anymore. It's riddled mistakes. . why is it you do not remmeber ? i recived them 3 -4 hours ago would you like me to send you a image with the notifcation ?. if so give me a email and i will send it to you . GOD BLESS



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 An additional comment on your 4 of 5 post: It is true that science doesn't know how, exactly, life emerged from non-life so-called abiogenesis) . This doesn't disprove evolution, though, because evolution is about how life forms change over time, not about abiogenesis.



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 The text you send me says nothing about evolution, the history of humans, etc, yet this is what you quote me on. You make the same mistake twice.







































dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer   Diedert Spijkerboer  look my is not speciality is not creationism my specialty is very unique in Christianity and that is book of revelation and Daniel . the books that are successors to Deuteronomy 28 . Daniel and revelation predict the last 2600 years from ancient Babylon to now . very few christian know the book of revelation and as i do . so i will give you a link to my thesis read it when you can https://archive.org/details/EXPLAINDANIELANDREVELATIONUPDATE24WITHOUTEXTRAEVIDENCE if you agree with it copy and share with a friend , also send me feedback as i greatly appreciate it . secondly i wil give you some links to people who do specialize in creationism . dr john c sanford https://creation.com/john-sanford , creation ministes internatinal https://creation.com/search?q=genetic+entrophy ,  johnaton sarfati https://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati , look at what they have to say on genetic enthropy then look at reserch papers and look at boths sides evoutionist and creationist arguement and make up you own mind . anyway here is some extra resources jonthon sarfati Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance! YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPTvLolvNY&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=1 DNA cannot exist without DNA! Dr Sarfati's Chicken & Egg YouTube 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7-dHdaM6aw&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=2 How Evolution Hurts Science Dr John Sanford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-H4X2b7x7Q&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=8 Can human extinction be stopped? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl6oOHtWBo&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=6 this in case you have prejudice againts christian scientist . God, Science, and Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=9 GOD BLESS YOU . also please give my thesis a read and give me a response i always appreciate feed back and if you agree with it please save and share it . thank you .



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 OK, let's focus on Biblical prophecy. Again, you are referring to sources that are not peer-reviewed. The section "Genre, meaning, symbolism and chronology" in the following Wikipedia page seems to give a good overview of how modern science sees the book of Daniel : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel Note also the sources that are referenced in it which refer to the actual scientific sources. I quote: "The accuracy of these predictions lends credibility to the real prophecy with which the passage ends, the death of Antiochus—which, in the event, was not accurate.[62]" This view is not consistent with your interpretation. Note that I don't think that this Wikipedia article is the best-sourced one, but I couldn't easily find another overview of how modern science sees the book of Daniel and its predictions. If you want to convince me, come up with better sources.





















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer Diedert Spijkerboer 1 day ago @dsf111 000 An additional comment on your 4 of 5 post: It is true that science doesn't know how, exactly, life emerged from non-life so-called abiogenesis) . This doesn't disprove evolution, though, because evolution is about how life forms change over time, not about abiogenesis.  Diedert Spijkerboer  the problem with that it does disprove it . evolution is accumulation of mutation over time to build up genetic code from simple to complex single cell to human . if evolution could not build genetic code from non living to living matter ? . so you could not have millions of years of building up the genetic code with evolution if it cannot build the the foundation the single cell ?. so if evolution did not do so ? what is this mechanism that did so? why does it not build up the genetic code for millions of years instead of evolution ? . so the unknown mechanism starts non life to life then we have a great shift from this mechanism that built the foundation of life the single cell then evolution takes over for the millions of years afterwards . okay when a fish is a fresh water fish but if a I add a pinch of salt a small quantity it willl be fine . I if keep adding salt slowly over time it will adept to being in salt water . But if you took a another fresh water fish and add lots of salts it will kill it . So how did we have this great shift without killing of the single cell organism ?. If the orgianl mechanism can brings non life to life but the great shift would kill of orginal single cell barring any attempt to make the singel cell more complacated from singel cell to small aniamls to human ( you know what I mean ). why do we have things more complicated then a single cell ? if the unkown mechanism is previous form of evolution or minor change essentially the same my computer can do math equations using a program just like a $20 calculator can do equations but also can make video, play games ,words document etc . So how isit this unknown mechanism is able to put to together something as complected as a single cell organism while evolution could not then we shift from this original mechanism that is superior to evolution . the unknown mechanism was able to produce the initial single while evolution as is it supposed to add . Why could not the unkown mechanism Simple add things to it like evolution ? if evolution was this orgianl mechanism that created life it would be able to create life in laboratory why have scientist not been able to ? Or observe non life becoming life via evolution ( in bacteria ) in the laboratory ? . if you do not have a singel cell no evoution could be possible .so million of years of buidling up could not occur with out a single cell . in order to destroy the naturalist world view I need to destroy evolution and it all falls down only leaving GOD . the contradiction and unviersal pardoxs of naturalist as like Lawrence krauss spoke off . is fatal flaw of naturalist narrtaive no matter what you do . you find yourself a contradiciting laws of science . Making naturalism impossible . watch the 2 videos michio kaku says his theories then says how his theories contradict science said that cannot be right as violate laws of matter and conversation but produces theories to bypass the laws of science also lawrence krauss says with contradiction laws and paradox of the universes . . 5 ,minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY . please look at this video michio kaku 0 : 00 – 6 :30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-6ToEcirE&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmxwZJatwBwGlEGqg6KjVWz7&index=4 also this Let me explain the creation narrative is the universe is degine by a supernatural being with infinte power and intelligence . A Example like a car it is design and produced all its parts are all interdependent on each other all the part must work or it fails . For example with out a engine the car wont work as you cannot go forwards or backwards with out a gear box ti will not work as you need to shift gears etc so when you have product that is a system of function parts that are all need to work . this is why naturalist explanations fail because universe was created as system that is interdependent and if you are missing a part it will all fail so when have a few building blocks but lack other or it is not working together with will fail . Just like computer code need author and that is how the universe is created so if it is self created you will always be mssing parts so you may have few compoannts but it will lacks other it depends on so it fails . to understand what he meant by paradoxs of naturalist narrative . It can be summed up in dna DNA cannot exist without DNA! Dr Sarfati's Chicken & Egg YouTube 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7-dHdaM6aw&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=2 the secualrst always resort to chance Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance! YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPTvLolvNY&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=1 there is 50 % chance GOD created the universe is infinitly better then evoutionist chance of naturalist being true . That's a Fact Louis Pasteur THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS finshimg of evolution this destroys naturalist narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuGtiUA1tbQ&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=5 Here is witness testimony of a secularist who intiall supportedevoution then become creationist . Scientist Günter Bechly Speaks Out Against Darwinian Evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9eW6P5hjU&t=26s so yeah please answer the question I have asked you . Without a single cell there is no evoution that is how in hings and if you cannot provide aleternative to evoution or means evoutin the whole naturalist narrative collapse . Anyway GOD BLESS .



Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 I really don't understand your argument against evolution. You seem to imply that not knowing how life started disproves evolution. We don't know exactly how life was formed, but we do know that after the first cell with DNA was formed, the rest of life came about by evolution. There are simply quite a number of things that science doesn't know and one of those is how abiogenesis happened. Theoretically, life could have started with creation, then continued through evolution. Not knowing this has nothing to do with evolution being true or false.



dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer  Diedert Spijkerboer  you said ' @dsf111 000 I really don't understand your argument against evolution. You seem to imply that not knowing how life started disproves evolution. We don't know exactly how life was formed, but we do know that after the first cell with DNA was formed, the rest of life came about by evolution. There are simply quite a number of things that science doesn't know and one of those is how abiogenesis happened. Theoretically, life could have started with creation, then continued through evolution. Not knowing this has nothing to do with evolution being true or false.' all i have done is ask evolutionist to be consistent with the naturalist narrative by expanding from non life to humans as apposed from single cell to humans . that is it i want to complete the chain . if you cannot provide a naturalist explanation for a single cell coming to existence .no single cell no evolution can happen . my question what was original naturalist mechanism that produced the single cell ? . the original mechanism that built the initial genetic code for the single cell should have built up the genetic code for millions of years . why does evolution exists when the original mechanism was superior ? . we have two mechanisms that build genetic code here . the unknown mechanism and evolution but the first is superior as it far harder to created a functional single cell genetic code in comparison to adding a bit of information on already built genetic code as evolution does . why did the not unkown mechanism buid up the dna from non living matter to human ? should not evolution be redundant ? If the orignal mechanisms is like $5 calculator a fixed computer that can only do artimatic calculatons . it can only produce a single cell and if it tried ot have such a fundementally change it would be like taking a fish out water and chucking in the forest and says adept to your new home . It would merel persih as organism can adept to slight changes but great changes can kill organism like the fish and salt water example I gave earlier . the orginal mechanism could not produce anything more beyond a singel cell and if it tried it would merely persih it would barr anything more complex then singel cell . why do we have organism as complex as humans ?. The second scenario is that the original mechanisms is able to produce single cell and add information making complex organism leading to humans in the end . . the mechanism that produced the orginal mechanisms that started the process that lead to humans we today see the mechanism still working . So my question is this would we not see spontaneous generation occur . bacteria form from non life to life in laboratory invaldiating the law of biogensis ? so if the orginal mechanism was what produced the single cell the law of biogensis is invadlidated as it would produce a singel cell today as did million of years ago to . hmmmm now then you said creation is theorically possible . then you do not need evotion you go directly to the intend product desired . As written in gensis GOD having all power knownledge merely spoke the world into exsitence pop there you go cosmos universe , earth and people . Nothing more to it the creationist narrative there is no need evolution as we would already be in a state the creator would have intend as he is omniscience he knows how and have omnipontence . TO SUM UP WHAT I THINK . The naturalist narrative the orginal mechanism would produce single cell to humans . If it wasl ike fixed computer it could only produce a single cell we would not exists as would only produce single cell organism would exsits . If the orginal mechanisms could add information on to the orginal single cell it would have produced humans then millions of years lator . We would be able to see in labratroy non life coming to life as it was millions of years ago .   this is impossible as the law of biogensis is proven and it discovery is over 100 years old . So if a naturalist explanation is true evolution is wrong or creation explanation true . evolution is still wrong .one way or another evolution is wrong . . in my opinion evolution and the naturalist narrative is debunked leaving the only possibility the creationist narrative . the original mechanism makes evolution redundant either way it produces only single cells there would be no other organism ( humans , animals ) beyond single cell so you do not need evolution . The second scenario it can add information to original single cell then s million of years you have humans and the original mechanism would stll be doing it thing today . it could be demonstrated in a lab non life to life this could be seen making evolution redundant as either their would only single cell organism or it would have produced millions of years and could still be doing thing today . but the law of biogensis barrs non life to life . So original mechanism does no exsts and evolution has no mechanism to produce non-life to single cell . So leaving only the creationist narrative . so natrualism is debunked for evotion is need for naturalist world view . big bang , non life to life , evoution , then we humans and natural world as we see it . take out evotuion non life to life and the natrulist world view collapses leaving only the creationist narrative . Also there nation that been dead for 2000 years alive again so that tips the scale in the chrisitans favor . thank you GOD BLESS . Laslty you have a funny name. where is it from ?.







Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 I still find you reasoning hard to follow, but here are some answers to your questions and some responses. Why doesn't abiogenesis happen today? Because the circumstances that created life probably do not exist anywhere on earth now. When life was formed, the oceans were different in content, as was the atmosphere. For example there was no oxygen. Your argument seems to be based on superiority of either abiogenesis or evolution. Superiority has nothing to do with it. They are different processes that do different things. Abiogenesis created a simple cell. Abiogenesis could never have created complex life forms. Evolution was able to create complex life forms from simple life over time, but obviously didn't make life from non-life. Lastly, and this is very important, the question of whether evolution happens or not is a scientific question that can only be answered based on scientific evidence Scientists look at different explanations for the same thing, for example evolution and creation and then try to find evidence that allows them to decide which explanation makes the most sense. Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record. This evidence does not depend on the question how life began, so this is a separate scientific question. Having said this, I think that trying to disprove evolution through a logical argument is a waste of time and frankly, I don't find your arguments very logical. If you want to disprove evolution, you would have to come up with a better explanation that fits with all the existing evidence and on top of that makes some predictions of new evidence that would fit with your new hypothesis, but would not be consistent with evolution. That would probably take you at least 8 years of scientific education and research training just to obtain the knowledge and experience to get anywhere. The same holds for any argument against naturalism: Come up with an alternative paradigm and come up with a hypothesis and some evidence that cannot possibly fit into a naturalistic explanation.





Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 As to your last question : I'm Dutch. And you?









dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 1 OF 3 .  Diedert Spijkerboer  YOU SAID I still find you reasoning hard to follow, but here are some answers to your questions and some responses. MY RESPONSE . We are I am talking about is the mechanism that created non life to life and its relationship with evolution and the transition from the original mechanism to the next mechanism evolution . If there is no original mechanism there is no evolution to build on or if evolution cannot produce the transition from non life to life and start the foundational form the single cell . so evolution it is debunked as there is initial genetic build built by the original mechanism or evolution to create the original . . There are two mechanism at play here that both build genetic code . the unknown mechanism and evolution . one created a single cell and potential built up the chain to living humans or would only be barred to single cell preventing any growth beyond single cell . the other said to add information to genetic code . YOU SAID .  Why doesn't abiogenesis happen today? Because the circumstances that created life probably do not exist anywhere on earth now. When life was formed, the oceans were different in content, as was the atmosphere. For example there was no oxygen. Your argument seems to be based on superiority of either abiogenesis or evolution. Superiority has nothing to do with it. They are different processes that do different things. MY RESPONSE . No they both build genetic code but the first is far greater ( unknown mechanism ) then the second .scientist can manipulate genetic code in bacteria but cannot create bacteria genetic code to create bacteria in lab . so the unknown mechanism can produce a single cell and potentially built up the genetic code . while evolution requires a preexisting genetic code it would simple add to it genetic code these are the two mechanism . now then millions of years ago evoutin did not exists as result of circumstance you say . The first possibility : the unknown mechanism would have built up the genetic code beyond it up beyond a single cell to humans so evolution would be redundant as evolution is not needed . It could be observed in laboratory today . Second possibility :. if you could not build beyond single cell through the unknown mechanism s there would be no organism beyond single cell and is l ike fixed program ( a $ 5 calculator . a computer in whichs circuitry is fixed and can only proform compuation about simple artmatic nothing else ) The third scenario evolution did happen alongside of the unknown mechanism . So firstly the unknown mechanism then evolution but if unknown mechanism which is so robust it could exist in hard condition it could do so in easy conditions . we would today see the unknown mechanism at play today and it could be observed in laboratory then evolution occur in bacteria it would be observable . So if the first scenario is true the original mechanism built up the genetic code and would still be doing it thing today and could be observed in a laboratory making the evolution redundant . If second one is true we would see only single cell organism so evolution is redundant as it will be need as it cannot produce anything beyond single cell . If the Third option is true we would see today the unknown mechanism and evolution work together as the unknown mechanism can only create bacteria and evolution build it up . we could see this today but the law of biogesns invalidates non life to life so with out the unkown mechanism and since evoution cannot create the single cell there is nothing to build up on so evoultion is redundent . if the frist option is true so we would see non life going to life in laboratory from non life to life in the laboratory we do not see this option if true it would make evolution redundant . Second option we would not having anything beyond single cell so evolution is redudent . Third option we would today see the unkown mechanism and evoution working together . frist from unknown mechanism to evoution . we would today see non turning to life ( single cell) then evoution building it up . This would invalidate the law of biogenesis but this is not true as if you cannot have non life to life then no evoution . This means since evoution depends on the unkown mechanism you cannot have millions of years with out startng single cell created by the unkown mechanism . YOU SAID  Abiogenesis created a simple cell. Abiogenesis could never have created complex life forms. Evolution was able to create complex life forms from simple life over time, but obviously didn't make life from non-life. Lastly, and this is very important, the question of whether evolution happens or not is a scientific question that can only be answered based on scientific evidence Scientists look at different explanations for the same thing, for example evolution and creation and then try to find evidence that allows them to decide which explanation makes the most sense. MY RESPONSE . If evolution cannot produce non life to to humans so it is invalidated as it cannot build the foundational stone one which evolution builds on . If it cannot then create its own single cell it will require another mechanism to depend on . if it has no mechanism to provide a foundational stone for evolution to build on without it evolution is invalidated . YOU SAID :  Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record. This evidence does not depend on the question how life began, so this is a separate scientific question. Having said this, I think that trying to disprove evolution through a logical argument is a waste of time and frankly, I don't find your arguments very logical. If you want to disprove evolution, you would have to come up with a better explanation that fits with all the existing evidence and on top of that makes some predictions of new evidence that would fit with your new hypothesis, but would not be consistent with evolution. YOU SAID Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record.



dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 2 OF 3 .  Diedert Spijkerboer  YOU SAID :  Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record. This evidence does not depend on the question how life began, so this is a separate scientific question. Having said this, I think that trying to disprove evolution through a logical argument is a waste of time and frankly, I don't find your arguments very logical. If you want to disprove evolution, you would have to come up with a better explanation that fits with all the existing evidence and on top of that makes some predictions of new evidence that would fit with your new hypothesis, but would not be consistent with evolution. YOU SAID Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record. MY RESPonSE . https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5147843/scientists-baffled-as-35-year-old-corpse-resembling-a-dinosaur-is-found-with-flesh-still-on-its-bones-in-india/ https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0131/How-a-195-million-year-old-dinosaur-bone-could-still-have-soft-tissue-in-it https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2007/12/north-dakota-dinosaur-mummy/ dinosaur were said to have died out 65 million years ago according to the scientists the issue with that is dinosaurs with flesh intact very recently if it was 65 million years as you claim that sinply would not be there is no way it could last 65 million years . so there is evidence to contrary of these garbage dating method people have come up with . Secondly they tell us to blind faith in evoltuion which is impossible as with out My response I do not know these people and people lie I do not blindly believe people for very good reason . . On the Origin of Species From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) Please look at this ' the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) ' this should tell about the person . https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics Eugenics genetics Written By: Philip K. Wilson See Article History Eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.” Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by “survival of the fittest,” helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and ’40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races. CARING CORRUPTED - The Killing Nurses of The Third Reich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz8ge4aw8Ws Also The Disastrous Effects of Lysenkoism on Soviet Agriculture https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture a extract taken from Over the past 150+ years, an enormous amount of evidence has been found which has convinced an overwhelming majority of biologists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that is found on earth in living organisms and in the fossil record. Overview The disastrous effects of Lysenkoism, a term used to describe the impact of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko's (1898-1976) influence upon science and agriculture in the Soviet Union during the first half of the 20th century, darkly illustrates the disastrous intrusion of politics and ideology into the affairs of science. Beyond a mere rejection of nearly a century of advancements in genetics, Lysenkoism end of extract . the soviet scienctist denied a 100 years worth of genetics reserch done by mendals . Also everybody bleived in spontanous generation then luise paster law of biiogensis proved them wrong also the same with albert einstein e = mc2 calculation he was right everybody was wrong . . What does time or number have to do with truth ? If a lie bleive for 1000 years it is still a lie . If the whole world bleivees a lie it is still a lie . you said they are rational based on evidence i have evidence to the contrary . They are idealogies that use science to push their agenda . Two notable examples . Fristly lysinko was based on idealogy of equality so was nazi scientist based on idealogy darwins racial superiority . . i can prove modern day scienctist it that their theories contradict sceintfic laws using a witness testimony of very famous scienties michio kaku . he said in video pushing a theories then continues to say after each theory how it would that cannot be right as violate laws of matter and conversation then he explains it way also with lawrence krauss . please look at this video michio kaku 0 : 00 – 6 :30 ( also it would be use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-6ToEcirE&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmxwZJatwBwGlEGqg6KjVWz7&index=4 also this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY  the guy who came up with string theory openly state that by having 8 universes you do not need to violate any laws of science . . there you go they knownly admit to creating theories that contradict scientfic laws with unproven thoeries not only that the secular scientists produce pseudoscience inspired by science fiction for example michio kaku has theory of type 1 2 and 3 civizilation from buck roger , star strek , and star wars also he mentions hyperspace that is from fiction . If you watch you see that what they are producing are not proven but the produce bizarrre theories derived from science fiction . anyway the last 500 years greatest scientist were Christians. But recently science is used by secualr idealogues to attack faith claiming relgion vs science but it chrisitans who saw discovering theuniverse as worship of GOD but recently it is used by idealogueas as alternative gospel .. God, Science, and Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&list=PLuXxHEHGRVu9KJrrLZvu9Qtz9BPqfzA5I&index=4



dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT 3 OF 3 .  Diedert Spijkerboer   the guy who came up with string theory openly state that by having 8 universes you do not need to violate any laws of science . . there you go they knownly admit to creating theories that contradict scientfic laws with unproven thoeries not only that the secular scientists produce pseudoscience inspired by science fiction for example michio kaku has theory of type 1 2 and 3 civizilation from buck roger , star strek , and star wars also he mentions hyperspace that is from fiction . If you watch you see that what they are producing are not proven but the produce bizarrre theories derived from science fiction . anyway the last 500 years greatest scientist were Christians. But recently science is used by secualr idealogues to attack faith claiming relgion vs science but it chrisitans who saw discovering theuniverse as worship of GOD but recently it is used by idealogueas as alternative gospel .. God, Science, and Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&list=PLuXxHEHGRVu9KJrrLZvu9Qtz9BPqfzA5I&index=4 YOU SAID . This evidence does not depend on the question how life began, so this is a separate scientific question. Having said this, I think that trying to disprove evolution through a logical argument is a waste of time and frankly, I don't find your arguments very logical. If you want to disprove evolution, you would have to come up with a better explanation that fits with all the existing evidence and on top of that makes some predictions of new evidence that would fit with your new hypothesis, but would not be consistent with evolution. My response . Once again alll I ask is you to prove that evoution could produce produce the orignal single cell form non life or show the original mechanism that produced the orginal singel cell then evolution took over from there then millions of years lator humans occurred . if you cannot show a mechanism for the origanl cell to form you cannot have million of years . Simple as that with out it evolution collapses along with the naturalist narrative . . YOU SAID . I think that trying to disprove evolution through a logical argument is a waste of time and frankly, I don't find your arguments very logical. If you want to disprove evolution, you would have to come up with a better explanation that fits with all the existing evidence and on top of that makes some predictions of new evidence that would fit with your new hypothesis, but would not be consistent with evolution. MY RESPONSE . Science is done by experimentation and observation we make hypothese and proform exsperiment nad record the result . We then we examine the evidence and make conclusion of whether it is confirmed or disproven then more experiments and obeservation , more deduction and reasoning slowly finding out how the how natural world functions that is how sicnec works ;. you seem to ask me to not question but have faith that what men say is . I am simply asking what was the predecessor to evolution or how is it that evolution produced the initial single cell from which evotuion is said to build on . if evolution cannot build the genetic code for a single cell how can it build up the genetic code over millions of years ? . So challenge to you is prove the orignal mechanism ? or show how evolution could build the initial single cell .? For if naturalism means via original mechanism or evolution cannot build the genetic code for a single cell neither can it build up code over millions of years to produce humans . To sum it up if you produce a single cell neither can there be humans for it begins at single cells from non life then from single cell to humans . I blevie the bible as GOD's word as I was raised christian and know predicts the 2600 years 605 BC to now the revived fourth kingdom US AND EU SUPPORT FOR israel the woman on the dragon prophecy ..if it can predict the future why would I not bleive its narrative on the past about gensis . I said to a man JESUS split time in half he said to me that is impossible . Then I said JESUS teleported into the upper room in the book of acts, he created matter when multiplied the bread and fishs feeding more then 15000 thousand people, he walked on water , he ressurected the died , he healed the blind , he commanded the sea and wind showing power over the natural world is his hand . . he broke the laws science all the time . if he is who he claimed to be the son of GOD if he could those laws so could split time in half . I then clearied it is currently the year 2019 AD amino domnio in the year of LORD JESUS CHIRST . He was so influencial he split time in half we refer to before him as BC and after him AS AD . Now 2000 years israel return of exile then 2000 years latro the impossible happened confirming the prophecy of caiaphas along side judgement of israel and in revelation 17 1-6 rev 18 verse 20 and 24 rev 19 verse 1 -2 and 11-21 . israel would and be supported with roman empire in its divided state the USA AND EU support for 1948 AD israel . The bible proves itself true by predicting the impossible but the impossible proving the bible . Yet you are here telling me to bleive the impossible but with the bible it predicted the impossible and it occurred proving the bible . YOU SAID That would probably take you at least 8 years of scientific education and research training just to obtain the knowledge and experience to get anywhere. The same holds for any argument against naturalism: Come up with an alternative paradigm and come up with a hypothesis and some evidence that cannot possibly fit into a naturalistic explanation. I do not need with reason and understanding the concepts you can make retional deductions and conclusions . Secondly you said ' Come up with an alternative paradigm and come up with a hypothesis and some evidence that cannot possibly fit into a naturalistic explanation. ' I already did but you never addressed it .





dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer hmm boer that sounded dutch . i am a englishmen .





Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Your 1 of 3 comment: You say that evolution can't happen if there isn't life first. We don't have a difference of opinion that, so please don't keep repeating that. The problem with your argument is you say that whether or not evolution is true depends on if there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. That is a wrong conclusion. The question of whether evolution is true can be decided by using existing evidence. Maybe an analogy can explain this: I am a meteorologist by training, but I know little about how the sun works. I could maybe convince you about how the weather works here on earth. In this analogy, say: Diedert, your explanation of the weather can't be true because you don't know how the sun works. But we know there is a sun and that it works and how much energy the sun sends to earth. Thus, understanding how the sun works is not really necessary in understanding how the atmosphere works. Similarly, understanding how life came about is not necessary for understanding how life developed after it appeared on earth.



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 In addition to my 1 of 3 comment: Just to be sure, it is now known how the sun works. I don't know exactly, but science does.



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Your 2 of 3 comment. I want to be very clear about this: whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with eugenics or any other moral question. Also, you have misunderstood Darwin when he used the term "favoured races". It had nothing to do with racism. I know that Darwins ideas have been abused later on, but evolution doesn't teach that we should discriminate, kill people with mental illness or anything else. This is similar to the fact that the person who explained how a rock falls through the air is not responsible for another person using a falling rock to kill someone.



Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 More about your 2 of 3 comment. As I have said before, I don't accept non-scientific sources as evidence against a scientific theory (and no, evolution is not "just a theory", the word for "just a theory" in science is hypothesis). Still, I had a look at the Sun article. The only in it was a picture of a corpse that resembled a dinosaur. The article itself said tests needed to be done to understand what it is. The only way to prove tuat it really was a dinosaur would be to study the bones. This is just to illustrate one form of why non-scientific sources cannot be accepted as scientific evidence. Please come with scientific evidence from peer-reviewed publications next time, I don't want to explain this a third time.



Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Your comments 3 of 3. Here you repeat a lot of what you said before and again come up with invalid sources. It is obvious that your view of science is not based on actual science that is found in peer reviewed research articles and books. It is based on your interpretation of what you read in the media. You don't seem to understand what scientific evidence actually means, because you have never once referred to scientific evidence, only to newspapers and YouTube vids. You make obvious errors, like confusing a truth claim with a moral claim, as I've illustrated with the falling rock analogy. What you've basically done in 3 of 3 is making claims without proving them with actual scientific evidence. With every claim that you've made (and thete are many) I can ask: can you prove that scientifically? And you have provided zero scientific evidence for any of your claims. If you want to convince me, you must do several things : - Show that you understand what scientific evidence is by actually giving me some. - provide scientific evidence that disproves evolution - come up with an alternative paradigm to Naturalism - come up with scientific evidence that supports your paradigm and disproves naturalism.



Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 To illustrate my point about scientific evidence and why you shouldn't confuse media reports with actual science, here's the follow-up story on that supposed dinosaur in India: https://doubtfulnews.com/2017/12/not-a-dinosaur/ It actually reports what I said, namely that they looked at the bones to test if it was really a dinosaur. Also, if a real corpse of a dinosaur was found, not a fossil, it would be in all the media, not just a few media known for their sensational style of reporting like the Sun. Even then, the Sun didn't even claim it actually was a dinosaur. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. You obviously didn't, because you presented it as evidence.



dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 1 OF 2 Diedert Spijkerboer 3 hours ago @dsf111 000 Your 1 of 3 comment: You say that evolution can't happen if there isn't life first. We don't have a difference of opinion that, so NO COMMENT Diedert Spijkerboer 2 hours ago @dsf111 000 In addition to my 1 of 3 comment: Just to be sure, it is now known how the sun works. I don't know exactly, but science does. NO COMMENT . Diedert Spijkerboer 1 hour ago @dsf111 000 Your 2 of 3 comment. I want to be very clear about this: whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with eugenics or any other moral question. MY RESONSE . On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life JUST something of interest . https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-churchill-racist-warmonger-sterilize-mentally-ill Churchill testified on the right of Britain to decide the destiny of Palestine: "I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race... has come in and taken their place. Also The indulgence with which Churchill treated his personal life and foibles was not a courtesy he extended to anyone else. In fact, he shared one thing in common with his World War II foes in Nazi Germany: a keen enthusiasm for eugenics. As the Home Secretary in 1910, Churchill asked officials to consider sterilizing and preventing the marriage of people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities. "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race," he wrote in a memo to the Prime Minister that same year. A year later, he argued in Parliament for the introduction of forced labor camps for "mental defectives"; a year after that, he attended the first International Eugenics Conference in London. just a note winston churchhill used favoured races as motvie and justification f in thinking it was fine to steal food from the indian and it caused a famine of 3 milion died bengal famine along side with the evil colonialism caused so it is polticized . Just a note of potenital motive of the thinking behind evolution . Regardless of evolution is true it is polticsed and it is reposbile for great deal of suffering where ever eugenic has been implemented it has hurt a deal of people innocent people . Secondly it could have been justification to commit evil . Chrisopher columbus used faith to justify the evil he committed he killed 2 million . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GSCoRN1kbA this could merely be a new justification but then it went beyond that . So it could be legitimate and used as excuse to commit evil or is merely a excuse for evil it is of the two . you said science was purly scientific but this is not true I gave example of eugenic and lysinkosive also you said there was consensus on evolution being true . the majority of scientifc community supported spontaneous generation but it was disproven . So your consensus and purely scientific is not true now it is being used as stick to chrisitans over the head with it . Highlighted reply Diedert Spijkerboer 2 hours ago @dsf111 000 More about your 2 of 3 comment. As I have said before, I don't accept non-scientific sources as evidence against a scientific theory (and no, evolution is not "just a theory", the word for "just a theory" in science is hypothesis). Still, I had a look at the Sun article. The only in it was a picture of a corpse that resembled a dinosaur. The article itself said tests needed to be done to understand what it is. The only way to prove tuat it really was a dinosaur would be to study the bones. This is just to illustrate one form of why non-scientific sources cannot be accepted as scientific evidence. Please come with scientific evidence from peer-reviewed publications next time, I don't want to explain this a third time. here you go here I found some dino soft tissue article from scientific peer reviewed jornals Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020381 Signs of ancient cells and proteins found in dinosaur fossils https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/signs-ancient-cells-and-proteins-found-dinosaur-fossils Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in ‘milestone’ paper https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper A mummified duck-billed dinosaur with a soft tissue cock's comb https://www.academia.edu/8173763/A_mummified_duck-billed_dinosaur_with_a_soft_tissue_cocks_comb so if sun article one was correct the world is a lot younger then 65 million years old as if it was the flesh of dinosaur would not be on it . Highlighted reply Diedert Spijkerboer 2 hours ago @dsf111 000 Your comments 3 of 3. Here you repeat a lot of what you said before and again come up with invalid sources. It is obvious that your view of science is not based on actual science that is found in peer reviewed research articles and books. It is based on your interpretation of what you read in the media. You don't seem to understand what scientific evidence actually means, because you have never once referred to scientific evidence, only to newspapers and YouTube vids. You make obvious errors, like confusing a truth claim with a moral claim, as I've illustrated with the falling rock analogy. What you've basically done in 3 of 3 is making claims without proving them with actual scientific evidence. With every claim that you've made (and thete are many) I can ask: can you prove that scientifically? And you have provided zero scientific evidence for any of your claims. If you want to convince me, you must do several things : - Show that you understand what scientific evidence is by actually giving me some. - provide scientific evidence that disproves evolution - come up with an alternative paradigm to Naturalism - come up with scientific evidence that supports your paradigm and disproves naturalism. YOU SAID Highlighted reply Diedert Spijkerboer 2 hours ago @dsf111 000 Your comments 3 of 3. Here you repeat a lot of what you said before and again come up with invalid sources. It is obvious that your view of science is not based on actual science that is found in peer reviewed research articles and books. MY RESPONSE Actually if want perfect grasp of what is currently known yeah use the peer-reviewed journals . It does not mean that you cannot learn of value any thing of value from people who are knowledgeable on subjects . YOU RESPONSE . It is based on your interpretation of what you read in the media. You don't seem to understand what scientific evidence actually means, because you have never once referred to scientific evidence, only to newspapers and YouTube vids.



dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 2 OF 2 . YOU RESPONSE . It is based on your interpretation of what you read in the media. You don't seem to understand what scientific evidence actually means, because you have never once referred to scientific evidence, only to newspapers and YouTube vids. Hmm you should a a few article about the corruption of peer-review system ; Peer-Review and the Corruption of Science https://evolutionnews.org/2011/09/publish_or_perish_peer-review/ Feminism and icebergs: a new low in climate ‘science’ https://nypost.com/2016/03/08/feminism-and-icebergs-a-new-low-in-climate-science/ Hmm basically the same thing as before they will give you quite accurace picture but sometimes you need to be careful YOU SAID . You make obvious errors, like confusing a truth claim with a moral claim, as I've illustrated with the falling rock analogy. What you've basically done in 3 of 3 is making claims without proving them with actual scientific evidence. With every claim that you've made (and thete are many) I can ask: can you prove that scientifically? And you have provided zero scientific evidence for any of your claims. If you want to convince me, you must do several things : - Show that you understand what scientific evidence is by actually giving me some. - provide scientific evidence that disproves evolution - come up with an alternative paradigm to Naturalism - come up with scientific evidence that supports your paradigm and disproves naturalism MY REPOSNE IS . Evolution is fundamentally flawed and we can prove it already exisiting evidenc and with LOGIC AND REASON which is something some peole are opposed to . . if evotino cannot create a singe cell organism it has nothing to build on ., evolutionist should start from non life to life single cell to group of bacteria to small animals then monkeys then humans . The evolution miss out first step so there is no next step so it is invalidated . My QUESTION HAVE YOU PROVED A SCRAP OF Evidence to PROVE the unknown mechanism to produce a single cell or evolution could produce a single cell from non life to life using evolution ???????!!!!!!!!! . the unknown mechanism built the single cell then evolution took over . Abiogensis or the unknown mechanism does not exist neither does evolution . if evolution cannot produce a single cell organism evolution is debunked as it cannot create a single cell and no other means to acquire that single cell to build on . HOW DID I COME TO MY Conclusions ? REASON AND LOGIC also I am making possiblity of what could have occurred and using basic concept of biology also the law of biogensis . Firstly the mechanism I prepose is nothing more then a much more advanced form of evolution for with out there is no possibility of non life to life so evoutiion is debunked . Adaption I said if the advanced form of evolution could build the intial single cell which would vaslty more adavanced as it could produce I spoke could only produce single cell organism but nothing more we would not see more advanced form of life we now see . If it could here is no need ofr evoution but if this was the case we would the law of biogensies would not exists so that cannot the case . The last options a cooperation between the unknown mechanism and evoution if this was case we would not have the law of biogeneis . So with this leavijng no naturalist means for evolution to occur as it cannot produce it own single cell to build from . if the unknown mechanism exists and can produce singel cell to build up it makes evoution redundant if t cannot so my conculsion evotion is pseudoscience . So to me belief in evolution it is faith based position evolution which would require a miracle which is the unknown mechanism . They cannot show the original mechanism and also the original mechanism would have to overcome astronomical odds making evolution redundant not merely that We would see today non life coming to life as single cell today . so it original mechanism exists evolution is redundant if it does not exist evolution cannot create life from non life . Even if the orignal mechanism does not need to overcome astronomical odds it would have built up the dna and it would not take millions years or if it could not create anything beyond a single cell we would not have anything beyond single cell we not have evoution . Lastly if the unknown mechanism worked with evouton we would not have the law of biogensis . So to me evoution is debunked . . The HISTORY OF it used ot justify the murder via eugenics and the evil acts of colonails also it encouraged racism . It is doctrine espoused by idealogues or who are deranged beleiveing in make bleive fairy tales . Such as science fiction So evolution example given. Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U Are we living in a simulation? Neil deGrasse Tyson explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoMDzAiQpbY Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why we most likely live in a simulation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bodf8Yrf7b8 this film below shows how deranged indvidual such lawrence krauss Richard Dawkins neil degress tyson . Are nothing but ideologues espusing a bankrupt doctrine the scientist are delusional bleivin is science fiction they deranged . People mindless believe them Idiot Scientists - "Professing Themselves to be Wise" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-6ToEcirE&t=1814s thank you for reading by comment may LORD GOD BLESS YOU .



















J W Sanders



@Diedert Spijkerboer that first cell sure was lucky!



















J W Sanders



@dsf111 000 Keep up the good work, stay salty



















dsf111 000



@J W Sanders more like impossible Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance! YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPTvLolvNY&list=PLOj1t1YOjdmzi7z2ZYAlT_9pLJVmyZrdf&index=1 to bleive in a evolution is to bleive in a miracle the point of naturalism is to ordinary to explain away a extraordinary thing as life and universe but to beleie in the ordinary requires faith in the extraordinary to believe the ordinary defining the point of naturalism . just to avoid belif in GOD . but the christian have actual miracle beyond dispute and the heathen still do not beleive just like in the parable of rich and lazarus. . anyway i have come to bleive evolution is merely a idealogy masking around as science . fristly as scinece it is fatally flawed it is impossible secondly the man who came up with this theory was clearly racist and it was also used to jusitfy atrocities commited by britan and it was used by the nazi . from my message to dieder ' as previously stated On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life JUST something of interest . https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-churchill-racist-warmonger-sterilize-mentally-ill Churchill testified on the right of Britain to decide the destiny of Palestine: "I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race... has come in and taken their place. Also The indulgence with which Churchill treated his personal life and foibles was not a courtesy he extended to anyone else. In fact, he shared one thing in common with his World War II foes in Nazi Germany: a keen enthusiasm for eugenics. As the Home Secretary in 1910, Churchill asked officials to consider sterilizing and preventing the marriage of people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities. "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race," he wrote in a memo to the Prime Minister that same year. A year later, he argued in Parliament for the introduction of forced labor camps for "mental defectives"; a year after that, he attended the first International Eugenics Conference in London. just a note it is pretty obvious winston churchhill know what he was doing with the bengal when he stole their food knowing it would cause a famine he did not care .he also used favoured races as motvie and justification in thinking it was fine to steal food from the indian and it caused a famine of 3 milion died bengal famine along side with the evil colonialism caused so it is polticized . Just a note of potenital motive of the thinking behind evolution . Regardless of evolution is true it is polticsed and it is reposbile for great deal of suffering where ever eugenic has been implemented it has hurt a deal of people innocent people . Secondly it could have been justification to commit evil . Chrisopher columbus used faith to justify the evil he committed he killed 2 million . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GSCoRN1kbA this could merely be a new justification but then it went beyond that . So it could be legitimate and used as excuse to commit evil or is merely a excuse for evil it is of the two . you said science was purly scientific but this is not true I gave example of eugenic and lysinkosive also you said there was consensus on evolution being true . the majority of scientifc community supported spontaneous generation but it was disproven by louise pastuer also with albert einstein e = mc2 equation and provied everybody wrong . So your consensus and purely scientific is not true now it is being used as stick to chrisitans over the head with it . END OF MY MESSAGE TO DIEDER . hmm atheism is stupid and delusional just like richard dawkins he was molasted as a kid then spends the rest of his life fighting someone he claims does not exsits . Richard Dawkins Knows Nothing About Nothing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA&t=172s all the evidence in the world atheist they will not believe . here is why Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic (David Wood). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg they are angry at GOD and dress it up as science and logic ,reason . but in reality blaming the evil of the world in which they are victimized or witness evil and blame GOD . evil inspires evil in the garden we disobeyed GOD when our heart rose up againts GOD ( we put ourselves before GOD and others ) rebellion broke the relationship between creation and GOD and other creation where there was a cooperatove relation with GOD where he loved us and we obeyed him it . then rebellion occured it created seperation and now as he is seperated and we are not relationship with him as has life im himself and he gives us life . so when he is seperated from us he is not sustaining us so we are persing . were we loved other as ourselves no we fight to dominate nad destroy one another . so out of ignorance of GOD promise of reconciliation back to the garden and temporary state of this world or overwhelmed by emotion this person this person is witness or victimized as bitter angry blame GOD when it was not humans created this situation but out of emotion instead of clinging to the promise of reconciliation via the lamb so after 7000 years eternal life with GOD but out of emotion they reject GOD then say as their is no hope so extract as much pleasure the cause of the fall of man and this fallen world is rebellion then further rebellion wrongs the rebel as he burns his bridge with GOD and wrongs other and by doing so dooms himself . this inspires others to curse GOD and then go down the same path of evil drawing others to destruction . so the solution is condemn that evil action as assign blame to that individual as rebel and to love our enemies so they do not corrupt our heart to turn inward to put ourselves before GOD and other then out of a risen heart to sin and defile ourselves . all evil derives from a heart risen up againts GOD to put oneself before GOD and other s then one sins and it defiles oneself . Matthew 15:10-20 King James Version (KJV) 10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. . so the solutiion is to adhere to the promises of GOD , have faith in christ overcome the world through christ and go back to the garden be in relationship with GOD foerver eternity and final know the suffering of 70 years of life or the 7000 years of the devils reign on the earth then GOD reign begins and destruction of the devil . cling to GOD's promoises to reurn to the garden and eternal life with GOD as it was before the fall . JEREMIAH 29 KJV . 10For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. 11For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. .





Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 Your comment part 1 of 2 I'm sure different people have used the word race in a racist context. In Darwin's book it means different lines of descendants with different hereditary traits. Furthermore, the origin is not about humans in particular, but life in general. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. Anyway, what scientists mean with evolution today has nothing to do with racism. There is a difference between a truth claim and a moral claim. Evolution is a truth claim. Read the actual origin and check what it's about, instead of using slander











Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 I have noticed that you keep arguing that we need proof of abiogenesis to prove evolution. I have explained several times why this is not the case. I think your logic is flawed. I also noticed that you didn't respond to my explanation why they are separate issues. You just repeat what you said before. As this is the central issue, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion. I tried very hard to understand your point and also to explain thoroughly why I gave the response I did. I now notice that you don't even respond to my explanation. Instead, you keep coming up with new claims. This confuses the original issue. I find this very frustrating and disappointing. I am not going to respond to your repetitious arguments anymore, nor will I respond to new claims until I am satisfied that you have understood my original points and have given a respose that I consider both thorough and logical. I'm very sad it had to get to this point.



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 1 OF 2 . ​ Diedert Spijkerboer i merely took the the title originially was . that should giv us a idea in to the mind of this person https://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics the people who know darwin called for eugenics and killing of the weak . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex#On_the_Races_of_Man Social implications of Darwinism Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, proposed that an interpretation of Darwin's theory was the need for eugenics to save society from "inferior" minds. Since the publication of Origin, a wide variety of opinions had been put forward on whether the theory had implications towards human society. One of these, later known as Social Darwinism, had been put forward by Herbert Spencer before publication of Origin, and argued that society would naturally sort itself out, and that the more "fit" individuals would rise to positions of higher prominence, while the less "fit" would succumb to poverty and disease. He alleged that government-run social programmes and charity hinder the "natural" stratification of the populace, and first introduced the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1864. Spencer was primarily a Lamarckian evolutionist; hence, fitness could be acquired in a single generation and that in no way did "survival of the fittest" as a tenet of Darwinian evolution predate it. Another of these interpretations, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions. 'FAVOURED RACES' means some races are better and other are lesser . there is not doubt he viewed the savages as inferior . Natural selection and civilised society In this section of the book, Darwin also turns to the questions of what would after his death be known as social Darwinism and eugenics. Darwin notes that, as had been discussed by Alfred Russel Wallace and Galton, natural selection seemed to no longer act upon civilised communities in the way it did upon other animals: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected. (Chapter 5)[5] Darwin felt that these urges towards helping the "weak members" was part of our evolved instinct of sympathy, and concluded that "nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature". As such, '"we must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind". Darwin did feel that the "savage races" of man would be subverted by the "civilised races" at some point in the near future, as stated in the Human races section above.[6] He did show a certain disdain for "savages", professing that he felt more akin to certain altruistic tendencies in monkeys than he did to "a savage who delights to torture his enemies". However, Darwin is not advocating genocide, but clinically predicting, by analogy to the ways that "more fit" varieties in a species displace other varieties, the likelihood that indigenous peoples will eventually die out from their contact with "civilization", or become absorbed into it completely.[7][8] His political opinions (and Galton's as well) were strongly inclined against the coercive, authoritarian forms of eugenics that became so prominent in the 20th century.[8] Note that even Galton's ideas about eugenics were not the compulsory sterilisation or genocidal programs of Nazi Germany, but he instead hoped that by encouraging more thought in hereditary reproduction, human mores could change in a way that would compel people to choose better mates. For each tendency of society to produce negative selections, Darwin also saw the possibility of society to itself check these problems, but also noted that with his theory "progress is no invariable rule." Towards the end of Descent of Man, Darwin said that he believed man would "sink into indolence" if severe struggle was not continuous, and thought that "there should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring", but also noted that he thought that the moral qualities of man were advanced much more by habit, reason, learning, and religion than by natural selection. The question plagued him until the end of his life, and he never concluded fully one way or the other about it.



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer MY COMMENT PART 2 OF 2 . ​ His political opinions (and Galton's as well) were strongly inclined against the coercive, authoritarian forms of eugenics that became so prominent in the 20th century.[8] Note that even Galton's ideas about eugenics were not the compulsory sterilisation or genocidal programs of Nazi Germany, but he instead hoped that by encouraging more thought in hereditary reproduction, human mores could change in a way that would compel people to choose better mates. For each tendency of society to produce negative selections, Darwin also saw the possibility of society to itself check these problems, but also noted that with his theory "progress is no invariable rule." Towards the end of Descent of Man, Darwin said that he believed man would "sink into indolence" if severe struggle was not continuous, and thought that "there should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring", but also noted that he thought that the moral qualities of man were advanced much more by habit, reason, learning, and religion than by natural selection. The question plagued him until the end of his life, and he never concluded fully one way or the other about it. YOU SAID . Anyway, what scientists mean with evolution today has nothing to do with racism. There is a difference between a truth claim and a moral claim. Evolution is a truth claim. Read the actual origin and check what it's about, instead of using slander . i did not slander this is where eugenics came from and very person e epsoused this doctrine and close to him . to it requires faith in miracle a single cell organism with a miracle mcehanism which would make evoution redundent the suddenly take that thought of the miracle mechanism out of your mind then evoutino pops out of no where and after million humans . so bleive even though that supposedly made it which could produce a single cell which is inposssible and can handle extremtly hostile condiction but some can't add a little bit of infomation so we would see in effect today and see in the lab and law of biogensis not exsits . evolution is a lie it is ideology masking around as a science which has had deadly consequences . i think to myself Darwin saw all the suffering of world and attributed it to the typical anti GOD response why is there so much suffering in the world ? . if they had not been given a sense of good and evil from a GOD you would not know that is wrong you would think it perfectly fine . so clearly something is broken and haywire . that would be devil the he broke relationship with GOD and our own choices in garden created this situation recognize the failure of humanity and own failure and cling to GOD and his promises and go back to GOD in the garden . hope in GOD is answer for the suffeing of this world is great for 6000 years but imagine 100 trillion ( or eternity ) years of happiness of joy peace happines security is 70 yearrs of your life or 7000 years anything ? so do not care for where we are but where we are going . back to GOD and the garden . laslty it is faith as chrisstianity for no one can bleive in evoution without belif in a miracle . so i will have faith in GOD as he spoke and world came to be for he is omniscience , omnipotent GOD so he can do by merely speaking it . funny thing even Darwin did not ultimalty bleive evolution he believed GOD created and that it was impossible by chance it was created by chance . https://www.christiantoday.com/article/charles-darwin-atheist-christian-agnostic/79478.htm if you doubt the promises of GOD or hope in him i will ask you three question . i will ask you three question . why does 1948 AD Israel exists (a nation dead for 2000 years for the Jews have recovered the land and revived the ancient script and language Hebrew ) ? . secondly why is it that this nation that has been dead for 2000 years is allied with the two ( US AND EU ) greatest military and economic powers to ever exist and who are allied together dominate the world and support 1948 AD Israel ? . lastly has this ever happened before a nation dead for 2000 years allied with two greatest power ever who are allied together dominate the world and supports a nation that has been dead for nar 2000 years ? THIS IS THE GENERATION CHRIST SPOKE iT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF AS WRRITEN IN MATTEW 23 where god JUDGES ISRAEL BEFORE CHRISTs sECONd COMiNG READ KEY SCRITPUTE sample Nehemiah 9:20-26 1 kings 19 13 - 14matt 27 22-27 luke 13 33- 35 acts 7 49-60 1 jeremiah 2 verse 27 30 , Romans 11:1-5 1 Thessalonian 2 13-16 john 11 47 to 53 Matt 23 27-38 Revelation 17 1-6 rev 18 verse 20 and 24 rev 19 1-2 rev 19 11 and 21 and rev 20 ) (MORE SCRIPTURE if you doubt revelation 17 1 to 6 18 verse 20 and 24 revaltion 19 verse 1 and 2 rev 19 11 to 21 rev 20 1 kings 19 13 to 14 jeremiah 2 verse 29 30 matthew 23 verse 27 to 39 mattew 27 verse 22 to 26 mark 12 verse 1 to 12 Luke 13:6-9 fruitless vineyard luke 11 44 to 54 luke 13 33 to 35 luke 20 9 to 20 act 2 22 to 25 act 3 9 to 18 act 4 1 to 13 act 5 17 to 32 act 7 45 to 60 act 8 1 to 8 1 thessoltian 2 13 to 16 ) read the thesis is historical time from ancient Babylon 605 BC to now correlating with Biblical prophecy of Daniel 605 BC Babylon to 476 AD the division of the western roman empire and rise of the Vatican the rev 6 frist seal 1492 to 1918 western conloanisl second seal 1918 to 1991 COMMUNISM . the rise of dived roman empire the USA AND EU who supports the great babylon israel who killed the prohpets and is the location of armgeddon which is in israel where the USA AND EU in the battle of armgeddon will fight the christ . last i want to save your soult and aslo this LORD GOD LOVES YOU this is the 95 thesis of revelation . https://archive.org/details/EXPLAINDANIELANDREVELATIONUPDATE22WITHOUTEXTRAEVIDENCE



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer i never made any claims i merely made theories and in hypotical situation which could a single cell could from without it evolution is disproved . secondly the unknown mechanism is a advanced form of evolution that build a single cell organism which is essentially impossible . then a essentially worthless mechanism compared pop up and then believe it created all things. too me evoutionist are idealogues pushing a idealogy masking as a science .



















Diedert Spijkerboer



@dsf111 000 In my previous comment, I explained very clearly what it took for me to continue this discussion. You have not done what I asked you to do. You ignore my explanation of whether evolution and abiogenesis are true two seperate questions. Instead, you keep repeating your own point ad nauseum. For me, the discussion is now over.



















dsf111 000



@Diedert Spijkerboer evoution and abiogensis are the same thing two mechanism which build genetic code . the frist builds the genetic code from scartch a functional single cell the other adds infomation slowly over time . if either was real we would see it but the law of biogensis exists so evoution is fundementally flawed . secondly it is merely a idealogy masking around as a science . anyway i suppose i won . as you cannot prove evolution and shown it is merely a idealogy and a deadly idealogy .