Craig Venter - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard Dawkins

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER: It can only "select," not produce traits. If a variation survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Nothing more!

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - "JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: We were simply ignorant of their usefulness. Recent research published in journals such as Nature shows that these "non-coding" segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Just because these segments of DNA don't code for proteins doesn't mean that they useless or broken-down genes. Read Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - IT'S INTERESTING THAT CARL SAGAN would have acknowledged sequential radio signals in space as evidence of intelligent life sending them, but he wouldn't acknowledge the sequential structure of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) as evidence of an intelligent Cause. Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME, and then ask yourself why you don't believe. DNA can't come by chance. It requires already existing DNA or a human genetic engineer in the laboratory to bring about more DNA.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so this is the best explanation.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - NYLON-EATING BACTERIA is not evidence of mutations producing new genetic information. The genes were degraded by mutations and that's how the capability came about. "It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it." Read The Internet article NYLON-EATING BACTERIA AND EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - RANDOM GENETIC MUTATIONS caused by the mindless environment are destructive. Even if mutations are not immediately harmful, after enough of them accumulate they will be harmful. And, even if a good mutation does occur, for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being harmful to the species as a whole and even causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there's information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That's evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn't be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE couldn't sustain itself eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME? When you divide a cake, the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - NO REAL EVIDENCE FOR DINOSAUR TO BIRD EVOLUTION: Just google the title to access this article published in Russia's Pravda. Also, go to the Internet site ANSWERS IN GENESIS to find out about how true science supports the Bible. Find out answers to questions about dinosaurs, how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible, the age of the earth, the fossil record, etc. Just type into the "search" box on the site your question or topic of interest to find relevant articles.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - BIG HOLES IN BANG THEORY: Just google the title to access this article published in Russia's Pravda.

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that an airplane or cell originated by undirected natural laws. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Mogley52 Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)

TheScienceFoundation Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - So you don't care that I've refuted all of your garbage? You're just going to keep posting it over and over?  Pretty sure the bible says something about not bearing false witness.

ChrisChen4ever Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - Hypocrite! You post the same crap over and over! This is the sum of your life, to sit on a computer and make useless pseudo-intellectual responses to videos you don't like all day long. You are going to give yourself a heart attack from how obese you are getting.

TheScienceFoundation Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - You probably meant to post that as a reply to Mogley52

johnnyarsonctXhc Says:

May 3, 2012 - if the bible is the unrefutable word of god, how could there be any outside (i.e.greek) influence? maybe because its a man made book, written by men to control men... for fuck sake, just think for once, you twit!!! get the cobwebs out and use that shrivelled nutsac of a brain and just think it through. SPOILER ALERT: THE BIBLE IS NONSENSE AND THERE IS NO GOD!

johnnyarsonctXhc Says:

May 3, 2012 - Good form, my friend!

andrewridgway Says:

May 15, 2012 - the morality of the doctrine of hell is not saved by the piffling semantic distinction between 'torment' and 'punishment'.