I am leaving LiveLeak.

I have no faith in the integrity of this organization.

Moderators reject media according to their bias(5/7 of my recent posts were rejected as "reposts" - or because they were from the Associated Press) It didn't matter that the posts were not reposts or that the Associated Press is posted every day hundreds of times over and again.


Much can be said. But I am tired of saying it.What can be said to the liberals? They listen to nothing:like explaining math to a More.. dog.

Its a waste of time.They are a lost cause.

Thanks for subscribing.

best wishes,anon50 Less..

Posted Nov-3-2008 By 

anon50 (1060.16)

anon50

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

Thank you so much for the comment on my videos..I do so appreciate..take care my friend

Posted Feb-9-2008 By 

rhondalg (29.28)

rhondalg

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

"I think our debate has become blurred. In science
Evolution, Abiogenesis, the creation of earth, and
the creation of the universe are all seperate
concepts seperated by millions and billions of
years each. The creation lumps them all together
in a few days and is explained in a single page".

The debate is blured?? You brought in DNA,and RNA,ect...

You dont seem to read others comments anyway. Just bring up the same arguments.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess o More..ne day sooner or later we'll both find out whos right.
But think about it... thing is ,if your right we'll both never know anyway because when we die theres nothing else.
If Im right,we'll both find out after we die.

Personally I pray its before you die.
Take care....
Paul....:) Less..

Posted Feb-1-2008 By 

SerpentSlayer01 (58.58)

SerpentSlayer01

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (-1) | Report

I think our debate has become blurred. In science Evolution, Abiogenesis, the creation of earth, and the creation of the universe are all seperate concepts seperated by millions and billions of years each. The creation lumps them all together in a few days and is explained in a single page.

Any time I qoute the bible you simply say that what I am qouting is not what it really says, yet the translation to english was very strict... I don't get it... Why are there such critical errors in More.. the words chosen in such important verses as 1:16? Why so much error on the first page alone?

Some of the key proofs that life came from one source are.

#1 The univeral genetic code among all life forms. The genetic code is not required to be this code. I use a strain of bacteria in my lab that actually has an altered codon allowing more efficient protein production. It is a improvement on god's "perfect design" as creationists like to call it. It is not perfect by any means.

#2 Life depends on single cell life. Blue gree algae produces the vast majority of the worlds Oxygen, plants are 100% dependant on rhizobium bacteria for nitrogen. Plants could not live without bacteria, period. Our mitochondria in every cell of our bodies and in every eukaryotic cell in the world have huge similarities to bacteria, hinting that they are an ancient symbiosis. The food you digest depends on bacteria in your gut. Bacteria decompose compounds back down allowing the cycle of life to continue. Bacteria had to come first.

#3 The RNA world hypothesis explains the order of complexity perfectly in my opinion. RNA has been proven to be self polymerizing and can react and bind with amino acids and sugars on its own. RNA is the major component of the ribosome, the machine that makes protein. The question of how protein and enzymes came about is at least partially answered by the RNA world concept. RNA not only binds and guides the amino acids to the ribosome but it also is the ribosome. All you need to make protein is RNA. However it has not been proven and I don't think can ever be "proven". Who knows what really happened billions of years ago. However it is POSSIBLE. That is what is important to remember.

#4 The fossil record has clear signs of evolution. Sure there are gaps and holes but these are being filled in every day by new discoveries. It is not just the fossils themselves but the places they are found in the ground that prove their age and place in the evolutionary time scale. It clearly shows an change in species over time.

How do you explain dinosaurs? How do you explain the thousands of species of fossils we have found that are no longer on earth. Did all of these animals along with man all live together at some point?

I just find the biblical creation story lacking in multiple ways. For one it does not mention bacteria or even hint at life too small for us to see. That is really what makes the world tick. You would think there would be a hint at small life forms.

You may think humans are the supreme beings of earth but we are in fact nothing but the stuck up aristocrats of earth who do not see how we rely on the most lowly peasants of this world for our lifestyle. Saying we are made in the "image of god" is silly to me. Are Chimps 99% godlike? Because they are 99% humanlike... Less..

Posted Feb-1-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (2) | Report

Posted Jan-31-2008 By 

SerpentSlayer01 (58.58)

SerpentSlayer01

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

Okay, say I do have the tense of the first words wrong. Light was around before the earth, I agree with that actually. There was light before earth But what about this?

Genesis 1:16

"Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. He made the stars also."

This is after the plants were made by the way... How did they live without sunlight? When did this primordial air you speak of exist? Days 1 and 2 only? The plants c More..ould not live seeing how modern ratios of CO2 and O2 are needed for metabolsims. The plants could not have had an alternate form of metabolism since "evolution" is false right? They could not perform photosynthesis to live since there was no sunlight. They could not metabolize sugars to live without sunlight since there was no O2 on primordial earth. Plants still need O2 to live. They burn sugars just as we burn sugars. Plants need O2 just as much as we do.

Also I admit the Miller experiment does not prove abiogenesis. But it does prove that amino acids and nucleotides can be produced using chemicals that could be found on early earth. No matter how unlikely or trace the chemicals were, it IS POSSIBLE. There had to have been some quantity of NH3 and CH3 if there was N2, CO2, and water. Sure the odds are approaching zero. But it is possible. Less..

Posted Jan-30-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

SerpentSlayer01 (58.58)

SerpentSlayer01

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

OK.. First... the 1953 Miller experiment used ammonia, methane and hydrogen,because it was believed those composd the early Earths atmosphere. When he added electricity over a period of 5 days, he got some aminos in the sludge in the bottom of the glass. It was touted for years as well as put in text books that the idea of abiogenesis could work.

But in the 60's SCIENTESTS concluded that the early atmosphere could not have consisted of this mixture ,for several reasons, and the early atmosph More..ere was actually composed of mainly CO2, N2 and water vapor.

Miller,as well as others re-tried experiments using the proper early atmosphere contents and produced NO aminos.
I was wondering then if youve heard of any recient experiments towards abiogenesis.

Another note here...if you COULD produce amino acids like this,wouldent we be still miles away from producing even a simple cell?
Like my other video says, even in perfect lab conditions,if you put ALL the parts of an already developed cell...aminos,ect.. in a tube,you still cannot put them back together or recreate a cell.
How much more difficult is that in a extreemly hostal enviroment like an early earth?
..:) Less..

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

SerpentSlayer01 (58.58)

SerpentSlayer01

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

ok first there is earth. Then there is light. How is this not the earth being before the stars or sun?

I don't care about all the other stuff. The first few lines of the creation story do not jive with science.

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

there is not alot of research into creating life from nothing because there isn't really anything to gain from it and it is very hard to get funded for it. We are audited every 6 weeks or so in my lab and any money spent must be accounted for. I forgot to account for like $50 of test tubes one time and it was a big deal... As far as I know there are no federal grants for research into experiments trying to create life from nothing. That money would be much better spent curing a disease or c More..reating alternative fuels. Even if life was created in the lab I know it would never convince you.

The famous experiment of Miller and Urey was able to create 13 of the 20 amino acids and also create nucleotides. They used ammonia, methane, some trace minerals and electricity. It is totally possible that these could have created life given enough time. All the raw ingredients are there.

It recieved much criticism from creationists because it used some chemicals that had been purified from organic sources. They argued that some sort of "life force" could have been carried over.

Pardon my spelling errors, I type really fast and don't always proof read. Less..

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

Posted Jan-29-2008 By 

SerpentSlayer01 (58.58)

SerpentSlayer01

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (0) | Report

I do not see the bible as the word of god. I see the bible as manmade. Even if it was god's word then it is still is vulnerable to the imperfection of man. The stories of the old testament were passed on my word of mouth for generations before being recorded. It cannot be denied that the bible has contradictions with itself. God's word would not have contradictions. Threfore, it is not god's word.

I dare you to write down a story one of your grandparents told you years ago 100% word for More..word as they told it. The bible is jsut as impossible to be 100% accurate. Man warped and twisted these sotries over time.

In my true opinion it was made up from the start Less..

Posted Jan-26-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (1) | Report

Posted Jan-26-2008 By 

Epitope (650.26)

Epitope

Send Message

Reply (1) | Report

Remember slayer, we shouldn't bend the word of God to fit in with what fallen man teaches.

Posted Jan-25-2008 By 

FillTheVoid (1156.78)  

FillTheVoid

View Channel

Send Message

Reply (-1) | Report