Profile

Cover photo
Prince Chèn
7 followers|14,088 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Prince Chèn

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Then you'll obviously agree we have examples of speciation, as exhibited in ring species such as the Phylloscopus trochiloides (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217034110 ) or Euphorbia tithymaloides (doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0498 ).  

Now, please define "kind" as you are using it. Not give examples, but provide an actual definition.
Because birds are dinosaurs and humans are apes. (Dinosaur and Ape would be clades and you can't exclude any member and maintain a clade)
From the context of your comment you seem to be thinking evolution predicts a particular proto-chimpanzee could give birth to a set of twins, one human one chimpanzee, or maybe an ostrich laying a penguin egg. If you are then you are looking for the Young Earth Creationists who posit that 16,000 animals on the Ark reproduced so as to produce everything we see today but then suddenly stopped their rather impressive rate of speciation. "
Ring species- Variation within a kind = Micro Evolution not Macro evolution and therefore isn't Darwinian Evolution. Variation within a kind depends on the combinations that arise from the genes there is NO added genetic information whatsoever, Genes have a tremendous amount of Variability. No complexity added not Darwinian Evolution"

"Because birds are dinosaurs and humans are apes. (Dinosaur and Ape would be clades and you can't exclude any member and maintain a clade)" This is belief not fact. Humans are Humans, and Dinosaurs are Dinosaurs

"Clade" BELIEVED to have evolved from a common ancestor not fact.

Kind- animals who share common ancestry

I didn't predict anything it was examples of what the idea of evolution is. Ahahaha the hilarious person that created this misunderstanding video in the first place...

Ring species are also variation within a kind. You have failed.

Oh yea my response to this failure video.

"Popularity of an idea doesn't determine the truth of it" This applies to evolution more than anything else. Evolution doesn't have even one shred of evidence. (Dr. Menton never said how "popular" creationism is, Bill Nye said the "DENIAL OF EVOLUTION IS UNIQUE TO THE UNITED STATES", RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE, As stated by Dr. David Menton. This statement by Bill Nye also implies it's popular, so you slapped yourself in the face.)

Teaching biblical creation IS teaching disbelief of evolution...( You can't believe in both at the same time, and still be true to the bible.)



"while both are ideas one is a scientific theory the other is not" Evolution isn't a scientific theory, first there's no direct observational experiment that can be performed, Second Natural Selection acts upon the genetic information that's already present which isn't evolution, Lastly All "tests" for Evolution do not distinctly correlate with the idea, Each "test" has an equally alternate viable explanation. A true theory however requires that experiments conform to a specific hypothesis. Evolution otherwise has no legitimacy from experiments. Which makes it fall short of even being called a theory. Evolution is an idea, it's been called a theory by naturalists because it is required for naturalism, and people have adopted calling it a theory without "evolution" having the requirements.



 If you're talking about E.Coli using citrate as an energy source, you have again failed, E.Coli bacteria could already do this, but only under certain conditions, Nothing new was added (antibiotic resistance in bacteria also isn't 'evolution').


Natural selection also isn't evolution this video yet again fails, Natural selection can lose genetic information ,but can not gain any, also natural selection acts upon genetic information which is already present (you can have variation among kinds, such as different color humans, but it can't originate a whole different species). There is also not even one experiment which supports evolution (Which is the opposite of your false claim that was stated).

"But which the evidence strongly supports" False claim, without evidence after being stated.

"The entire universe looks more than a million times older" The universe actually looks young. Such as these examples:
"The oldest star in the universe is only 6000 light years away from Earth, precisely as predicted by the Bible and a Youth Earth model.
The Moon's orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the moon's orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability, which further disproves the theory of an Old Earth.
Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the Big Bang were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.
The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.
At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.
The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these are too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years"

"Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!"



The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists' "dynamo" mechanism

The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long "dead" if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune

Jupiter's larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields

The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn's rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness

Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the "billions of years" mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity

Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise.

Neptune should be long since "cold", lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise — it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years

Neptune's rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform

The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger.

The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter.

The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years)


"observational science confirms history in genesis" I don't know about everything in genesis, but there's evidence which points to the flood examples:

(Evidence 1 Fossils
of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures

Evidence 2 Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard

Evidence 3 Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers

Evidence 4 Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country

Evidence 5 Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion

Evidence 6 Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.)
Observational Science confirms the things that actually has the ability to be seen now and not something that could have only been seen in the past. I know when you said "That's just falsehood" you were being ignorant and thinking about things such as seeing Adam and Eve being created and things you only could have seen if you were there.


"Mark 16:9-20 should be in the Bible, since it is found in almost every single Bible manuscript of Mark in existence!
Overwhelming Evidence
Wherever you look, the evidence, including Alexandrian manuscripts, is over 99% in favor of keeping the words of God in Mark 16:9-20.
Ancient Manuscripts
Out of 620 manuscripts that contain Mark’s gospel, only 2 omit the last 12 verses. Here’s how it breaks down.
Miniscules (lower-case letter manuscripts)
Out of 600 miniscules that have been investigated, all 600 miniscules have 16:9-20!

Majuscules (upper-case letter manuscripts)
Out of 15 majuscules that have the gospel of Mark, all 15 majuscules have Mark 16:9-20!

Codices (not a scroll, but in book form)
Out of the five codices that have Mark, 3 out of 5 codices have Mark 16:9-20! Only the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus remove it. (Some say it was removed by the same person in both manuscripts.) But the codices Ephraemi Rescriptus and Bezae have it in its place, as well as Alexandrinus.
That means less than 1/3 of 1% of these cited manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20. ONLY TWO! And they’re not “better” manuscripts. They’re chock-full of errors.
Ancient Church Writings
2nd Century
You can also find Mark 16:9-20 in the 2nd Century Old Latin and Syriac Bibles and the writing of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian.
3rd to 7th Centuries It's found in all sorts of other manuscripts and books in the 3rd to 7th centuries, as well. Researcher John William Burgon found 30 early writers who clearly included Mark 16: 9-20.
The Roman Addition
The one other exception to this, and the reason that some Bibles include a “shorter” version of the last verses of Mark, is so phony and Roman that it doesn’t need much comment. Here it is:
Perverted Ending to Mark
And all things whatsoever that had been commanded they explained briefly to those who were with Peter; after these things also Jesus Himself appeared and from the east unto the west sent out through them the holy and uncorrupted preaching of eternal salvation. Amen. (This fake verse is inserted after 16:8 or between 16:8 and 16:9 with the real ending included. Emphasis mine.)
You can see the early Roman Catholicism coming through, with Peter in the forefront. But the true Bible never does this. He’s never exalted above the others. Peter has human frailties like the rest (compare Mark 16:7; Acts 10; Galatians 2:11-21).
A few manuscripts fell for this corruption, as Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate the churches and people began to change the truth of God in their Bibles into a lie (Romans 1:25) to conform to the Roman Religion. But very few manuscripts can be found in any language that have this perversion.
The Truth Is Obvious
The Bible SHOULD contain what God said through His inspired apostles and prophets. Any true Bible must contain, without excuse, brackets or footnotes, the entire text of Mark 16:9-20. People may debate what God’s preserved words mean, but they have no right to remove God’s words from His Bible."

The people who tried to change mark were mainly Catholics. Even in the bible the founder of the catholic church Paul, spoke of the falling of a church body. Obviously he was speaking of the Catholic faith, Catholics are not consistent with Gods word obviously they have their OWN bible and if you have seen the news or know anything about them such as molesting children and such. They are not the same as other Christian faiths. There are also known Satanists in the Catholic body. Catholics change the word of the bible to fit their faith.

Hilarious video with false claims and lies at every turn. This video should be taken down for lying continuously and demeaning someones image.
1
truthtrekker's profile photo
 
Prince Chen I know this is an unrelated post that I am commenting on but , but I just read your comment on the Freemasons Guard the Secret to Eternal Life video and wanted you to have the info I am about to share with you.
Check out any image for what is called the 1st Masonic degree tracing board. All Masons strive to ascend, or decend, if you prefer, Jacobs Ladder. In all depictions of the 1st Masonic tracing board Jacobs ladder leads directly into the Sun.
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Wow that house. Rich kids with the huge pool
1
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
What? This is hilarious.
1
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Cartoon network, dexter's laboratory, johnny bravo, toonami one piece, chowder, foster's home for imaginery friends
1
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Wow, he's wearing a shirt of a man who was nothing more than a crazy lunatic satanists, black magician. He also believed in "sexual magic" and ate women's feces during those acts.
1
KingOfTheLeprechauns's profile photo
 
Actually listen to the video. It's fake.
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Bill Schnoeblen or however you spell it. Wooo!
1
Add a comment...
In his circles
1 person
Have him in circles
7 people
vgBR.com - Videogames Brasil's profile photo
Stacey Giles's profile photo
LispyDamien's profile photo
Learn Taekwondo Online | TaekwonWoo.net's profile photo
Jesse Ventura's profile photo
Daniel Chin's profile photo
TheRamboHawkzTV's profile photo

Prince Chèn

Shared publicly  - 
 
Reply to your stupid comment: "you sir, are a fucking idiot and almost everything you said was completely incorrect and showed massive ignorance to not only the scientific method (a theory is the top, and is a model explaining a group of facts, a theory never, ever, is proved, the only proofs are mathematical) and your statements of not observing speciation is also incorrect. If you really want to learn, and not stay the moron you currently are, head over to talk origins and read for a...few years."

Ok imbecile this was posted about a month ago. Everything i've said was correct. Do you want to prove evolution to be true? No because there's no proof that doesn't require belief. Dumb ass. Go ahead and try and debate for evolution you will fail horribly. Variation within a kind is not evolution, you are the true idiot. Evolution has never been observed nor does it possess any true evidence you are such an idiot, Please reply so I can hand your ass to you. Evolution isn't a legitimate scientific theory, it doesn't possess the requirements. One requirement of a scientific theory is A direct observational experiment that conforms to a specific hypothesis that doesn't have an alternate viable explanation. Evolution does not possess that and is not a legitimate scientific theory. It's called a THEORY by naturalist because for naturalism to exist it NEEDS evolution. Evolution tries to use real science such as Mutations and such, but it uses those "genetic mechanisms" in the wrong way. They basically have a BELIEF about those genetic mechanisms because they did not observe any of those things they say about them. Allele frequency is only sufficient enough to cause variation within a kind and not make a kind become another. Mutations have an overwhelming loss of information and not a net gain which evolution requires. Natural Selection, has the ability to lose genetic information (by not getting everything which was already present) but not gain any, it also can't originate any new information. Evolution uses real science incorrectly for idiots that eat anything up. Evolution is a religion without a doubt. The ignorance was shown by you thinking that evolution has been observed by variation within a kind.Idiot.
1
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I ate a whole red pepper just by itself and the hotness lasted for like 10 minutes. My tongue felt physically burnt and its sucks because you can't escape it no way.
1
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Why a lot of these new shows on cartoon network seem the same
1
alia fnd's profile photo
 
IKR!!
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
That rift thingg is waaaaaay too close you're gonna need glasses if you don't already have them. Nearsight tiime
1
mdbuehler's profile photo
 
That's not how the Rift works, you'll want to read up on it a bit.  No strain on your eyes at all due to the way the lenses work.
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Isn't Yaweh " God" in hebrew?
1
Prince Chèn's profile photoJames Samson's profile photoFfiba Marih's profile photo
7 comments
 
+James Samson yeah, that was a while back. I've since learned of the whole talmud, kabbalah, 72 names metatron's cube bs. However the language and pronunciations I cited are correct, and I did say god of the Jews, not messianic jews.
Add a comment...

Prince Chèn

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
What is this? Some type of scare tactic? Having David Ike on here just takes away the credibility of this whole show. David ike makes millions of dollars off of the reptilian scam. Why would he try making so much money off of something if it were true and he was trying to get the word of it known. Also the fact it's on cable tv ...
1
Add a comment...
People
In his circles
1 person
Have him in circles
7 people
vgBR.com - Videogames Brasil's profile photo
Stacey Giles's profile photo
LispyDamien's profile photo
Learn Taekwondo Online | TaekwonWoo.net's profile photo
Jesse Ventura's profile photo
Daniel Chin's profile photo
TheRamboHawkzTV's profile photo
Links
Basic Information
Gender
Male