@lordnimr0d I wasnt aware of that did they omit a chapter? Utter bastards if someone printed a bible without a missing chapter they'd be angry as hell. Not of course that I'm implying the Origin of Species is a religious document or like the bible. But they twist facts.
@COMALiteJ that in itself is a disgusting act and proves they'll stoop to lows to promote a belief with unsubstantiated claims. Is there no other level these snake oil salesmen will lower themselves.
Well critisism where its due, how about printing a bible with a 50 page introduction about a balanced argument for the theory of YE creationism while pointing out the benefits and other so-called theories of religion like Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism for the members of Ray comforts or any other church in a state (i.e Kansas) that supports creationism. Fairs fair, poison their well with logic if thats what they're trying to do to evolution.
@seonidh, Great idea! This year, 2011, is the 400th Anniversary of the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible (have you ever wondered why so many YECs on YouTube have “1611” in their handles? Now you know)! We're running out of time, but if a major atheist group backs this, we could have a 400th Anniversary Edition out in time for the holidays, complete with 50-page intro.
This should be sincerely dedicated Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in thanks for giving us the idea! :-)
@COMALiteJ the bible or any other religious book is fair game, even do it to the Q'uran, Hindu vedas. regarding Comfort, Cameron, well if they think they can do it to the Origin of Species well their so-called factual book should be given the same treatment.
@seonidh, No, it HAS to be the 1611 KJV Bible, because 2011 is the 400th Anniversary, and they did this for the 150th Anniversary of “Origin of the Species.” And besides, Comfort and Cameron would actually LIKE atheists to put out anniversary editions with intros demolishing the COMPETING religious texts. No, it HAS to be THEIR religious text.
The key is that the intro of our 400th Anniversary KJV must be DEDICATED in GRATITUDE to Comfort and Cameron, THANKING them for giving us the idea! ;D
@COMALiteJ Thats a good plan yes the King James bible would be a good way to show them exactly that their actions have a equal merit for the bible from an atheist viewpoint. Any ideas what atheist groups would do this?
@seonidh, No, unfortunately. I’m not connected with any atheist groups per se. I’ve been posting this suggestion for almost two years now, here on YouTube and elsewhere, hoping that someone would pick up on it, but have not yet heard that any atheist group has run with it.
@ElProximo the earth was found to be spherical firstly by crude measurements carried out from earth. It was then confirmed to be spherical based on slightly less crude methods from high earth atmosphere. It was eventually measured with high precision from outer space and found to be, not a perfect sphere, but ever so slightly egg shaped. At no point was spherical earth overturned. The measurements were refined. So it is with molecular and comparative anatomy analysis - but you know this
@ElProximo now you are being deliberately obtuse. Molecular biology is orders of magnitude more precise than comparative anatomy so it is bound to refine what was apparent at the macro scale. Even so, the phylogenetic tree revealed by DNA anlysis overwhelminngly agreed with the existing phylogenetic trees. Only at the unicellular and simple multi-cellular level did the picture get a little more fuzzy, because of horizontal gene transfer, which we have observed happening.
@ElProximo nothing major has been replaced and nothing has yet come up to bring common ancestry into question in cladistics. It has been refined with the perfection of molecular analysis. We have, for instance, identified where horizontal gene transfer has taken place, always among lower organisms. There were initially a very few anomalies (e.g. the Kangaroo split), due to only using citocrome C as a comparator. Since then we have developed DNA-DNA hybridization to compare entire genomes. CA OK!
@ElProximo "'microbiology' should prove it out, but, it did not. it 'falsified' the morphology tree". Well this seems to be news to the world's biologists and nobel prize winners. Do please point me to some evidence you have to back up such a claim. Is it as good as the evidence for an intelligent designer? Do you keep it in the empty bookshelf with your evidences for creation science? Or are you in fact blowing out your ass once again? The place you're living in is called "denial". Look it up
@ElProximo your lack of coherence is growing tiresome. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Was my last comment not specifically about common descent? Have you not used the term ID until now?
The agreement, with statistical significance, between cladograms from independent lines of investigation were PREDICTED in light of common ancestry being true. That's a matter of recorded historical fact and that's how things panned out. You're now just going "blah blah can't hear you". Get over it.
@ElProximo "It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished." Emile Zuckerlandl & Linus Paul in 1965. They go on...
..."only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand." Molecular phylogenies have since been made and they overwhelmingly agree with the prior evidence for CA.
@ElProximo "All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material. The few known exceptions are just minor variations from the "universal" genetic code , exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common descent, years before the genetic code was finally solved." From "29+ evidences for macro-evolution". Also check "falsifying phylogeny" vid by aronra
@ElProximo clearly you don't understand the subject matter at all. A common designer of the original DNA and thereby the original organism could be argued in this way, but we were talking about common descent, which is the only proposition supported by this prediction. Otherwise there are a myriad of distinctions we would expect to find in DNA - it ought not to fit any one cladogram but potentially thousands of different ones that are possible. Creationism? What happened to ID? oops
@ElProximo as for common ancestry being unfalsifiable, that's just not so. "Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof". That's falsifiable K?
@ElProximo science, in this case, would be coming up with a testable falsifiable case where an intelligent intervention was the best fit explanation for any observation and providing evidence for a designer. Simply saying; "uh, well... it looks like it has form and function so some'dy musta thunk it and made it so" is not even a hypothesis. It remains a possibility that DNA was designed and scientists are free to pursue such a hypothesis (panspermia?), but no solid case has yet been made.
@ElProximo Wow! I guess as well as your inability to follow a line of argument you also don't read too well. I stated clearly in my last post that it's reasonable to wonder how DNA came about, even to postulate a designer, but this is NOT evolution and without a testable falsifiable hypothesis, not science. YOUR complaint is that evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools because it's not science - demonstrably wrong - and that ID should be taught as science - demonstrably wrong. You fail
@ElProx ID owns a large empty fertilizer sack and you know it. There's not 1 example of a complex working information system consisting entirely of chemical processes capable of improving or becoming worse in complexity and environmental fitness due to self replication with random modification that we know was designed. It's reasonable to look at DNA itself and wonder how it came about, even to postulate a designer, but incredulity is not science and evolution isn't about where DNA came from.
The notion that the killer could be anyone in this case is trivial only because he was limited to a gun.
The designer in ID ~could~ have any number of methods, even ones we don't understand, available to him. Were we to apply this to the forensics example, ~anything~ would be viewed as potentially a homicide given the possibility that an omnipotent being could have done it.
Forensics does not deal in unfalsifiable claims. ID does.
Yet in your previous case, the "designer" was limited to using a gun! Under ID, even thunderbolts or tornadoes could be viewed as homicides. CSI teams do not do this. Were ID to give a coherent definition of the designer, we would be more able to falsify him.
I don't recall ever saying that "the cells evolved and the designer did it" was as parsimonious as "the cells evolved." I do recall saying that the designer ~could~ have done it, but this would neither be falsifiable or parsimonious.
@ElProximo with your hole in the head analogy we have experiencial precedents for such occurrences. We can compare the hole characteristics to thousands of forehead holes of known origin and conclude what caused it. On the other hand, if it doesn't correspond to any previous example, we have a genuine mystery and cannot conclude that someONE caused it. We know the mechanism (which is also the agent) for evolutionary change and there are no beings involved.
Ah, but I knew that was a trap you put in place all along, and I have already dealt with it. Yes, a wizard could have "magic missile'd" it, but forensic scientists do not take this into account. ID, on the other hand, does take the possible ability to do seemingly impossible things into account. If they DID take the possibility of a wizard into account, then nothing EVER could be regarded as a natural death. Nothing EVER could be regarded as a suicide, either.
Ah, but you forget that in this case Intelligent Design's explanation is not parsimonious, nor is it falsifiable, nor is the definition consistent.
Evolution: "the cells evolved through numerous mutations."
ID : "The cells evolved through numerous mutations that were previously programmed by the designer." The latter is a less well defined, less parsimonious, less falsifiable version of the former
@ElProx - did anyone manually alter the DNA in Lenski's experiments? No. Did it alter in an unguided fashion anyway and give rise to new novel traits? Yes. Is this what we call "evolution"? Yes! So EVOLUTION "HAPPENED" WITHOUT A DESIGNER!! The only "agent" here is DNA copying imperfection and survival pressure. What exactly do you mean by "front loaded design"? Unless it's a guided process, which Lenski's experiments show it's not, in no way can the resulting organisms be said to be designed.
Have you even read what the Daubert standard is? CSI teams are required to abide by it, or there evidence could well be thrown out altogether in court. I have already explained that we know human capabilities, but not the capabilities of the possible creator-who could conceivably bent the fabric of reality should he so desire.
@ElProximo NO evolution happens without a designer because we've seen it happen without a designer. New novel traits arose in the Lenski experiments due to the nature of DNA and nothing more, unless there is an invisible intangible intelligence tweaking DNA in what appears to be a completely arbitrary manner. If you can't follow a line of argument that's entirely you're problem so throwing antagonistic remarks like "stupid" around only highlights your own failings. Do better indeed
Oh, and furthermore, after a bit of research, the U.S government-as well as the canadian government- itself says that any scientific evidence admitted in a court case must be falsifiable. This is known as the Daubert Standard. Not only have you slandered forensic scientists, you slandered the U.S Government as well
So, it is not me who the government and forensic scientists disagree with
@ElProximo the fact is we have zero examples of brain-designed items with function and form that come about in this way and when we do come up with such, it will be our brains learning from these natural mechanisms, which pre-date and in fact led to us. You can of course hypothesise a designer at some stage, but until you come up with a testable, falsifiable case for this designer, it is not science. Irreducible complexity has thus far utterly failed. So we teach what we know in the meantime.
@ElProximo form and function are the only things man-made, brain-designed items have in common with living organisms so like for like comparisons utterly fail. What we observe about them, makes them distinct. Organisms are built and gradually re-designed entirely by virtue of their own chemistry which they inherit, with copying errors. If the copying errors profer a survival to reproduction advantage, they proliferate according to a changing environment. Contd...
@ElProximo the only assumptions made in science are that we can trust logic and that the scientific method is the most reliable way to establish truths about the material world - evidence by its success. Science makes observations, produces hypotheses, comes up with testable, falsifiable explanations, puts these to the test, publishes the findings for testing by other scientists, formulates a theory and continues to update that theory with new evidence. Contd...
And ID is not the best and most likely explanation of Lenski's research, at all. It is , as a fact, a near identical but unfalsifiable, less parsimonious, unevidenced variation of evolution's explanation.
Which would cast a doubt, which is why I said that they would check the field. And if there is no smoking gun, so to speak, then there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Your smear of forensics ends here.
Yes, of course there is no must anywhere, ever. But that is why science abides by methodological naturalism. And ID does not argue that there was intention at some point in time, but that intention is the result of all life
"But that must mean that ID, too, is falsifiable!"
You say? Not so fast! By your own admission, the designer could be anyone. God, mortal, anything. We know what humans are capable of, essentially. We do NOT know, however, what the proposed designer would be capable of. He could do anything, in fact. Anything that breaks the laws of nature as well. Thus, forensics relies on falsifiable assertions. ID relies on assertions that cannot be falsified.
But their theory that "someone" must have caused a wound is indeed falsifiable: should they be able to replicate it in such a way that the wound could have been caused without human intervention, the argument that someone "must" have done it would be proven false. If it is shown that humans cannot do it at all, then it can be entirely falsifiable! And of course, if there is doubt in the lab, the field will be examined as well. Forensic science relies on falsifiable assertions.
Most amusingly, even if the hole was rough or jagged, or triangular, or in any shape.. a designer(the omnipotent variety) could have hypothetically done so. If the forensics team took every single case they had and said "someone" caused it, then that would not at all be science...not according to them, not according to me. So, again, even thought he analogy is a faulty one, the approach that ID takes is STILL a faultyone
ID claims that this someone could conceivably include someone who can bend and break the laws of nature. A more valid analogy would be a group of researchers witnessing a volcano erupt, noting that it's a pretty complex eruption(again, IC's definition changes as the wind blows and Behe himself has noted that it isn't falsifiable), and then declaring that "someone" must have caused it.
it tells us that the who COULD be a "magic man," which makes it not falsifiable. If ID had an agreed upon designer,then it might be closer to being falsifiable.
And,as I said earlier, that the damascus sword was an evolution of earlier weapon designs(which, historically, have arisen from a species developing the mental faculty to wield weapons...) This is not ID, unless ID is only arguing that agriculture exists.
Semantics. What you call "naturalistic evolution" is really just evolution without the unfalsifiable assumption of "Someone done it, and if it breaks the law of nature, that someone must be magic man." You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, an argument presented by Kent Hovind and refuted a thousand times.
ID does not propose a solution to the "something came from nothing" problem. It only shifts it a step down, and is therefor not parsimonious.
"Demonstrably wrong and you yourself and millions more accept all kinds of Science that would be unfalsifiable. I should not give you an example but let you find the thousands and thousands of examples everywhere you turn."
Evolution makes no conjecture about the origin of life, but simply about mutations and natural selection. It has made useful predictions that, were they not true, would have falsified it. The same cannot be said about ID. "A wizard cast a spell to cause these cells to mutate" is by definition an inferior explanation to "these cells mutated" because it is not parsimonious and not falsifiable, in the case of Lenski's study. Your ad hominems directed at me are obnoxious.
If it is not falsifiable, then no amount of data could contradict it. In the case of ID, as you might have noticed earlier, any evidence would support it because the creator could be ~anything.~ If the sword was not in the mailbox, an ID argument in the analogy could simply state that the designer wanted it not there. If it was, he could argue that the designer wanted it there. Your refusal to argue for this is an argument against, not for, design.
Hardly, and your answer denies the possibility that the absence of the damascus sword was the result of an intelligent designer. Indeed, your answer contradicts ID entirely. Remember: the designer could be anyone, at all, even someone with a profound hatred for Damascus Swords being in mailboxes.
But "not falsifiable" and "not consistantly defined" are scientific terms, or, rather, failure to meet the characteristics of science.
And even if he is comparing apples with oranges, an equally dramatic analogue of evolution will invariably fit...though due to the nonsense nature of the analogy, it will not make sense.
At this point, his analogies conflate "some creature, somewhere, did something" with "the designer did everything."
@ElProximo Lenski's experiments are not a matter of interpretation. THis isn't some vague thing only hinted at and open to interpretation. He has the frozen samples, with their altered genes. We know the genes mutated over many generations and can even pin-point which mutations occurred when. You're free to speculate as to the cause of the mutations. You can put it down to DNA pixies if it makes you feel better, but they mutated and the resulting organisms became more "fit" for the environment
I think by interpretation he means "the mutations could be the result of an invisible wizard with a quirk for manipulating scientific data into challenging his own existence."
See, what makes ID so obnoxious is the fact that it's a non-falsifiable claim.
@ElProximo there are no good analogues between man-designed, man-made, non-reproducing, not mutating items and survival-designed, nature-made, reproducing, mutating ones. Your not comparing apples with apples. You're not even comparing apples with oranges, you're comparing plastic apples with organic oranges. It's an entirely fallacious endeavour.
Well, this theory is rather vague. The blacksmith could be anything or everything, even a trickster god who deliberately conceals evidence of his existence. It's not falsifiable. Perhaps, after testing out my damascus blade theory, I shall meet this trickster god-if he exists.
If you see a person who has finished a race and is jumping for joy, do you assume that he is alive, or that he is dead?
The state is currently sponsored to teach that he is dead. Both are analogies are equally valid, and both are persecuted with the state. It is proven true that the first and only weapon mankind ever wielded was a damascus sword
Otherwise, there would be no purposeful drive towards the damascus sword from the get go. It would be the process of iterative changes. The fittest sword models would be reproduced by humans, like flowers would be pollinated by bees. Yes, this is purposeful, but it is not the grand plan intelligent design posits-unless intelligent design is simply arguing that agriculture exists and nothing more.
Of course, there is and will only be one weapon: the maximally great blade, the damascus sword.
The analogy really is a tricky dilemma, you see-for the blade to have arisen by purpose, a force must create it as is. For the blade to have arisen through natural selection, it would have had to have arisen from creatures that had an understanding of bladeworks, that had gradually advanced until the blade was as it is.
Intelligent design posits not that the blade arose from windstorms, but that it arose from nothing.
I personally am very upset at the state sponsorship of the idea that, if someone's head is cut off via a powerful swing from a damascus sword, that the person would die. It is totally possible that being decapitated by a damascus sword grants you eternal life. This should be taught as a possible explanation for what happens after being beheaded by a damascus sword. We should teach the controversy.
Evolution is a false dream, like gluons(Chick et al and the pythagorean theorem(which,by the way, is on the verge of losing funding as well in some parallel universe) Your logic is utterly sound, and it is pretty clear that Lenski's study-as well as other studies-were not actual lab exercizes, but thought experiments gone wrong, supported only by circular reasoning. I know this is true because it is written in the stars
Comfort could pass them out in the monkey house of the nearest zoo and he'd still be passing them out to more intelligent readers. Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham and the Hovind family make me question evolution more then a million creationist intros to Origin!
I didn't got much of that religion taught in schools because I was kicked out of that because I asked if they could teach us something that made sense, and then went to an Iron Maiden concert at the same time the class begun, in fact, I told them: "I've got more important stuff to do, Iron Maiden's coming to town".
I do not get it! ElProximo, and maaaaany others like him have to be living in an alternate dimension to believe that "Evolutionism is not far from LOSING that funding, that state supported status and monopoly.
and,
This is frightening to your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS." Exactly how far down does your head have to be buried in the sand?
I think you're correct - they are living in an alternate dimension. It reminds me of a great quote from the Rev. Ernest Poe: "These so-called scientists have explained it to me many times. But, I have never heard it and, I assure you, I never will!"
You should all be very very concerned about this. Heliocentricsm is the official state sponsored planetary orbit myth. I have to PAY FOR IT to be taught to children. It has a virtual 100% monopoly and is presented as fact. It's proponents hold the keys to classrooms yet, 1 in 5 American adults does NOT buy it.
OK I've looked up "Naturalistic Evolutionism" but I can't find it on any State sponsored curriculum.
The reason evolution is taught, jackass, is because the evidence for it is overwhelming. The same reason that sexual reproduction is taught, or germ theory. Any poll of people concerning whether they accept evolution should include a questionaire to determine whether they have even a basic understanding of what it is, which you've demonstrated you don't. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Perhaps the Bible should have a page at the beginning saying: "The characters and events in this book are purely fictional. Any similarities between them and real individuals and events are purely coincidental."
Heck, Project Gutenberg went one further. Voluminous texts not your bag? Never fear. There's an audio book format. Now there's no excuse not to get the truth regarding Origin firsthand.
What bullshit! I can't even believe Ray Comfort was allowed to have his own edition of Origin with his own bogus introduction! He doesn't even believe in what the book says, so now he's trying to make money off it? I don't get it. Ray Comfort is an absolute moron in my eyes, and this video is a great example of showing that.
Those who consider Evolution of Species to be "a weak theory contrary to common sense & observation" have neither sense nor any skills of observation. You are sufferring from observational bias (whether religious or not). After all, much of science is contrary to "common sense", but still works and results in real world engineering. This is an error of "Appeal to Popularity" and "Appeal to Incredulity" to declare that Evolution of Species is "contrary to common sense". Whose sense? Yours.
Thank you in the first instance. In the second - not persuasive of what? The maint intended thrust of the video was to highlight the nonsensical nature of Comfort's "Origin" intro, which I'll continue in part 2. I'm guessing, like Comfort, your description of evolution as a "weak theory" comes from hours of reviewing the scientific literature, studing fossils in natural history museums, comparative anatomy etc. and is not in any way based on any religious bias - right? Of course it is.
not persuasive that Comfort's intro is nonsensical, nor persuasive regarding the particulars in your video -- for ex, dismissive suggestions by pointing out possible poll bias due to wording of multiple choice survey, etc. No need to project strawman-creating guesses about my "weak theory" characterization of evolution, since I specifically mentioned 2 reasons for believing it weak: common sense & observation, the latter yes would include"studying fossils in natural history museums, anatomy.."
The poll wording speaks for itself. Not "persuaded"? I can live with that. Thankfully, public education policy is not decided by badly worded public opinion polls.
You'll forgive me, having reviewed your channel, that I'm not entirely "persuaded" as to your objectivity on this matter. I don't see any straw men here, but if I misrepresent you then I'll take that back. RyuDarragh has already addressed your purported reasons for discent every bit as well as I could.
I'm not bringing it into question at all - he's demonstrably dumber than a rock. It's one thing to disagree with something, it's another to do so in public while demonstrating that you don't even understand what it is you're disagreeing with. Besides, most of this video addresses the actual content of Ray's intro. Compare that with his into itself, which attacks the author and barely addresses the content of his work. Sorry but the guy is an ass hat. Show me I'm wrong.
When looking at and and analyzing information, it is inevitable that ones viewpoint regarding God; either belief, disbelief. or indecision, will shape and affect the way that information is viewed and accepted. Hence, a worldview. It is neither nonsense, nor without meaning. If by calling it a god view, it makes it easier for you to dismiss, then so be it.
So the goal posts are on wheels tonight. No surprise. A god view is bound to affect the way certain other matters are viewed. However, I am not arguing in any way that beliefs (or lack thereof) do not affect one's views. I am stating, as a matter of fact, that assuming all atheists or agnostics share one world view, as you infer, is meaningless nonsense. As is suggesting they are all closed minded. Try reading your original post if you're still confused.
For most Christians, this isn't an issue. The RCC and most mainstream Christian denominations are on record supporting the teaching of evolution. It's mostly US-based evangelicals that have heartburn about it.
For Christians that truly understand the teaching of the Bible, it is not possible to support evolution. The teaching do not mesh together at all. Darwin completely understood this and it was part of what fueled him.
dj2baduk, I am fully aware of my original post and it's content, and am not confused in the slightest. Your subtle attacks on my intelligence are a futile attempt to discredit what I am saying. By natter of definition, atheists and agnostics view information through the lens of there being no God. That will inevitably lead to their viewpoint of what the evidence means to fit into that worldview. Arguing semantics will not change that.
Maybe it is time to attack your so called intelligence in a non subtle way.
Your statements are an insult for christians who don't reject evolution. Evolution does not state ANYTHING about the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being. All it does is explaining the origin of species without the help of talking snakes.
Wrong again. Information either aligns with reality or it doesn't. If it does, but goes against your preconceived notions, then your preconceived notions were incorrect. That's how science works. What you're referring to in any case, is not theism v atheism, but a perverse need to cling to the genesis creation story as something other than allegory, rather than accept the scientifically proven concept that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is not atheism nor creation theism.
... and I still maintain that theism is not a "world view" in itself any more than atheism or agnosticism are. Evolution proves that genesis is allegory, but the fact is it was officially regarded as such since around the 5th century, due to the fact that there were two differing accounts. America has taken a step backwards since the 1920s and is now infecting the rest of the fundamentalist world with this dangerous lunacy. Verifiable facts trump beliefs, however dearly held.
There is plenty of proof for evolution that's scientifically indisputable. That doesn't stop backward looking dogmatic literalists from disputing it. Too bad for them - indisputable (in any intellectually honest way) it remains.
Evolution is most certainly NOT a scientifically proven concept. There are an incredible amount of holes in the theory that can not be scientifically proven.
Descent with modification: happens, is testable, mechanisms (i.e. random genetic copying errors) identified - scientifically proven.
Natural selection: happens, is testable, mechanisms identified - scientifically proven.
Ancestral Relationship between all life: testable (using DNA), concurs with bio-geography, fossil record and anatomical homology - scientifically proven.
This forum is far too small to list them all. You seem to be a fairly intelligent individual. I am certain you are well aware of most of them, you just choose not to accept those facts because they challenge your worldview. We're back to the same spot again.
I know the so called holes that creationists like to parrot, but I am granting the benefit of the doubt to you that you would not simply repeat such long ago debunked nonsense and instead point out some actual holes, of which there are apparently an incredible amout.
Many of those points which I will assume you are alluding to have never truly been debunked at all. Your choice of words and insults certainly betray your claim to open mindedness though. It is as I stated from the very beginning. When you come to a conversation with your worldview (or opinion if you prefer) made up, there is no amount of reasoning nor evidence that will change that opinion because you will view all evidence through that lens.
Excuse me! Please point out where I have insulted you. If you're insulted it's as a result of having your own words and arguments pointed out. Open minded does not mean regarding all claims and arguments as equally valid, it means being open to sound reason and evidence i.e. non-dogmatic. Show me a piece of evidence that contradicts evolution or supports creation and I'll be all ears. You're saddled with the heavy baggage of an inarguable position, such is scriptural literalism.
More nonsense. Darwin was fuelled by a need to understand nature. He was a firm believer when he set off on his voyage of discovery. The idea that Darwin was an ardent unbeliever who went looking for evidence to backup his unbelief is the exact opposite of the documented historical events. His belief disintigrated under the hammer blows of hard evidence and cold reason. His theory was all the more compelling precisely because it went against is prior beliefs. You couldn't be more wrong on this.
ISTR? I've heard that one too, but there are many letters and documents where Darwin attributes his diminishing faith to the observations of nature, long before he was even married.
Darwin was most certainly not a firm believer when he set off on his voyage, although he had been trained in theology. I never claimed that he went looking for evidence to backup unbelief, but along the journey and through the subsequent years before publication, he most certainly was aware that his theory challenged theological beliefs.
Where do you get your information? Accoding to Darwin's own authobiography, he was indeed a firm believer when he set off on the beagle.
What exactly DID you mean when you wrote that his knowledge of the inability to reconcile biblical creation with evolution "fuelled" him then? You seem to be confused once again. You put the horse before the cart and now you're back sliding.
I am neither confused nor backsliding. I stand by the above statement as true. Darwin most certainly was fueled by that desire. Don;t confuse the time frames of his voyage with the many years spent postulating his theory. And a theory it remains contrary to your comments. It is scientifically impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is undeniable. You have great faith in something that can not be proven much as I do.
Which one? I only ask because they are quite contradictory. First you say Darwin was "fuelled" by the knowledge that evolution was not compatible with special creation, then you say he never went looking for evidence to confirm his unbelief. What was he "fuelled" to do then? Perhaps I've simply misunderstood what you were trying to say, so why don't you set me straight. How 'bout that?
Darwin was struggling with his faith before the Beagle journey and his opinions and ideas were greatly affected by others who were not Christians, including his own grandfather. The writings of Lyell were already contributing to his hypothesis and all of his limited observations were viewed through that lens. Knowing that his conclusions would eliminate the need for a God, he was fueled by that notion to continue on that course. Does that help you to understand what I was saying?
If you are a "Christian", ballzy777, and you claim not to struggle with your faith; I suppose you are able to demonstrate those allegedly demonstrable aspects of Christianity. Bet you cant...
Concerning Darwins case, you are simply historically wrong...
I am not sure what you are attempting to say here. Which aspects of Christianity are you challenging me to demonstrate? What do you claim that I am historically wrong about?
Oh, you dont understand... Really... Or are you just pretending... Perhaps its me who should be the one serving you that famous "cup", since the "Lord" prohibits you to misuse his name in vain. Even that is disputable, since you would likely save plenty of people and thats what a Christians biz is about.
Your whole statement about Darwin was false. Im not going to copy paste it here. Whole as it was put down. Scroll back read it and confront yourself with some serious "Darwin scholarship"...
I am obviously having difficulty deciphering what you are alluding to. If you would kindly explain your interpretation of "the cup" means I would gladly provide you with an explanation sharing my thoughts.
Most reliable early manuscripts and other reliable witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. The translators of the KJV, using 16th century knowledge and tradition accepted it as part of Mark. As the understanding of manuscript transmission and ancient Greek has increased, evangelical scholars no longer accept those passages of Mark as being authored by Mark.
So you were deceived by Satan who usually turns into an angel of light... There are no reliable early manuscripts. There is no corroborative historic evidence. There are plenty other tests and you will fail them all. You know that... All you can do is to equivocate. Matthews wrong, Mark is wrong, James is wrong. Who else is wrong? Just apply the same method and reduce whole Christianity into oblivion...
No, he wasn't. You're once again confusing "faith" or theism with the dogma scriptural literalism, which Darwin did have issues with. Darwin was even laughed at on the Beagle for being so orthodox and quoting the bible on matters of morality. Once he'd formulated his theory explaining how species arose, he realised that this also applied to man and was indeed going to be a problem for many religious people, but it cannot be said to have fuelled him in any sense. Get your facts straight.
ballzy, there is NO scientific theory that's been proven. And they don't need to. They are BASED on observations and may be used as long there are no contradictory observations. And should there be contradictory observations a theory needs to be ADJUSTED or in worst case dropped.
And "holes" in a theory are not contradictions, they are observations the theory currently is not able to address.
But let's not forget: observation of nature, not of the nonobservable supernatural.
There are countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution being dropped for a long time. Saying that, you have proved a point that I have been making since my first post. You have discounted the supernatural before viewing the evidence as a possibility. If the evidence leads there, why refuse to go there? Life itself cannot be explained by observable science. Observation of the incredible complexity of life in nature can not be explained away naturally
What observations have been made that contradict the theory of evolution? You need to bring examples, and you need examples that CONTRADICT the theory, not just questions the theory is not addressing.
There is NOTHING about evolution that discounts the supernatural - this theory does not deal with the supernatural, it does not address your beloved god in any way, and it doesn't addres his non-existence. It just fucking doesnt care about that question.
ballzy777, does it really take hours to name one of the "countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution dropped for a long time"?
Would you be more comfortable to discuss the theory of genesis? Maybe it is easier for you to come up with observations that contradict that theory? That's your chance to assist in dropping a theory!
It does not, I could cite many, however it seems that it will not matter to you anyway. I will do so if you'd like but I will respectfully request that you leave your vitriol and foul language off of your posts. I find it disrespectful and offensive.
Ok, without trying to sound disrespectful or offensive:
Please cite a couple of observations that are in contradiction with the theory of evolution.
Again I want to remind you that questions do not count as observation. And again I want to remind you to address topics evolution is dealing with and not abiogenesis or the the existense of the supernatural. Both have nothing to do with evolution.
There are plenty of reconstructions of such transitions. Doesnt matter what you focus on. Whether its the eye, the limbs, etc. Look at the sequences of whales, dolphins, bears, indeed even humans. The evidence is vast. Moreover, some speciation events were directly observed. As under lab conditions, as in the wild.
"Indisputability" is not a tenet of science. Making such demands makes you standing in a really bad light... What science can offer in this case thats a great deal of confidence.
There are zero authentic reconstructions of a species to species transitional form. "indisputability" is demanded by those posting here which claim that these are indisputable facts. That is a false statement.
Sure there are such reconstructions. You must ignore "piles" of evidence if you keep making such ignorant statements.
"Disputability" applied in the sc process does not operate the way you are proposing here. Its about examining evidence, conducting experiments, proposing predictions, applying logic... We know that the bullet was fired and we know about its impact. Because we cant say how fast it was spinning at every specific moment during its flight, that doesnt mean it wasnt fired.
I would if there were any. I have looked at and observed many of the so called examples and have found them all to be proven falsified or theoretical. I will look into the example you have provided for me and see if it has any validity as being an authentic example. Thank you
ballzy777, I asked you for observiations that contradict evolution and you are coming up with something you CLAIM NOT NOT HAVE OBSERVED.
It does not work that way. Your argument was that there are countless observations that would lead to evolution getting dropped.
So, I am still waiting for you to name such an observation. Whatever you are trying to conjur up about things that are NOT getting observed by you are irrelevant at this very moment. I haven't asked for it.
Those very things contradict evidence in the fact that since they can not be observed nor proven, it make the theory just that...a theory. It is not factually indisputable.
The fact that you think along the lines of "it's just a theory" demonstrates perfectly well that you have no concept of the meaning and weight behind the term scientific theory. It would appear as though you think that science works within the realm of proofs. I have news for you buddy. It doesn't! Proofs exist within mathematics, whereas theories exist within the fields of science. Effectively, there isn't any such thing as a scientific proof!
That is an inaccurate statement. There are many verifiable scientific proofs. I perfectly understand what a theory is and the limitations of a theory. I have maintained from the beginning that evolution is not an indisputable fact. You are confirming that you believe this as well.
No "fact" is indisputable. None. You always start with some basic assumptions and only then you can work towards facts. If those basic assumptions prove wrong in one way or another so does the related fact. Evolution is change of genetic material of a population of organism from one generation to the next. This has been tested for decades now. The evidence is vast. All fields of inquiry point into one direction. Evolution is a fact since change happens. Evolution is a theory, since it explains.
"There are countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution being dropped for a long time." That was my statement and I have provided a couple of such observations. You made the statement of contradicting evolution. If there are observations which lead one away from the theory of evolution to another explanation then arguing semantics will not change that.
You have not provided such observations, you have just provided stuff you don't believe in because you cannot observe it.
Shouldn't you be able to back up your argument with examples, or take your argument back, you certainly have not earned my respect and usually I am not dealing nice with persons who I consider dishonest or deceitful.
The observation of complexity of life as well as observations in genetics and mutations as well as fossil evidence can all be applied to Creation. I am neither dishonest nor deceitful. I am merely expressing my opinion within the framework of my knowledge. There is much observation in the fields I have just cited that could lead to the theory of evolution to be thrown out if you chose to do so.
I have NOT asked for observations that can be applied to creation! And I am NOT interested in evidence for creation, because even evolution can be interpreted as evidence for creation, it is just a different way to explain HOW he did it, instead of the way tbo genesis explains it.
Re: "For Christians that truly understand the teaching of the Bible, it is not possible to support evolution."
Look up the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy to understand why that's a bogus argument.
Creationism is based on literal reading of Genesis, which is rejected by most mainstream denominations. If you want to tell all Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc, that they're not "real" Christians, good luck. Don't expect much sympathy from them.
Thanks! Part 2?
BigIdeaSeeker 5 months ago
@lordnimr0d I wasnt aware of that did they omit a chapter? Utter bastards if someone printed a bible without a missing chapter they'd be angry as hell. Not of course that I'm implying the Origin of Species is a religious document or like the bible. But they twist facts.
seonidh 9 months ago
@seonidh, They didn’t just omit A chapter. They omitted THE MOST IMPORTANT chapter, the one that ties the theory together.
COMALiteJ 8 months ago
@COMALiteJ that in itself is a disgusting act and proves they'll stoop to lows to promote a belief with unsubstantiated claims. Is there no other level these snake oil salesmen will lower themselves.
seonidh 8 months ago
Well critisism where its due, how about printing a bible with a 50 page introduction about a balanced argument for the theory of YE creationism while pointing out the benefits and other so-called theories of religion like Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism for the members of Ray comforts or any other church in a state (i.e Kansas) that supports creationism. Fairs fair, poison their well with logic if thats what they're trying to do to evolution.
seonidh 10 months ago
@seonidh, Great idea! This year, 2011, is the 400th Anniversary of the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible (have you ever wondered why so many YECs on YouTube have “1611” in their handles? Now you know)! We're running out of time, but if a major atheist group backs this, we could have a 400th Anniversary Edition out in time for the holidays, complete with 50-page intro.
This should be sincerely dedicated Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in thanks for giving us the idea! :-)
COMALiteJ 8 months ago
@COMALiteJ the bible or any other religious book is fair game, even do it to the Q'uran, Hindu vedas. regarding Comfort, Cameron, well if they think they can do it to the Origin of Species well their so-called factual book should be given the same treatment.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh, No, it HAS to be the 1611 KJV Bible, because 2011 is the 400th Anniversary, and they did this for the 150th Anniversary of “Origin of the Species.” And besides, Comfort and Cameron would actually LIKE atheists to put out anniversary editions with intros demolishing the COMPETING religious texts. No, it HAS to be THEIR religious text.
The key is that the intro of our 400th Anniversary KJV must be DEDICATED in GRATITUDE to Comfort and Cameron, THANKING them for giving us the idea! ;D
COMALiteJ 8 months ago
@COMALiteJ Thats a good plan yes the King James bible would be a good way to show them exactly that their actions have a equal merit for the bible from an atheist viewpoint. Any ideas what atheist groups would do this?
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh, No, unfortunately. I’m not connected with any atheist groups per se. I’ve been posting this suggestion for almost two years now, here on YouTube and elsewhere, hoping that someone would pick up on it, but have not yet heard that any atheist group has run with it.
COMALiteJ 7 months ago
@COMALiteJ you could ask Dawkins direct?
seonidh 7 months ago
@ElProximo the earth was found to be spherical firstly by crude measurements carried out from earth. It was then confirmed to be spherical based on slightly less crude methods from high earth atmosphere. It was eventually measured with high precision from outer space and found to be, not a perfect sphere, but ever so slightly egg shaped. At no point was spherical earth overturned. The measurements were refined. So it is with molecular and comparative anatomy analysis - but you know this
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo now you are being deliberately obtuse. Molecular biology is orders of magnitude more precise than comparative anatomy so it is bound to refine what was apparent at the macro scale. Even so, the phylogenetic tree revealed by DNA anlysis overwhelminngly agreed with the existing phylogenetic trees. Only at the unicellular and simple multi-cellular level did the picture get a little more fuzzy, because of horizontal gene transfer, which we have observed happening.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo nothing major has been replaced and nothing has yet come up to bring common ancestry into question in cladistics. It has been refined with the perfection of molecular analysis. We have, for instance, identified where horizontal gene transfer has taken place, always among lower organisms. There were initially a very few anomalies (e.g. the Kangaroo split), due to only using citocrome C as a comparator. Since then we have developed DNA-DNA hybridization to compare entire genomes. CA OK!
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo "'microbiology' should prove it out, but, it did not. it 'falsified' the morphology tree". Well this seems to be news to the world's biologists and nobel prize winners. Do please point me to some evidence you have to back up such a claim. Is it as good as the evidence for an intelligent designer? Do you keep it in the empty bookshelf with your evidences for creation science? Or are you in fact blowing out your ass once again? The place you're living in is called "denial". Look it up
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo your lack of coherence is growing tiresome. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Was my last comment not specifically about common descent? Have you not used the term ID until now?
The agreement, with statistical significance, between cladograms from independent lines of investigation were PREDICTED in light of common ancestry being true. That's a matter of recorded historical fact and that's how things panned out. You're now just going "blah blah can't hear you". Get over it.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo "It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished." Emile Zuckerlandl & Linus Paul in 1965. They go on...
dj2baduk 1 year ago
..."only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand." Molecular phylogenies have since been made and they overwhelmingly agree with the prior evidence for CA.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo "All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material. The few known exceptions are just minor variations from the "universal" genetic code , exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common descent, years before the genetic code was finally solved." From "29+ evidences for macro-evolution". Also check "falsifying phylogeny" vid by aronra
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo clearly you don't understand the subject matter at all. A common designer of the original DNA and thereby the original organism could be argued in this way, but we were talking about common descent, which is the only proposition supported by this prediction. Otherwise there are a myriad of distinctions we would expect to find in DNA - it ought not to fit any one cladogram but potentially thousands of different ones that are possible. Creationism? What happened to ID? oops
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo as for common ancestry being unfalsifiable, that's just not so. "Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof". That's falsifiable K?
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo science, in this case, would be coming up with a testable falsifiable case where an intelligent intervention was the best fit explanation for any observation and providing evidence for a designer. Simply saying; "uh, well... it looks like it has form and function so some'dy musta thunk it and made it so" is not even a hypothesis. It remains a possibility that DNA was designed and scientists are free to pursue such a hypothesis (panspermia?), but no solid case has yet been made.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo Wow! I guess as well as your inability to follow a line of argument you also don't read too well. I stated clearly in my last post that it's reasonable to wonder how DNA came about, even to postulate a designer, but this is NOT evolution and without a testable falsifiable hypothesis, not science. YOUR complaint is that evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools because it's not science - demonstrably wrong - and that ID should be taught as science - demonstrably wrong. You fail
dj2baduk 1 year ago
You might want to try putting white text with a thick black outline in your videos. This means the text will be more visible and easier to read.
Axelgear2006 1 year ago
@ElProx ID owns a large empty fertilizer sack and you know it. There's not 1 example of a complex working information system consisting entirely of chemical processes capable of improving or becoming worse in complexity and environmental fitness due to self replication with random modification that we know was designed. It's reasonable to look at DNA itself and wonder how it came about, even to postulate a designer, but incredulity is not science and evolution isn't about where DNA came from.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
The notion that the killer could be anyone in this case is trivial only because he was limited to a gun.
The designer in ID ~could~ have any number of methods, even ones we don't understand, available to him. Were we to apply this to the forensics example, ~anything~ would be viewed as potentially a homicide given the possibility that an omnipotent being could have done it.
Forensics does not deal in unfalsifiable claims. ID does.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Yet in your previous case, the "designer" was limited to using a gun! Under ID, even thunderbolts or tornadoes could be viewed as homicides. CSI teams do not do this. Were ID to give a coherent definition of the designer, we would be more able to falsify him.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
So, let me get this straight..
you're telling me that ID postulates that the designer has the same limitations in abilities that we have?
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
I don't recall ever saying that "the cells evolved and the designer did it" was as parsimonious as "the cells evolved." I do recall saying that the designer ~could~ have done it, but this would neither be falsifiable or parsimonious.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo with your hole in the head analogy we have experiencial precedents for such occurrences. We can compare the hole characteristics to thousands of forehead holes of known origin and conclude what caused it. On the other hand, if it doesn't correspond to any previous example, we have a genuine mystery and cannot conclude that someONE caused it. We know the mechanism (which is also the agent) for evolutionary change and there are no beings involved.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Ah, but I knew that was a trap you put in place all along, and I have already dealt with it. Yes, a wizard could have "magic missile'd" it, but forensic scientists do not take this into account. ID, on the other hand, does take the possible ability to do seemingly impossible things into account. If they DID take the possibility of a wizard into account, then nothing EVER could be regarded as a natural death. Nothing EVER could be regarded as a suicide, either.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Ah, but you forget that in this case Intelligent Design's explanation is not parsimonious, nor is it falsifiable, nor is the definition consistent.
Evolution: "the cells evolved through numerous mutations."
ID : "The cells evolved through numerous mutations that were previously programmed by the designer." The latter is a less well defined, less parsimonious, less falsifiable version of the former
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProx - did anyone manually alter the DNA in Lenski's experiments? No. Did it alter in an unguided fashion anyway and give rise to new novel traits? Yes. Is this what we call "evolution"? Yes! So EVOLUTION "HAPPENED" WITHOUT A DESIGNER!! The only "agent" here is DNA copying imperfection and survival pressure. What exactly do you mean by "front loaded design"? Unless it's a guided process, which Lenski's experiments show it's not, in no way can the resulting organisms be said to be designed.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Have you even read what the Daubert standard is? CSI teams are required to abide by it, or there evidence could well be thrown out altogether in court. I have already explained that we know human capabilities, but not the capabilities of the possible creator-who could conceivably bent the fabric of reality should he so desire.
Moving to slander acheology, as well?
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo NO evolution happens without a designer because we've seen it happen without a designer. New novel traits arose in the Lenski experiments due to the nature of DNA and nothing more, unless there is an invisible intangible intelligence tweaking DNA in what appears to be a completely arbitrary manner. If you can't follow a line of argument that's entirely you're problem so throwing antagonistic remarks like "stupid" around only highlights your own failings. Do better indeed
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Oh, and furthermore, after a bit of research, the U.S government-as well as the canadian government- itself says that any scientific evidence admitted in a court case must be falsifiable. This is known as the Daubert Standard. Not only have you slandered forensic scientists, you slandered the U.S Government as well
So, it is not me who the government and forensic scientists disagree with
*smirk*
It's you!
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo the fact is we have zero examples of brain-designed items with function and form that come about in this way and when we do come up with such, it will be our brains learning from these natural mechanisms, which pre-date and in fact led to us. You can of course hypothesise a designer at some stage, but until you come up with a testable, falsifiable case for this designer, it is not science. Irreducible complexity has thus far utterly failed. So we teach what we know in the meantime.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo form and function are the only things man-made, brain-designed items have in common with living organisms so like for like comparisons utterly fail. What we observe about them, makes them distinct. Organisms are built and gradually re-designed entirely by virtue of their own chemistry which they inherit, with copying errors. If the copying errors profer a survival to reproduction advantage, they proliferate according to a changing environment. Contd...
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo the only assumptions made in science are that we can trust logic and that the scientific method is the most reliable way to establish truths about the material world - evidence by its success. Science makes observations, produces hypotheses, comes up with testable, falsifiable explanations, puts these to the test, publishes the findings for testing by other scientists, formulates a theory and continues to update that theory with new evidence. Contd...
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
And ID is not the best and most likely explanation of Lenski's research, at all. It is , as a fact, a near identical but unfalsifiable, less parsimonious, unevidenced variation of evolution's explanation.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Which would cast a doubt, which is why I said that they would check the field. And if there is no smoking gun, so to speak, then there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Your smear of forensics ends here.
Yes, of course there is no must anywhere, ever. But that is why science abides by methodological naturalism. And ID does not argue that there was intention at some point in time, but that intention is the result of all life
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
"But that must mean that ID, too, is falsifiable!"
You say? Not so fast! By your own admission, the designer could be anyone. God, mortal, anything. We know what humans are capable of, essentially. We do NOT know, however, what the proposed designer would be capable of. He could do anything, in fact. Anything that breaks the laws of nature as well. Thus, forensics relies on falsifiable assertions. ID relies on assertions that cannot be falsified.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
But their theory that "someone" must have caused a wound is indeed falsifiable: should they be able to replicate it in such a way that the wound could have been caused without human intervention, the argument that someone "must" have done it would be proven false. If it is shown that humans cannot do it at all, then it can be entirely falsifiable! And of course, if there is doubt in the lab, the field will be examined as well. Forensic science relies on falsifiable assertions.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Most amusingly, even if the hole was rough or jagged, or triangular, or in any shape.. a designer(the omnipotent variety) could have hypothetically done so. If the forensics team took every single case they had and said "someone" caused it, then that would not at all be science...not according to them, not according to me. So, again, even thought he analogy is a faulty one, the approach that ID takes is STILL a faultyone
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
ID claims that this someone could conceivably include someone who can bend and break the laws of nature. A more valid analogy would be a group of researchers witnessing a volcano erupt, noting that it's a pretty complex eruption(again, IC's definition changes as the wind blows and Behe himself has noted that it isn't falsifiable), and then declaring that "someone" must have caused it.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
it tells us that the who COULD be a "magic man," which makes it not falsifiable. If ID had an agreed upon designer,then it might be closer to being falsifiable.
And,as I said earlier, that the damascus sword was an evolution of earlier weapon designs(which, historically, have arisen from a species developing the mental faculty to wield weapons...) This is not ID, unless ID is only arguing that agriculture exists.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Semantics. What you call "naturalistic evolution" is really just evolution without the unfalsifiable assumption of "Someone done it, and if it breaks the law of nature, that someone must be magic man." You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, an argument presented by Kent Hovind and refuted a thousand times.
ID does not propose a solution to the "something came from nothing" problem. It only shifts it a step down, and is therefor not parsimonious.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
"Demonstrably wrong and you yourself and millions more accept all kinds of Science that would be unfalsifiable. I should not give you an example but let you find the thousands and thousands of examples everywhere you turn."
lol
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Evolution makes no conjecture about the origin of life, but simply about mutations and natural selection. It has made useful predictions that, were they not true, would have falsified it. The same cannot be said about ID. "A wizard cast a spell to cause these cells to mutate" is by definition an inferior explanation to "these cells mutated" because it is not parsimonious and not falsifiable, in the case of Lenski's study. Your ad hominems directed at me are obnoxious.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
IF it is not falsifiable, it is not science. This is not a half witted grasp of what science means.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
If it is not falsifiable, then no amount of data could contradict it. In the case of ID, as you might have noticed earlier, any evidence would support it because the creator could be ~anything.~ If the sword was not in the mailbox, an ID argument in the analogy could simply state that the designer wanted it not there. If it was, he could argue that the designer wanted it there. Your refusal to argue for this is an argument against, not for, design.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Hardly, and your answer denies the possibility that the absence of the damascus sword was the result of an intelligent designer. Indeed, your answer contradicts ID entirely. Remember: the designer could be anyone, at all, even someone with a profound hatred for Damascus Swords being in mailboxes.
Care to redact that statement?
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
But "not falsifiable" and "not consistantly defined" are scientific terms, or, rather, failure to meet the characteristics of science.
And even if he is comparing apples with oranges, an equally dramatic analogue of evolution will invariably fit...though due to the nonsense nature of the analogy, it will not make sense.
At this point, his analogies conflate "some creature, somewhere, did something" with "the designer did everything."
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo Lenski's experiments are not a matter of interpretation. THis isn't some vague thing only hinted at and open to interpretation. He has the frozen samples, with their altered genes. We know the genes mutated over many generations and can even pin-point which mutations occurred when. You're free to speculate as to the cause of the mutations. You can put it down to DNA pixies if it makes you feel better, but they mutated and the resulting organisms became more "fit" for the environment
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@dj2baduk
I think by interpretation he means "the mutations could be the result of an invisible wizard with a quirk for manipulating scientific data into challenging his own existence."
See, what makes ID so obnoxious is the fact that it's a non-falsifiable claim.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo there are no good analogues between man-designed, man-made, non-reproducing, not mutating items and survival-designed, nature-made, reproducing, mutating ones. Your not comparing apples with apples. You're not even comparing apples with oranges, you're comparing plastic apples with organic oranges. It's an entirely fallacious endeavour.
dj2baduk 1 year ago
@ElProximo
And if the damascus sword wasn't in the mailbox, would it be reasonable to conclude that someone determined that it should NOT be there?
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Well, this theory is rather vague. The blacksmith could be anything or everything, even a trickster god who deliberately conceals evidence of his existence. It's not falsifiable. Perhaps, after testing out my damascus blade theory, I shall meet this trickster god-if he exists.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
I agree! Your analogy is kind of like my own:
If you see a person who has finished a race and is jumping for joy, do you assume that he is alive, or that he is dead?
The state is currently sponsored to teach that he is dead. Both are analogies are equally valid, and both are persecuted with the state. It is proven true that the first and only weapon mankind ever wielded was a damascus sword
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
Otherwise, there would be no purposeful drive towards the damascus sword from the get go. It would be the process of iterative changes. The fittest sword models would be reproduced by humans, like flowers would be pollinated by bees. Yes, this is purposeful, but it is not the grand plan intelligent design posits-unless intelligent design is simply arguing that agriculture exists and nothing more.
Of course, there is and will only be one weapon: the maximally great blade, the damascus sword.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@KyazuTheInsane
The analogy really is a tricky dilemma, you see-for the blade to have arisen by purpose, a force must create it as is. For the blade to have arisen through natural selection, it would have had to have arisen from creatures that had an understanding of bladeworks, that had gradually advanced until the blade was as it is.
Intelligent design posits not that the blade arose from windstorms, but that it arose from nothing.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
I personally am very upset at the state sponsorship of the idea that, if someone's head is cut off via a powerful swing from a damascus sword, that the person would die. It is totally possible that being decapitated by a damascus sword grants you eternal life. This should be taught as a possible explanation for what happens after being beheaded by a damascus sword. We should teach the controversy.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Evolution is a false dream, like gluons(Chick et al and the pythagorean theorem(which,by the way, is on the verge of losing funding as well in some parallel universe) Your logic is utterly sound, and it is pretty clear that Lenski's study-as well as other studies-were not actual lab exercizes, but thought experiments gone wrong, supported only by circular reasoning. I know this is true because it is written in the stars
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
I would like to point out that you are subconciously pointing out that the Earth is flat. Fodo for thought.
sofiadragon1979 1 year ago
Comfort could pass them out in the monkey house of the nearest zoo and he'd still be passing them out to more intelligent readers. Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham and the Hovind family make me question evolution more then a million creationist intros to Origin!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 11
I didn't got much of that religion taught in schools because I was kicked out of that because I asked if they could teach us something that made sense, and then went to an Iron Maiden concert at the same time the class begun, in fact, I told them: "I've got more important stuff to do, Iron Maiden's coming to town".
HardRawRocknRoll 2 years ago
I believe in the theory of gravity. Does this make me a gravitationalist?
And, similarly, should I be put in a shame-corner because I am a gravitationalist rather than a sensible xtian?
Just wondering.
HRage 2 years ago 10
I do not get it! ElProximo, and maaaaany others like him have to be living in an alternate dimension to believe that "Evolutionism is not far from LOSING that funding, that state supported status and monopoly.
and,
This is frightening to your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS." Exactly how far down does your head have to be buried in the sand?
smoochieman17 2 years ago 2
@smoochieman17
I think you're correct - they are living in an alternate dimension. It reminds me of a great quote from the Rev. Ernest Poe: "These so-called scientists have explained it to me many times. But, I have never heard it and, I assure you, I never will!"
jingle3 1 year ago
Errrrr... yeah you got me.
LMAO
dj2baduk 2 years ago
You should all be very very concerned about this. Heliocentricsm is the official state sponsored planetary orbit myth. I have to PAY FOR IT to be taught to children. It has a virtual 100% monopoly and is presented as fact. It's proponents hold the keys to classrooms yet, 1 in 5 American adults does NOT buy it.
Be afraaaaaaaid ;o)
dj2baduk 2 years ago
OK I've looked up "Naturalistic Evolutionism" but I can't find it on any State sponsored curriculum.
The reason evolution is taught, jackass, is because the evidence for it is overwhelming. The same reason that sexual reproduction is taught, or germ theory. Any poll of people concerning whether they accept evolution should include a questionaire to determine whether they have even a basic understanding of what it is, which you've demonstrated you don't. Otherwise it's meaningless.
dj2baduk 2 years ago 2
An excellent video. 5*.
catalyst8 2 years ago
Perhaps the Bible should have a page at the beginning saying: "The characters and events in this book are purely fictional. Any similarities between them and real individuals and events are purely coincidental."
Pigdowndog 2 years ago 3
I wrote that in the inside page of just about every bible in my school back in the day. I still remember the horror on their faces, priceless:-)
MrWednesday101 2 years ago 3
Do a google search on bible warning sticker. :)
SarigHD 2 years ago
Heck, Project Gutenberg went one further. Voluminous texts not your bag? Never fear. There's an audio book format. Now there's no excuse not to get the truth regarding Origin firsthand.
vcdaniels 2 years ago
What bullshit! I can't even believe Ray Comfort was allowed to have his own edition of Origin with his own bogus introduction! He doesn't even believe in what the book says, so now he's trying to make money off it? I don't get it. Ray Comfort is an absolute moron in my eyes, and this video is a great example of showing that.
xUltimaProductionsx 2 years ago
What are they now calling it "Creation Science", what a load of crap. I love Pen and Teller's videos on the bible and creation.
krissyeh 2 years ago 2
"Spit is never foul." Have I got this right?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
love the accent!
OnionsMakeYouCry9 2 years ago
what a well thought and eloquently worded video. and the safety bookmark is perfect... thanks!
rrp15487 2 years ago
Those who consider Evolution of Species to be "a weak theory contrary to common sense & observation" have neither sense nor any skills of observation. You are sufferring from observational bias (whether religious or not). After all, much of science is contrary to "common sense", but still works and results in real world engineering. This is an error of "Appeal to Popularity" and "Appeal to Incredulity" to declare that Evolution of Species is "contrary to common sense". Whose sense? Yours.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
well-argued & attractive video, not persuasive, but a great job given what you had to work with: a weak theory contrary to common sense & observation
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
Thank you in the first instance. In the second - not persuasive of what? The maint intended thrust of the video was to highlight the nonsensical nature of Comfort's "Origin" intro, which I'll continue in part 2. I'm guessing, like Comfort, your description of evolution as a "weak theory" comes from hours of reviewing the scientific literature, studing fossils in natural history museums, comparative anatomy etc. and is not in any way based on any religious bias - right? Of course it is.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
not persuasive that Comfort's intro is nonsensical, nor persuasive regarding the particulars in your video -- for ex, dismissive suggestions by pointing out possible poll bias due to wording of multiple choice survey, etc. No need to project strawman-creating guesses about my "weak theory" characterization of evolution, since I specifically mentioned 2 reasons for believing it weak: common sense & observation, the latter yes would include"studying fossils in natural history museums, anatomy.."
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
The poll wording speaks for itself. Not "persuaded"? I can live with that. Thankfully, public education policy is not decided by badly worded public opinion polls.
You'll forgive me, having reviewed your channel, that I'm not entirely "persuaded" as to your objectivity on this matter. I don't see any straw men here, but if I misrepresent you then I'll take that back. RyuDarragh has already addressed your purported reasons for discent every bit as well as I could.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Great video buddy! 5-starred and featured. Looks like it was a lot of work! Hopefully it gets the views it deserves.
trevorbuvyer 2 years ago
Great video. Another sub to the collection. Five stars!
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
Excellent video. Thanks!
papafox 2 years ago 2
Thank you!
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Why is it that the first tactic is to bring into question the intelligence of the one who disagrees?
TWillPeck 2 years ago
I'm not bringing it into question at all - he's demonstrably dumber than a rock. It's one thing to disagree with something, it's another to do so in public while demonstrating that you don't even understand what it is you're disagreeing with. Besides, most of this video addresses the actual content of Ray's intro. Compare that with his into itself, which attacks the author and barely addresses the content of his work. Sorry but the guy is an ass hat. Show me I'm wrong.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
accident thumbup.
egeswender 2 years ago
When looking at and and analyzing information, it is inevitable that ones viewpoint regarding God; either belief, disbelief. or indecision, will shape and affect the way that information is viewed and accepted. Hence, a worldview. It is neither nonsense, nor without meaning. If by calling it a god view, it makes it easier for you to dismiss, then so be it.
ballzy777 2 years ago
So the goal posts are on wheels tonight. No surprise. A god view is bound to affect the way certain other matters are viewed. However, I am not arguing in any way that beliefs (or lack thereof) do not affect one's views. I am stating, as a matter of fact, that assuming all atheists or agnostics share one world view, as you infer, is meaningless nonsense. As is suggesting they are all closed minded. Try reading your original post if you're still confused.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
For most Christians, this isn't an issue. The RCC and most mainstream Christian denominations are on record supporting the teaching of evolution. It's mostly US-based evangelicals that have heartburn about it.
papafox 2 years ago 4
For Christians that truly understand the teaching of the Bible, it is not possible to support evolution. The teaching do not mesh together at all. Darwin completely understood this and it was part of what fueled him.
ballzy777 2 years ago
dj2baduk, I am fully aware of my original post and it's content, and am not confused in the slightest. Your subtle attacks on my intelligence are a futile attempt to discredit what I am saying. By natter of definition, atheists and agnostics view information through the lens of there being no God. That will inevitably lead to their viewpoint of what the evidence means to fit into that worldview. Arguing semantics will not change that.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Maybe it is time to attack your so called intelligence in a non subtle way.
Your statements are an insult for christians who don't reject evolution. Evolution does not state ANYTHING about the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being. All it does is explaining the origin of species without the help of talking snakes.
ashraghil 2 years ago 2
Wrong again. Information either aligns with reality or it doesn't. If it does, but goes against your preconceived notions, then your preconceived notions were incorrect. That's how science works. What you're referring to in any case, is not theism v atheism, but a perverse need to cling to the genesis creation story as something other than allegory, rather than accept the scientifically proven concept that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is not atheism nor creation theism.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
... and I still maintain that theism is not a "world view" in itself any more than atheism or agnosticism are. Evolution proves that genesis is allegory, but the fact is it was officially regarded as such since around the 5th century, due to the fact that there were two differing accounts. America has taken a step backwards since the 1920s and is now infecting the rest of the fundamentalist world with this dangerous lunacy. Verifiable facts trump beliefs, however dearly held.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Evolution does not prove that Genesis is allegorical at all. There is no indisputable proof either way.
ballzy777 2 years ago
There is plenty of proof for evolution that's scientifically indisputable. That doesn't stop backward looking dogmatic literalists from disputing it. Too bad for them - indisputable (in any intellectually honest way) it remains.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Evolution is most certainly NOT a scientifically proven concept. There are an incredible amount of holes in the theory that can not be scientifically proven.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Descent with modification: happens, is testable, mechanisms (i.e. random genetic copying errors) identified - scientifically proven.
Natural selection: happens, is testable, mechanisms identified - scientifically proven.
Ancestral Relationship between all life: testable (using DNA), concurs with bio-geography, fossil record and anatomical homology - scientifically proven.
Where are all these holes?
dj2baduk 2 years ago
This forum is far too small to list them all. You seem to be a fairly intelligent individual. I am certain you are well aware of most of them, you just choose not to accept those facts because they challenge your worldview. We're back to the same spot again.
ballzy777 2 years ago
I know the so called holes that creationists like to parrot, but I am granting the benefit of the doubt to you that you would not simply repeat such long ago debunked nonsense and instead point out some actual holes, of which there are apparently an incredible amout.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Many of those points which I will assume you are alluding to have never truly been debunked at all. Your choice of words and insults certainly betray your claim to open mindedness though. It is as I stated from the very beginning. When you come to a conversation with your worldview (or opinion if you prefer) made up, there is no amount of reasoning nor evidence that will change that opinion because you will view all evidence through that lens.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Excuse me! Please point out where I have insulted you. If you're insulted it's as a result of having your own words and arguments pointed out. Open minded does not mean regarding all claims and arguments as equally valid, it means being open to sound reason and evidence i.e. non-dogmatic. Show me a piece of evidence that contradicts evolution or supports creation and I'll be all ears. You're saddled with the heavy baggage of an inarguable position, such is scriptural literalism.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
More nonsense. Darwin was fuelled by a need to understand nature. He was a firm believer when he set off on his voyage of discovery. The idea that Darwin was an ardent unbeliever who went looking for evidence to backup his unbelief is the exact opposite of the documented historical events. His belief disintigrated under the hammer blows of hard evidence and cold reason. His theory was all the more compelling precisely because it went against is prior beliefs. You couldn't be more wrong on this.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
ISTR that Darwin's faith was shattered by the death of his young daughter, totally unrelated to his work in biology.
papafox 2 years ago
ISTR? I've heard that one too, but there are many letters and documents where Darwin attributes his diminishing faith to the observations of nature, long before he was even married.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Sorry, acronym addiction... ISTR = I Seem To Remember
papafox 2 years ago
Darwin was most certainly not a firm believer when he set off on his voyage, although he had been trained in theology. I never claimed that he went looking for evidence to backup unbelief, but along the journey and through the subsequent years before publication, he most certainly was aware that his theory challenged theological beliefs.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Where do you get your information? Accoding to Darwin's own authobiography, he was indeed a firm believer when he set off on the beagle.
What exactly DID you mean when you wrote that his knowledge of the inability to reconcile biblical creation with evolution "fuelled" him then? You seem to be confused once again. You put the horse before the cart and now you're back sliding.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
... cart before the horse is of course what I meant to say (DOH!)
dj2baduk 2 years ago
I am neither confused nor backsliding. I stand by the above statement as true. Darwin most certainly was fueled by that desire. Don;t confuse the time frames of his voyage with the many years spent postulating his theory. And a theory it remains contrary to your comments. It is scientifically impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is undeniable. You have great faith in something that can not be proven much as I do.
ballzy777 2 years ago
"I stand by the above statement as true."
Which one? I only ask because they are quite contradictory. First you say Darwin was "fuelled" by the knowledge that evolution was not compatible with special creation, then you say he never went looking for evidence to confirm his unbelief. What was he "fuelled" to do then? Perhaps I've simply misunderstood what you were trying to say, so why don't you set me straight. How 'bout that?
dj2baduk 2 years ago
Darwin was struggling with his faith before the Beagle journey and his opinions and ideas were greatly affected by others who were not Christians, including his own grandfather. The writings of Lyell were already contributing to his hypothesis and all of his limited observations were viewed through that lens. Knowing that his conclusions would eliminate the need for a God, he was fueled by that notion to continue on that course. Does that help you to understand what I was saying?
ballzy777 2 years ago
If you are a "Christian", ballzy777, and you claim not to struggle with your faith; I suppose you are able to demonstrate those allegedly demonstrable aspects of Christianity. Bet you cant...
Concerning Darwins case, you are simply historically wrong...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
I am not sure what you are attempting to say here. Which aspects of Christianity are you challenging me to demonstrate? What do you claim that I am historically wrong about?
ballzy777 2 years ago
Drinking "the cup" and so on and so forth.,. LOL
You made false statements about "Darwins history". Exactly what you claimed was false. Just look up some scholarly sources about Darwin.
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by drinking "the cup" nor what you would like me to demonstrate in regards to that.
Which statements did I make that were false?
ballzy777 2 years ago
Oh, you dont understand... Really... Or are you just pretending... Perhaps its me who should be the one serving you that famous "cup", since the "Lord" prohibits you to misuse his name in vain. Even that is disputable, since you would likely save plenty of people and thats what a Christians biz is about.
Your whole statement about Darwin was false. Im not going to copy paste it here. Whole as it was put down. Scroll back read it and confront yourself with some serious "Darwin scholarship"...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
I am obviously having difficulty deciphering what you are alluding to. If you would kindly explain your interpretation of "the cup" means I would gladly provide you with an explanation sharing my thoughts.
ballzy777 2 years ago
I would encourage you to read the Bible. Especially the New Testament.
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
I do...daily. You challenged me to demonstrate aspects of Christianity for you. I am asking what exactly do you want me to demonstrate.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Ready to demonstrate "Mark 16:17-18"? I will be serving some vitriol...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
Most reliable early manuscripts and other reliable witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. The translators of the KJV, using 16th century knowledge and tradition accepted it as part of Mark. As the understanding of manuscript transmission and ancient Greek has increased, evangelical scholars no longer accept those passages of Mark as being authored by Mark.
ballzy777 2 years ago
So you were deceived by Satan who usually turns into an angel of light... There are no reliable early manuscripts. There is no corroborative historic evidence. There are plenty other tests and you will fail them all. You know that... All you can do is to equivocate. Matthews wrong, Mark is wrong, James is wrong. Who else is wrong? Just apply the same method and reduce whole Christianity into oblivion...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
JA 5:14-15? Sounds very similar, doesnt?
Even a much stronger generalization is to be found here: MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10. And you complain about a fleabite, ballzy777? Thats more than weak...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
No, he wasn't. You're once again confusing "faith" or theism with the dogma scriptural literalism, which Darwin did have issues with. Darwin was even laughed at on the Beagle for being so orthodox and quoting the bible on matters of morality. Once he'd formulated his theory explaining how species arose, he realised that this also applied to man and was indeed going to be a problem for many religious people, but it cannot be said to have fuelled him in any sense. Get your facts straight.
dj2baduk 2 years ago
ballzy, there is NO scientific theory that's been proven. And they don't need to. They are BASED on observations and may be used as long there are no contradictory observations. And should there be contradictory observations a theory needs to be ADJUSTED or in worst case dropped.
And "holes" in a theory are not contradictions, they are observations the theory currently is not able to address.
But let's not forget: observation of nature, not of the nonobservable supernatural.
ashraghil 2 years ago
There are countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution being dropped for a long time. Saying that, you have proved a point that I have been making since my first post. You have discounted the supernatural before viewing the evidence as a possibility. If the evidence leads there, why refuse to go there? Life itself cannot be explained by observable science. Observation of the incredible complexity of life in nature can not be explained away naturally
ballzy777 2 years ago
What observations have been made that contradict the theory of evolution? You need to bring examples, and you need examples that CONTRADICT the theory, not just questions the theory is not addressing.
There is NOTHING about evolution that discounts the supernatural - this theory does not deal with the supernatural, it does not address your beloved god in any way, and it doesn't addres his non-existence. It just fucking doesnt care about that question.
ashraghil 2 years ago
ballzy777, does it really take hours to name one of the "countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution dropped for a long time"?
Would you be more comfortable to discuss the theory of genesis? Maybe it is easier for you to come up with observations that contradict that theory? That's your chance to assist in dropping a theory!
ashraghil 2 years ago
It does not, I could cite many, however it seems that it will not matter to you anyway. I will do so if you'd like but I will respectfully request that you leave your vitriol and foul language off of your posts. I find it disrespectful and offensive.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Ok, without trying to sound disrespectful or offensive:
Please cite a couple of observations that are in contradiction with the theory of evolution.
Again I want to remind you that questions do not count as observation. And again I want to remind you to address topics evolution is dealing with and not abiogenesis or the the existense of the supernatural. Both have nothing to do with evolution.
ashraghil 2 years ago
For one: Species to Species transition. Please provide me with indisputable proof.
ballzy777 2 years ago
There are plenty of reconstructions of such transitions. Doesnt matter what you focus on. Whether its the eye, the limbs, etc. Look at the sequences of whales, dolphins, bears, indeed even humans. The evidence is vast. Moreover, some speciation events were directly observed. As under lab conditions, as in the wild.
"Indisputability" is not a tenet of science. Making such demands makes you standing in a really bad light... What science can offer in this case thats a great deal of confidence.
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
There are zero authentic reconstructions of a species to species transitional form. "indisputability" is demanded by those posting here which claim that these are indisputable facts. That is a false statement.
ballzy777 2 years ago
Sure there are such reconstructions. You must ignore "piles" of evidence if you keep making such ignorant statements.
"Disputability" applied in the sc process does not operate the way you are proposing here. Its about examining evidence, conducting experiments, proposing predictions, applying logic... We know that the bullet was fired and we know about its impact. Because we cant say how fast it was spinning at every specific moment during its flight, that doesnt mean it wasnt fired.
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
Please provide for me evidence of an authentic example of species to species transition.
ballzy777 2 years ago
After your faith demonstration, ballzy777...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
If you are genuinely interested, do it yourself. Try typing "observed speciation' into Google and see what you come up with.
The Italian wall lizard is but one example.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
I would if there were any. I have looked at and observed many of the so called examples and have found them all to be proven falsified or theoretical. I will look into the example you have provided for me and see if it has any validity as being an authentic example. Thank you
ballzy777 2 years ago
Any luck with the wall lizard? Next port of call should probably be sticklebacks, which seem to speciate with monotonous regularity.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
ballzy777, I asked you for observiations that contradict evolution and you are coming up with something you CLAIM NOT NOT HAVE OBSERVED.
It does not work that way. Your argument was that there are countless observations that would lead to evolution getting dropped.
So, I am still waiting for you to name such an observation. Whatever you are trying to conjur up about things that are NOT getting observed by you are irrelevant at this very moment. I haven't asked for it.
ashraghil 2 years ago
Those very things contradict evidence in the fact that since they can not be observed nor proven, it make the theory just that...a theory. It is not factually indisputable.
ballzy777 2 years ago
AGAIN: Your statement was, that there are countless observations, that contradict evolution.
You did NOT state, that there were so many things evolution tells us, that are not observable. And I am not dealing with this question now.
What I am dealing with is you argument, for which you have been failing to give not even one example.
The alternative would be to say, that you regret your argument, because you cannot back it up.
ashraghil 2 years ago
ballzy777
The fact that you think along the lines of "it's just a theory" demonstrates perfectly well that you have no concept of the meaning and weight behind the term scientific theory. It would appear as though you think that science works within the realm of proofs. I have news for you buddy. It doesn't! Proofs exist within mathematics, whereas theories exist within the fields of science. Effectively, there isn't any such thing as a scientific proof!
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
That has been explained to him more than once in this thread now and he is perfectly ignoring it.
ashraghil 2 years ago
That is an inaccurate statement. There are many verifiable scientific proofs. I perfectly understand what a theory is and the limitations of a theory. I have maintained from the beginning that evolution is not an indisputable fact. You are confirming that you believe this as well.
ballzy777 2 years ago
No "fact" is indisputable. None. You always start with some basic assumptions and only then you can work towards facts. If those basic assumptions prove wrong in one way or another so does the related fact. Evolution is change of genetic material of a population of organism from one generation to the next. This has been tested for decades now. The evidence is vast. All fields of inquiry point into one direction. Evolution is a fact since change happens. Evolution is a theory, since it explains.
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago 8
WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY CONTRADICT?
superskeptic0519 2 years ago
"There are countless observations that have been made that should have led to the theory of evolution being dropped for a long time." That was my statement and I have provided a couple of such observations. You made the statement of contradicting evolution. If there are observations which lead one away from the theory of evolution to another explanation then arguing semantics will not change that.
ballzy777 2 years ago
You have not provided such observations, you have just provided stuff you don't believe in because you cannot observe it.
Shouldn't you be able to back up your argument with examples, or take your argument back, you certainly have not earned my respect and usually I am not dealing nice with persons who I consider dishonest or deceitful.
Your last chance....
ashraghil 2 years ago
The observation of complexity of life as well as observations in genetics and mutations as well as fossil evidence can all be applied to Creation. I am neither dishonest nor deceitful. I am merely expressing my opinion within the framework of my knowledge. There is much observation in the fields I have just cited that could lead to the theory of evolution to be thrown out if you chose to do so.
ballzy777 2 years ago
I have NOT asked for observations that can be applied to creation! And I am NOT interested in evidence for creation, because even evolution can be interpreted as evidence for creation, it is just a different way to explain HOW he did it, instead of the way tbo genesis explains it.
ashraghil 2 years ago
Very deceitful, indeed...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
Re: "For Christians that truly understand the teaching of the Bible, it is not possible to support evolution."
Look up the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy to understand why that's a bogus argument.
Creationism is based on literal reading of Genesis, which is rejected by most mainstream denominations. If you want to tell all Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc, that they're not "real" Christians, good luck. Don't expect much sympathy from them.
papafox 2 years ago 3