Response to npage85 and TheoreticalBullshit on Evolution/Ontology - Part 1

[g24417]

...evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

-National Academy of Science

As such evolution is on par with the round earth theory and germ theory. Doubting that whales evolved from land mammals is exactly as uneducated as thinking the world is flat. If you have never seen the earth from space with your own eyes, you have no more foundation to believe it is round that you have to doubt evolution.

[minervasp73]

LOL "every text including those BIG THICK BOOKS" Ok, that's comedy anti-intellectual GOLD.

[rbairos1]

Sorry, as *much* as I detest the majority of npage85's videos for their severe abuse of logic to cloak his Christian bias, I think his use of 'direction' is appropriate with respect to evolution. It *is* a directed process, not at random one. Nor he, nor I, nor you ever claim it is goal oriented to a specific adaptation or phenoytype, etc, but simply that its directional, in that it leads to organisms better adapted to reproduce in their environment.

Survivability is *not* a binary value.

[BigJucas]

Bad video. You sound like you are reading a high school essay.

[2DGorillaz192000]

BigJucas,

You must be a drop out.

[bananabread119]

Just throwing in my 2cents! The thing about whales not evolving. Is because a species does not have to evolve if it does not need to. Now notice i didnt say want to, but need to. Now a Creationist might take what I said out of context. But this is why Sharks havent evolved since the dinosaur ages! This doesnt make evolution wrong. There's just no need for them to evolve.

[Espinozaize]

npage85´s problem: He combines arroance with random trivia he has picked up & try to pass this combo off as intelligence...which is not pretty

[pirbird14]

In science, "why" and "how" are the same thing: this happened because this process worked this way on these preconditions.

[adjohnson916]

Jasper, do you not accept evolution? WTH!?!

[JasperAvi]

Huh.....

[TheAtheistAntidote]

Jasper this guy is handing you both your intellectual backsides!

Pull the rip cord, tuck atheist tail and run.

[JasperAvi]

Right.

When you say these things, do you simultaneously realize how damn stupid you are, or does that come later in retrospection?

[Marc167]

That is sarcasm right? If it's not, did you watch Jasper's video response before you wrote this? - because I'd be embarrassed if I had written something so stupid. Npage85 clearly did not even understand evolution, and showed he still did not in this video response to TBS. Jasper pointed these things out, as well as showed how stupid his "why" question was, which is clearly not applicable.

[urbanelf]

Brock, I'm giving this comment a 'thumbs up' because people need to see how stupid it is.

[JasperAvi]

LOL

[Weltenweber]

Ah, this must have been an attempt at a "manly" comment while not violating "christian" ethics.

I'm afraid that makes you come off kinda gay.

But that's only an aside.

Apart from that I'd advise you to watch TBS again and ponder about the part, where he asks critics to understand the Theory of Evolution prior to trying to debunk it.

It would be indeed an intellectual courtesy that might also stop you from engaging in your mindless pissing contests.

[Weltenweber]

On a second note:

Normally I'd consider nitpicking on language a cheap shot, but not in a philosophical discourse, where nuances of meaning can make all the difference.

Either you wanted to refer "backsides" to TBS and Avi, then you should have written "both of you" or you wanted to imply that there are two backsides. Then you should have written "both of your". The way your sentence is phrased it breaks off midway because it indicates that "this guy" is handing over a second thing as well.

[Wyglyph]

What colour is the sky in your world, Broccoli? Not that we need any assistance in recognizing your level of stupidity, but thanks all the same for making it unquestionable.

[123columbo123]

@TheAtheistAntidote nice to see your still bring a cock

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Nice to see you still use the same method of insult and argumenta ad hominem.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar You're very strange, following me now are you? How very creepy. Oh and by the way I am NOT making an argument, I am calling him a cock because he a cock. Watch his videos I am sure you will see what I mean.

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 No, unfortunately I keep running into you looking at the same video's on youtube. I wish I did not, but here we are again. But, don't worry you keep on insulting others, it shows how much you resemble those you insult.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar Ok then i am a cock, now can we please move on! you don't have to reply to any of my comments on other videos so stop trying to start an argument that is not being made. You are by your very nature a deluded cock and that is a matter of fact. You should actually read some of then comments on your own page

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 "You are by your very nature a deluded cock and that is a matter of fact. You should actually read some of then comments on your own page": hilarious, good one. I really think you could make good use of some anger therapy. You seem to have so much issues trapped in that little head of yours. lol

"don't have to reply to any of my comments": hold on, neither do you, so why don't you move on then? Kettle pot...

[123columbo123]

@dakodar again the irony 

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Good boy

[123columbo123]

@dakodar very creepy

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Hard to understand for the little head you mean? Or just being a dick, an asshole, an idiot, a dumbass... Hej, look at that, it's great to be you. No it's not actually. I start enjoying scaring you, and ticking you off. Quite fun. I can see why you project your anger on others. Great stuff. btw, sarcasm in case you wondered.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar creepier

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Ow little boy, don't you worry. Don't even try to understand, just keep on insulting and proclaim your superior intellect. We are all dumbasses, you're so incredible smart. Shouldn't you start writing a book with all your wisdom noted down for future generations?

[123columbo123]

@dakodar more creepier

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 I see that it's getting confusing. Mmm, maybe time to reflect. Or possible insult some more. I bet it feels good for the frustration in the head cramped with disgust and arrogance. Lovely

[123columbo123]

@dakodar you just can't except you got Owned. READ THE BIBLE then tell me if religion is a good thing. Oh and by the I am not calling the guy on this video a cock it was a response to a comment made by TheAtheistAntidote scroll down and see (I think you may be mixed up a little) and watch some of his videos. Then you will see what i'm talking about. Do you believe in god? Do you think being gay is wrong or immoral?

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Ah, I see the frustration rising, great. I trust it's futile to reply to your questions, but let's give it another go:

1. "you got Owned": hilarious, even more since you admitted you NEVER gave an argument. So I'm 'owned' without any argument or reason in any of your comments (as you admitted before). Cool, you got magical powers. lol

2. "Do you believe in god?": no, agnostic

3. "Do you think being gay is wrong or immoral?": no, not in the slightest

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Again this is hard to understand for you, but give it a go:

4. So each book requires interpretation. The Bible is no different. Without people interpreting it, nothing happens. This means that there is no such thing as 'religion' an sich (German, I know, difficult). Religion = the interpretation of individuals. Hence, religion can go either way, dependent on the interpretation and execution of people. So some indeed say: I believe, but the gay issue is rubbish. It exists. Got it?

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 4. (continued): so when you say that "religion is bad" you are simplifying what religion is, namely individuals interpreting a book. Without this interpretation, nothing happens. The book on itsefl will do nothing bad, people will. So religion is bad? No, surely not cause there are a lot of e.g. Catholics in third world countries who do very good work indeed. Some individuals surely are idiots, as some abusive insulting atheists are (apply some introspection here).

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 4. (continued) So your claim should be "Some religious people are very bad and nasty.". Then we agree. As we are humans, some atheists (e.g. defending a ruthless capitalism) are bad as well. We're humans, we mess things up. So religion = people. Is religion bad given that religion = all religious people (interpreting)? That's like saying all religious people are bad.

Now, if you reply, use arguments please (since you invited me to provide some). So leave the insults out of it.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar 1. I never defended ruthless capitalism (i.e forget about the poor). I said that capitalism in the the sense of economics works as shown in many forward thinking countries today. I my self would probably be more left leaning with a fairer more balanced ideals taken from Marxist and capitalism 2. In the bible it states very clearly that homosexuality in wrong and immoral there is no need for interpretation of that its in black and white. Cont......

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. "I never defended ruthless capitalism": never said you did, just an example of how atheism can be bad. I only argue against the claim that religion is bad.

2."no need for interpretation of that its in black and white": I think you might have misread me, I don't see there is a need, I say that it happens, that is done, that the Bible is always interpreted, that it's seen that it always requires interpretation. But I assume you will provide actual arguments for your claim.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar Now I will try and put this very simply for you because you seem to think that I am arguing something different. I am not arguing peoples interpretation of the bible or any religious scripture. Just the scripture its self, now lets say theres a book (or word of mouth) out there that says "To find salvation I must chop of the head of every person I meet called Brian" and its just this repeat 100s of times cont........

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 So a few paragraphs, which are then refuted by those applying the book, makes the 'entire' religious quest bad? So you claim that a few sentences convict an entire believe system to be bad and repulsive? In other words, religion as a whole is bad due to elements that are nowadays (not necessarily back then, so context dependent) rejected? If so, we have to reject most ancient Greek texts and philosophies. So philosophy as a whole is bad as well, some containing ridiculous claims?

[123columbo123]

@dakodar it doesn't matter how anyone interprets it. Even if a 100 people read it and say it just means be good to one another. When quite clear it states you have to kill all Brian's to find salvation. This is not my point, my point is it claims to know the facts and knowledge of the world that it has no evidence for i.e faith, and asserts rules on how you should live based on nothing but faith. An unchanging set of rules since its inception irrespective of new ideas or evidence.........cont

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. "facts and knowledge of the world": be careful: facts bear a different meaning in religion and science.

2. "set of rules since its inception ": so they have a universality in their claims? Many moral systems do.

3. "you should live": only applies to morality, and is an inspiration. Why do you consider it more than what it is, namely a book?

3. I would like you to define 'religion', cause it seems to be a container concept covering far too many meanings.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar to answer a previous question science does not give any moral values or rules and neither does atheism and nor should it. And stating you got owned by not making an argument was a representation of how good my comment was that it didn't need a argument because it was blindingly obvious. now i will say again with more expansion bad people will bad things in the name of religion and try to also claim to do bad things in the name of science cont....

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1."it didn't need a argument because it was blindingly obvious": you are quite cocky aren't you. Even the most intelligent individuals know that arguments are always necessary, or did Hawkins simply makes bold statements? lol

2. "bad people will bad things in the name of religion": so you claim that 'bad people' will do more bad things in the name of science? So science does not allow to do 'bad things' then, or what are you saying again?

[123columbo123]

@dakodar @dakodar but science does not set any rules or tell people what is right or wrong it simply states what is true or a better description what is fact to the best of current knowledge. good people will do good things in the name of religion but they will also do very bad things in the name of religion. Do you think that the some of the people who did 9/11 were good people? A better question would be do you think that they thought of them selves as good people? cont...

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. "science does not": I agree, and we thus agree that science does not tell us 'how' to live. So we need something else telling us 'how to live' right?

2. "good people will do good...": people always find excuses to do bad things. Whether it's in the name of God or Science, that does not matter. The religion is not the cause, the individual is, religion/science/capitalism... simply the excuse.

3. It seems you're convicting religion based on the actions of its followers, right?

[123columbo123]

@dakodar heres something that Hitchen's said "Can you name a moral action or statement that a believer can do or say that an unbeliever can't? and in return can you name a immoral act or statement that a believer will do in the name of religion?

simply put my argument is religion says it has the answers for things it can't and based on this false knowledge it tells you how you should live. Weather you cherry pick ideals from it or its all good ..........

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. Can't do much with the quote, since it applies to the practicality of religion, and that can be any kind of interpretation

2. "cherry pick ideals from it or its all good": I understand the claim you make on religion, yet disagree for the consequences you draw out of it. Religion in the book makes bold claims, so do the Greek.

3. "it is still a totalitarian dictatorship" should be: "it can be a totalitarian dictatorship" as any system can be

4. Define religion.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar 1. you've answered you own question

3. its is a totalitarian dictatorship if a person thinks its not then they are not really religious.

4. read any dictionary i'll go with what ever it says in there.but i think we both know what i am talking about so if you want to try and pick at the very base of my argument by stating that i have misunderstood religion then please feel free.

Setting rules by faith in turn causes more separation and difference, raising sectarianism and tension

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. sigh, if you say so

3. "then they are not really religious.": sigh, but possibly you might actually provide arguments

4. "any dictionary": you clearly don't understand what I'm getting at. I wonder whether you define religion as being separate from its application/interpretation.

5. "sectarianism and tension": statement after statement, yet so little arguments. If that would be the case then there would be not a single peaceful city on the entire earth.

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Trying to sum up your statements:

1. religion is what is literally written down in the book

2. The book has bad statements, thus religion as a whole is

3. Religion is not equal to its interpretation, but good religious individuals (not following the Bible literally) are in fact not religious. lol

4. Religion leads to tension: so the words in the book suddenly become equal to the actions of the believers. lol

5. There is room for interpretation and there is not (when it suits you)

[123columbo123]

@dakodar 1. In a very simplistic terms yes it is the base for the belief system but it certainly does not account for all meanings or examples of religion in the broadest sense of the word

2.of course, Would you still say that the BTK killer was a bad person even though for about 20 years he appeared to live a normal and good life to others of course you would

3. no there in the truest sense of the word. cont

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. So when you say 'religion is bad', are you referring to the book as a whole, to the application or to its believers?

2. Is that actually a reply to my summary namely "The book has bad statements, thus religion as a whole is". If so, clarify.

3. "no there in the truest sense of the word.": don't understand the sentence, probably bad grammar. Rephrase please.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar 4. Don't you listen. Religions form groups of people irrespective of what it says in there book it causes separation, which causes difference which in turn causes tensions may be a better word would be conflict.

5. I will say again i am not talking about peoples interpretation of any thing

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 4. "Don't you listen.": I hear statements, not arguments. It shows how little you know about those groups. There has been for years no conflict between religions in e.g. Europe or US. In your case, ANY multi-religious situation should lead to conflict, yet that's not true. Thus your claim is refuted.

5. Sorry, but you do. Quote: "do very bad things in the name of religion". If it's only the book you have issues with, than it's solved. Cause a book does not kill, only people do.

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 And before you jump on it (reflect before you talk): the current situation and the cultural clash is not archetypical or does not have to be for 'religion' as a whole. Nor is it an exclusive privilege of religion to cause tension (poverty does as well).

[123columbo123]

@dakodar "3. Religion is not equal to its interpretation, but good religious individuals (not following the Bible literally) are in fact not religious. lol".- not in the truest sense of the word.

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 3. "not in the truest sense of the word. ": what is the truest sense of the word? I assume you realize that there is a whole academic research devoted to the 'truth' of the Bible, that some conceive it as context-dependent and others do not. So you here than clearly state that you reduce religion to the Bible and the exact wordings. It also implies that nobody is religious, for the Bible needs interpretation in the first place (not 'all' is written down, it must be applied).

[123columbo123]

@dakodar of course i understand what people believe and don't believe in context and literally it was a generalization.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar "So you defended something that you now consider crude and without nuance. Nice" in the truest sense is merely means peoples amount of belief how can you not understand i called it a generalization so as to make a concession to your limit knowledge

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 "to make a concession to your limit knowledge": hilarious, as soon as you have to admit, you back off again. I wondered where the insults were, I was starting to miss them. It's hilarious that you now try to make a point, using your own sloppy use of concepts. Besides, if you still do no agree, there are quite a few unanswered remarks for you to chew on. Quite a few undefined and inconsistent use of concepts and terms there. lol

[123columbo123]

@dakodar I am not saying religion is the sole cause of conflict i'm saying that is a cause of difference which is the main cause of conflict you could even say the sole cause. I am not saying or arguing that it happens all the time its quite obvious it doesn't. I am saying it can happen and it does a lot of the time. But even if it was once or twice thats still once or twice to much. cont....

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. "cause of difference": every system causes difference: capitalism causes difference in money (and social conflict), communism in power (and corruption)... So the point is?

2. "But even if it was once or twice that's still once or twice to much": sure, every conflict is too much. As every conflict of capitalism, communism, poverty, inequality, injustice... Every system creates conflict, so shall we eradicate them all?

[123columbo123]

@dakodar yes every system does create differences. But religion is based on false claims that severe no purpose for humanity and all the good it does i e charity can be attained better with out it. Religion orders the difference it says it is the right way the others systems do not dictate what you should do they are a system where difference is not the goal merely an offshoot. With religion it is the intention

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 1. "better with out it": that's a claim that cannot be backed up by any statistics, nor facts, so it's quite a useless thing to say.

2. "false claims": each system has false claims as well

3. "severe no purpose for humanity": some find peace in religion and find a non-religious world scary and meaningless. Being atoms with only an evolutionary social system is too thing for many. So it has a purpose for those.

4. "others systems do not dictate what you should": think again

[123columbo123]

@dakodar 4. it should read other systems do not dictate the difference in a moral or idealistic way

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 So communism is not an idealistic differentiation of society? Nor is capitalism? Nor is democracy? Nor is anarchy? So if it does not, then how come democracy is often introduced, though in your view it does not make any claim on being a superior worldview?

Anyway, you admitted that you generalized, and the fine-prints of the discussion will lead us nowhere. I wish you admitted your simplification sooner, but it is what it is now.

Closed it is.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar i never generalized any fine points. But i see what doing your just pissed i closed the argument first. please see below. i was making a concession to your understanding of my argument in others words i was trying to do you a favor to so as you could move on

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 Dear little boy, I'm not pissed. Not sure where you see me getting angry. You start insulting, it seems that you're a bit frustrated. Besides, it's easy to close an argument, yet to do it conclusively is something else. You did not make a concession and did not reply. That's ok, I don't really mind. I can go on and on, but will wait until you actually reply to all my remarks. But if you want to move on and start insulting others again, please do if it makes you happy.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar So terms of who OWNED it would appear you because you simply have no grasp of my argument

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 "you simply have no grasp of my argument": yes I hear you say that to me so very often, to others even more and yet we still have to wait for your first argument. It's remarkable how there can be so much frustration in one single person. How many times did you declared yourself victorious, and far beyond the intelligence of who you argue with. In fact, all of your posts are like that. That's is simply amazing. It surely must be true then that you're an oracle and others too dumb.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar plus i'm not arguing from the position of guns force people to kill others either. Where your response would be people kill people with guns not guns them. which would be right. but you are applying that same argument to this which is not at all relevant.

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 "but you are applying that same argument to this which is not at all relevant. ": why not?

[dakodar]

@123columbo123 So let's assume that you don't make any claims about religious people, the practice of religion, the interpretation of religion. Then what you're saying is:

1. The book is religion and is bad, therefore religion is bad

2. Religion is bad, and causes tension: more than other systems and isn't this the application of individuals btw?

3. A book is representative for its religion.

4. BTK is representative, thus actions do represent religion and are illustrative for its belief system

[123columbo123]

@dakodar If there were less differences in the world there would be less conflict.

[123columbo123]

@dakodar it is still a totalitarian dictatorship exclusive in of its self and it excludes others

[travesham]

@TheAtheistAntidote Really? I was just thinking the exact opposite. What points do you see him making that neither Jasper nor TBS addressing correctly?

[Weltenweber]

Succinct, precise and pearls to the swine.

I fear that npage85 will run roughshod over your thoughts as he did with everybody else.

npage puzzles me. On the one hand he does seem to be genuine and on the other he is oblivious to anything his counterpart is relating.

Nevertheless, glad that you did it Avi.

[JasperAvi]

Thanks much... I appreciate it.

[bignastydragon]

with the whole survivability thing;

if we view it as a point in which a species can move towards,

1 - all species will have a different direction to move in.

2 - the direction will be constantly moving due to the changes in the environment that the species live in.

3 - due to the uncountable number of factors involved, the direction is, to all intents and purposes, random at any point in time.

[Marc167]

This is an awesome response. You said everything I was thinking when I watched npage85's video and more.

[JasperAvi]

*bows* lol

[PluripotentBrain]

great video as always.

For those of you too lazy to read the evidence for whale evolution in the link that Jesper posted, check out this YouTube video:

watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok

it is perhaps not as in depth, but it is still good.

[rozeboosje]

Exactly: survivability is not a property of an organism, it's what happens when an organism interacting with the environment lucks out. And anyone who claims that something non-random must have direction has obviously never seen a Mandelbrot set.

[JasperAvi]

Yep.... Well put!

[2bsirius]

Good vid

[JasperAvi]

Thanks! :)

[WayOfTheBastard]

Jasper, Npage is like the worst kind of youtube troll. He almost seems smart, and then comes up with some much batshit nonsense, never concedes points, and never gives up. You just fed a monster.

[JasperAvi]

I like taming monsters.. It's a task, but easier than tossing softballs at Jezuzfreek or something.

[timtheloner]

You would have to be paid to tame them! I wouldn't do it for free.

[FallenAngel0fDoom]

Arguing with a religious person.... waste of time.

[JasperAvi]

Who says I'm arguing?

And secondly, it's not for their sake, necessarily, so not a "waste of time".

[FallenAngel0fDoom]

Your right. Maybe one can become more sane from arguing with crazies. It's weird how the ego satisfies itself. No offense. I've argued with plenty of religious nutters in my time, and it's still comedy gold for the most part.

[timtheloner]

too true.

[NermalsChannel]

npage is a funny guy. He likes to nitpick little details to get to his arguments and then proceeds to dump logical fallacies all over the place.

[azrienoch]

IIt's not random in the sense that it happens a specific way because of pressure. Like bubble. The bubble doesn't try to be a certain shape, it's not sentient. But its shape isn't random--that's the shape that atmosphere forces it into--it's just mindless.

[JasperAvi]

Great analogy!

Oh, WHERE BE MY BOOKS?

Oh, and how's it going, Az?

[azrienoch]

Books are almost on their way, tomorrow, if not today. I pack them up and ship them all at once.

[JasperAvi]

Sounds good. Thanks, Az.

[itsmaxinthebox]

This might be a little over my head, but isn't consistency one of the foundational requirements to develop any theory? Without consistent results, from appropriate tests, how are we to go make any claim of probability? Which is, from my understanding, the most certain claim science makes with any theory. "This is the most likely explanation given the extant evidence." Something like that.

[JasperAvi]

From the way in which he was talking about "arguments from consistency" it sounded like he was arguing against consistent factors elsewhere lending towards possibility. Almost like an argument against inference. VERY WEIRD.

[HaleyMary]

I would think the same thing, that it would be more appropriate for the guy to have asked how for evolution to happen. Thanks for posting that link on the side about whale evolution. Sounds interesting to read up on. :)

[JasperAvi]

Very interesting indeed! :)

Thanks :-D