Anyone who wishes to see a silly little boy attempting to act educated - go to the channel of @proofandevidence - the ridiculous assertions he comes out with; will give you all a laugh! He believes he has the right to judge the Quran taking verses out of context, unwilling - make that UNABLE to comprehend that ancient arabic words had several different meanings! I doubt he knows Ancient Arabic, so have a good laugh at this princess Lol
If that douche bag and major uneducated waste of space unblocked I could reveal his stupidity and bigotry - relying on weak hadith not corroborated by historical fact let alone other hadith shows his willingness to remain ignorant.
Every time we view AMENAKIN we promote her. If you want to correct her, ignor her. & PotHoler54 is correct to assume she is a smart person. But she can not be a "lovely person" because she is, at heart, 100% salesperson. But by definition, salespeople are a form of evil. Just as heat is a form of energy AMENAKIN is a salesperson who preys on people to suck profits from them & at a subconscious level she undoubtedly can not make sense of the accusation she's a form of evil. This is my opinion.
If anyone was to put the problem in a nutshell, the problem being a few people suffer from confused logic, confused thoughts & they jump to conclusions & offer opinions without reasons, then people not so afflicted, (eg: me) can only conclude that these people are not clinically insane. Which infers they are genetically different. Now, should the remainder of us, the majority, do something to overcome, correct, suppress or even exterminate ANENAKINs? Well no. They are just bullshit sales people.
Well, if for five years you've been making fun of creationist videos, I've been looking at all the wrong links. I need to look harder. Keep swinging the hammer, man.
i agree people jumping to conclusions. Just respect each other's views even if you don't agree and Islam definitely allows that. I don't think Potholer was trying to insult Islam and i'm a strong Muslim. And i rally respect your message to the ignorant people who are using this as an excuse to spark anti-Muslim hatred.
@ahmedeox She's a British Muslim that was educated in the UK. She has had full access to basic and higher education. Further, her university education was in the biological sciences (so it is entirely puzzling how she could have such a major misunderdtanding of evolution by natural selection). The idea of educating Muslim women is raised in the context of the Third World where woman are used as breeding and domestic duty machines not the UK.
@PiotrThePrimate "misunderdtanding of evolution by natural selection" you have got to be shitting me. You can't even spell misunderstanding dumshit. Natural Selection has never produced an new organ or a new animal. It's a complete fail. You don't know that because you're an uneducated brainwashed moron. Nobody misunderstands a simple minded bullshit theory like evolution. Single cell organism becomes a fish crawls out on land and becomes a monkey that turns into a man. Is that easy or what?
@MaximusArurealius Wow, you must be real desperate going for typographical errors. 's' and 'd' are adjacent keys -- the error is easy. You mis-spelled "dumbshit" and you are missing a comma. It appears you don't understand evolution by natural selection either. On the matter of interpretational charity: isn't it likely that given the fluency of most of my commentary that I actually can spell "misunderstanding" and that the error was typographical? Are you that tawdry?
@MaximusArurealius No, just pitying your need to go for low-hanging fruit in the first place then fucking up trying to get those. You mis-spelled "dumb" in a comment that merely asserted that I was "dumb". Pitiful. Anyone can merely assert that they are intelligent and that everyone else is stupid. It doesn't take any intelligence or knowledge to do that.
"Natural Selection has never produced an new organ or a new animal" is just an assertion and it is an ungrammatical one.
@MaximusArurealius Amenakin stated -- unequivocally -- that evolution by natural selection pertains to humans becoming whiter and more intelligent. That is a clear and unambiguous misunderstanding of the theory. So the notion that "Nobody misunderstands a simple minded bullshit theory like evolution" is clearly false. Also, the idea of monkeys becoming humans is not part of the theory so you too don't understand the theory.
@PiotrThePrimate You dumb sonofabitch, "that evolution by natural selection pertains to humans becoming whiter and more intelligent." That's exactly what it's about. You really don't understand evolution do you?
@MaximusArurealius No, you are wrong. The theory is principally concerned with speciation and an explanation of it. Variations within a species, eg. skin colour in humans, is not speciation but adaptation. Not all adaptation amounts to speciation.
@PiotrThePrimate "The theory is principally concerned with speciation and an explanation of it" NO, YOU are wrong. It only concerns itself with that shit because they want to use it to prove/confuse about man's evolving from a monkey. Speciation has only occurred within the species. Evolution is all about religion, not science.
1. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
@MaximusArurealius Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection (EBNS) for its existence. Atheism pre-dates Darwin's theory and there is no relationship of logical necessity between atheism and EBNS (in either direction). EBNS contributes towards an inductive argument for atheism but it nevertheless remains possible to argue for atheism without reference to EBNS. IMHO the strongest arguments for atheism are (a) the problem of evil; and (b) the problem of divine hiddeness.
@PiotrThePrimate "Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection" Correct, but the problem lies in the fact that atheists have no alternative except to believe in evolution. I can chose whichever I want but the atheist has no such choice. I chose science to decide between special creation and evolution. Evolution failed, but since you have a dogma you have to believe in evolution. Science does you no good.
@MaximusArurealius There is no relationship of logical necessity between belief in atheism and evolution. An atheist is free to scrutinise any topic in biology including that of speciation. It is logically possible to assert non-belief in a god and at the same time to assert non-belief in evolution by natural selection without any contradiction. You need only refer to atheist writings pre-Darwin. Consider a Lamarckian atheist circa 19th century.
@PiotrThePrimate "There is no relationship of logical necessity between belief in atheism and evolution" Ya know what dummass, you have made a page full of these idiotic unsubstantiated opinions without the least bit of real logic OR proof. Tell me how an atheist can believe in creation? Let's hear it moron.
@MaximusArurealius You are showing your ignorance here. Atheism pre-dates Darwin and there were a multitude of theories of speciation other than Darwinian evolution, a notable example being Lamarckian evolution. I neither stated nor implied that an atheist can be a creationist, rather I stated that an atheist need not be a Darwinian evolutionist. You are presenting a false dichotomy that a an atheist is compelled (somehow) to believe in Darwinian evolution.
@PiotrThePrimate "You are presenting a false dichotomy that a an atheist is compelled (somehow) to believe in Darwinian evolution" I just love it when you morons yell "false dichotomy" and fail to list the other choices. Let's try again and please do something other than unsubstantiated assertion.
@MaximusArurealius The issue is whether an atheist MUST (i.e. logical necessity) believe in EBNS. There is no such logical necessity. I re-iterate, it is possible to assert non-belief in a god and non-belief in EBNS without logical contradiction. You don't appear to understand this point. The "other choices" are entirely moot. If you are a Raelian you are atheistic and also reject EBNS in favour of a form of intelligent design by the "Elohim".
@MaximusArurealius Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection (EBNS) for its existence. Atheism pre-dates Darwin's theory and there is no relationship of logical necessity between atheism and EBNS (in either direction). EBNS contributes towards an inductive argument for atheism but it nevertheless remains possible to argue for atheism without reference to EBNS. IMHO the strongest arguments for atheism are (a) the problem of evil; and (b) the problem of divine hiddeness.
2. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see design even in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
@MaximusArurealius Evolution isn't "a design" because it has no teleology. You appear to be conflating the concepts of "order" and "design". The phylogenetic tree of life is orderly but it is begging the question for you to assert that it is therefore designed. Whether it is designed is what is in dispute. If there were unequivocal evidence of design then that would refute atheism. Directing my attention to examples of order does not amount to demonstrating design.
3. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
@MaximusArurealius It is unclear to me what you are contending here. I don't understand in what sense "evolution predicts". I can't make sense of that phrase.
4. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
5. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
@MaximusArurealius I don't agree. I think the position proposed by the Answers in Genesis people re evolution and Christian theology is correct. Anything besides a young creationist account of origins leads to profound contradictions in the Christian account of origins and the nature of God. Evolution entails much death and any death prior to the introduction of the salvific doctrine (i.e. the gospel) is problematic.
6. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
@PiotrThePrimate "Molecular biology has provided an independent corroborating account of evolution and the origin of species" You're more full of shit than a Holiday Turkey.
7. The evolution scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with Abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
8. Without the fossil record, they have nothing. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
@MaximusArurealius Your comments perfectly satirize the idiocy portrayed by creationists. You probably didn't need to spam the comments like this, but judging by your linguistic skills, I assume you're very young and probably still in school, so that's forgivable. Keep on keeping on these people are so ignorant, I appreciate you going around exposing and mocking it.
@HellspawnICX Hey dummass, you said, "but judging by your linguistic skills, I assume you're very young and probably still in school, so that's forgivable." And THEN you said, "Keep on keeping on these people are so ignorant, I appreciate you going around exposing and mocking it." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Talk about linguistic skills? hahahahahhahaa You just shot yourself in the foot moron. You need an editor. Do you usually embarrass yourself like this? hahahahahahhaaaaaa
@MaximusArurealius There are multiple, independent and converging strands of evidence that demonstrate evolution by natural selection. The most recent strands of evidence comes from molecular biology and genetics. When you have disparate bodies of evidence converging on the same conclusion that amounts to a strong evidentiary base. The fossil record is but one strand of evidence.
It's actually the ONLY one that counts. If the fossil record shows evolution then we have evolution. If the fossil record shows creation then we have creation and no other biology or genetics is proof of evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould shot down evolution theory 4 different ways in one simple sentence. “I want to argue that the ‘sudden’ appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it." -Gould
@MaximusArurealius You misunderstand Gould. He argues for punctuated equilibria (as opposed to phyletic gradualism) but he nevertheless argues for evolution by natural selection (EBNS). Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is not an alternative to EBNS, rather it is a school of thought _within_ EBNS. PE is not compatible with creation because PE is predicated on EBNS. PE is not a standalone theory that is independent and opposed to EBNS as you seem to think.
@MaximusArurealius Nonsense! Evolution by natural selection isn't "a creation story for atheists" because it says nothing of abiogenesis, i.e. the origin of life. It starts with life as a given and shows the origin of diversity and eventually of species.
@MaximusArurealius Abiogenesis is not a component of evolution by natural selection (EBNS), it is entirely independent of it. For this reason my point still stands that EBNS cannot and does not serve as "a creation story for atheists". Further, theories of abiogenesis pre-date Darwin. It is irrelevant to your argument that creationists do not employ abiogenetic theories. Your contention that "evolution is all about politics, religion, and a creation story for atheists" is wholly wrong.
@PiotrThePinhead, "Also, the idea of monkeys becoming humans is not part of the theory" OH yes it is. I understand the theory perfectly well. YOU clearly don't. Why do you think they called it the Scopes Monkey Trial? Why do you think they made all those pictures of a monkey growing taller and becoming a man? Why do you think that every evotard on YouTube claims that we are apes? Why are they still looking for the half-man half-monkey fossil?
@MaximusArurealius Humans have a common ancestor with apes but didn't evolve from them. Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the genus Homo which are not "monkeys". You are referencing other misunderstandings of evolution by natural selection in an attempt to corroborate your own misunderstanding. No-one is looking for "the half-man half-monkey fossil" -- there is no such thing.
@PiotrThePrimate You can claim the theory whatever you want it to be since there are so many different theories. BUT it's STILL all about monkeys evolving into men. "No-one is looking for "the half-man half-monkey fossil" -- there is no such thing." You're right there's no such thing but they are STILL looking for it (i.e. Lucy, Ardi, etc.). The only one misunderstanding evolution is YOU. Common ancestor =/= immediate ancestor which are fully developed humans. Most of which are bigger, smarter.
@MaximusArurealius Well, no, "monkeys evolving into men" is a caricature of evolution by natural selection. You can't base you argument on a caricature. Monkeys and men have a common ancestor, that is what evolutionary biology tells us. Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the Homo genus. These are neither monkeys nor "men".
@PiotrThePrimate "Monkeys and men have a common ancestor, that is what evolutionary biology tells us." OH evo biology tells you that? hahahahaa So if evo bio is so smart ask it what the name of the common ancestor is.
"Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the Homo genus. These are neither monkeys nor "men"" So what are they dummass?
@PiotrThePrimate as you probably know by now, MaximusArurealius is a complete troll. you can find him/her all over videos about evolution behaving the same way. sometimes i think he's not even a creationist but has just found the ultimate topic to get people riled up about.
@BillKiernan Thanks for the moral support Bill. I'm not riled up. It doesn't really matter if Minimus is a troll. It would matter if this were a private correspondence -- because my energy would be wasted -- but since it is public it may be consumed by others besides Minimus. My engagement with some of the creationist factoids and canards may help other agnostic-atheists. To that end I am happy to offer what I can.
Anyone who wishes to see a silly little boy attempting to act educated - go to the channel of @proofandevidence - the ridiculous assertions he comes out with; will give you all a laugh! He believes he has the right to judge the Quran taking verses out of context, unwilling - make that UNABLE to comprehend that ancient arabic words had several different meanings! I doubt he knows Ancient Arabic, so have a good laugh at this princess Lol
mumfirst17 1 month ago
@proofandevidence
If that douche bag and major uneducated waste of space unblocked I could reveal his stupidity and bigotry - relying on weak hadith not corroborated by historical fact let alone other hadith shows his willingness to remain ignorant.
mumfirst17 1 month ago
U all need to get a life!!! Dats it....
FAMTAMable 1 month ago
Every time we view AMENAKIN we promote her. If you want to correct her, ignor her. & PotHoler54 is correct to assume she is a smart person. But she can not be a "lovely person" because she is, at heart, 100% salesperson. But by definition, salespeople are a form of evil. Just as heat is a form of energy AMENAKIN is a salesperson who preys on people to suck profits from them & at a subconscious level she undoubtedly can not make sense of the accusation she's a form of evil. This is my opinion.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
If anyone was to put the problem in a nutshell, the problem being a few people suffer from confused logic, confused thoughts & they jump to conclusions & offer opinions without reasons, then people not so afflicted, (eg: me) can only conclude that these people are not clinically insane. Which infers they are genetically different. Now, should the remainder of us, the majority, do something to overcome, correct, suppress or even exterminate ANENAKINs? Well no. They are just bullshit sales people.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She has blocked me from her chanel and has not posted any of my polite comments simply because I disagree with her. How pathetic!
22ness0hayden 4 months ago
Well, if for five years you've been making fun of creationist videos, I've been looking at all the wrong links. I need to look harder. Keep swinging the hammer, man.
Roddog61 4 months ago
i agree people jumping to conclusions. Just respect each other's views even if you don't agree and Islam definitely allows that. I don't think Potholer was trying to insult Islam and i'm a strong Muslim. And i rally respect your message to the ignorant people who are using this as an excuse to spark anti-Muslim hatred.
s23bb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Amenakin aka Amena Khamkar Khan u are funny
pepparkatten 4 months ago
amenakin: the reason why the education of women in muslim communities should be a priority.
ahmedeox 5 months ago 30
@ahmedeox She's a British Muslim that was educated in the UK. She has had full access to basic and higher education. Further, her university education was in the biological sciences (so it is entirely puzzling how she could have such a major misunderdtanding of evolution by natural selection). The idea of educating Muslim women is raised in the context of the Third World where woman are used as breeding and domestic duty machines not the UK.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "misunderdtanding of evolution by natural selection" you have got to be shitting me. You can't even spell misunderstanding dumshit. Natural Selection has never produced an new organ or a new animal. It's a complete fail. You don't know that because you're an uneducated brainwashed moron. Nobody misunderstands a simple minded bullshit theory like evolution. Single cell organism becomes a fish crawls out on land and becomes a monkey that turns into a man. Is that easy or what?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Wow, you must be real desperate going for typographical errors. 's' and 'd' are adjacent keys -- the error is easy. You mis-spelled "dumbshit" and you are missing a comma. It appears you don't understand evolution by natural selection either. On the matter of interpretational charity: isn't it likely that given the fluency of most of my commentary that I actually can spell "misunderstanding" and that the error was typographical? Are you that tawdry?
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate typos? HAR HAR HAR HAR All upset huh? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius No, just pitying your need to go for low-hanging fruit in the first place then fucking up trying to get those. You mis-spelled "dumb" in a comment that merely asserted that I was "dumb". Pitiful. Anyone can merely assert that they are intelligent and that everyone else is stupid. It doesn't take any intelligence or knowledge to do that.
"Natural Selection has never produced an new organ or a new animal" is just an assertion and it is an ungrammatical one.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Amenakin stated -- unequivocally -- that evolution by natural selection pertains to humans becoming whiter and more intelligent. That is a clear and unambiguous misunderstanding of the theory. So the notion that "Nobody misunderstands a simple minded bullshit theory like evolution" is clearly false. Also, the idea of monkeys becoming humans is not part of the theory so you too don't understand the theory.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate You dumb sonofabitch, "that evolution by natural selection pertains to humans becoming whiter and more intelligent." That's exactly what it's about. You really don't understand evolution do you?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius No, you are wrong. The theory is principally concerned with speciation and an explanation of it. Variations within a species, eg. skin colour in humans, is not speciation but adaptation. Not all adaptation amounts to speciation.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "The theory is principally concerned with speciation and an explanation of it" NO, YOU are wrong. It only concerns itself with that shit because they want to use it to prove/confuse about man's evolving from a monkey. Speciation has only occurred within the species. Evolution is all about religion, not science.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
1. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection (EBNS) for its existence. Atheism pre-dates Darwin's theory and there is no relationship of logical necessity between atheism and EBNS (in either direction). EBNS contributes towards an inductive argument for atheism but it nevertheless remains possible to argue for atheism without reference to EBNS. IMHO the strongest arguments for atheism are (a) the problem of evil; and (b) the problem of divine hiddeness.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection" Correct, but the problem lies in the fact that atheists have no alternative except to believe in evolution. I can chose whichever I want but the atheist has no such choice. I chose science to decide between special creation and evolution. Evolution failed, but since you have a dogma you have to believe in evolution. Science does you no good.
SORRY ABOUT THE BAD NEWS
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius There is no relationship of logical necessity between belief in atheism and evolution. An atheist is free to scrutinise any topic in biology including that of speciation. It is logically possible to assert non-belief in a god and at the same time to assert non-belief in evolution by natural selection without any contradiction. You need only refer to atheist writings pre-Darwin. Consider a Lamarckian atheist circa 19th century.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "There is no relationship of logical necessity between belief in atheism and evolution" Ya know what dummass, you have made a page full of these idiotic unsubstantiated opinions without the least bit of real logic OR proof. Tell me how an atheist can believe in creation? Let's hear it moron.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius You are showing your ignorance here. Atheism pre-dates Darwin and there were a multitude of theories of speciation other than Darwinian evolution, a notable example being Lamarckian evolution. I neither stated nor implied that an atheist can be a creationist, rather I stated that an atheist need not be a Darwinian evolutionist. You are presenting a false dichotomy that a an atheist is compelled (somehow) to believe in Darwinian evolution.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "You are presenting a false dichotomy that a an atheist is compelled (somehow) to believe in Darwinian evolution" I just love it when you morons yell "false dichotomy" and fail to list the other choices. Let's try again and please do something other than unsubstantiated assertion.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The issue is whether an atheist MUST (i.e. logical necessity) believe in EBNS. There is no such logical necessity. I re-iterate, it is possible to assert non-belief in a god and non-belief in EBNS without logical contradiction. You don't appear to understand this point. The "other choices" are entirely moot. If you are a Raelian you are atheistic and also reject EBNS in favour of a form of intelligent design by the "Elohim".
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius Atheism doesn't require evolution by natural selection (EBNS) for its existence. Atheism pre-dates Darwin's theory and there is no relationship of logical necessity between atheism and EBNS (in either direction). EBNS contributes towards an inductive argument for atheism but it nevertheless remains possible to argue for atheism without reference to EBNS. IMHO the strongest arguments for atheism are (a) the problem of evil; and (b) the problem of divine hiddeness.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
2. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see design even in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Evolution isn't "a design" because it has no teleology. You appear to be conflating the concepts of "order" and "design". The phylogenetic tree of life is orderly but it is begging the question for you to assert that it is therefore designed. Whether it is designed is what is in dispute. If there were unequivocal evidence of design then that would refute atheism. Directing my attention to examples of order does not amount to demonstrating design.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
3. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius It is unclear to me what you are contending here. I don't understand in what sense "evolution predicts". I can't make sense of that phrase.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
4. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius This is just paranoid conspiratorial thinking.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
5. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I don't agree. I think the position proposed by the Answers in Genesis people re evolution and Christian theology is correct. Anything besides a young creationist account of origins leads to profound contradictions in the Christian account of origins and the nature of God. Evolution entails much death and any death prior to the introduction of the salvific doctrine (i.e. the gospel) is problematic.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
6. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius This is untrue. Molecular biology has provided an independent corroborating account of evolution and the origin of species.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "Molecular biology has provided an independent corroborating account of evolution and the origin of species" You're more full of shit than a Holiday Turkey.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius That does not amount to a refutation. I don't think you understand the evidence that comes from genetics and molecular biology.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
7. The evolution scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with Abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
8. Without the fossil record, they have nothing. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Your comments perfectly satirize the idiocy portrayed by creationists. You probably didn't need to spam the comments like this, but judging by your linguistic skills, I assume you're very young and probably still in school, so that's forgivable. Keep on keeping on these people are so ignorant, I appreciate you going around exposing and mocking it.
HellspawnICX 5 months ago
@HellspawnICX Hey dummass, you said, "but judging by your linguistic skills, I assume you're very young and probably still in school, so that's forgivable." And THEN you said, "Keep on keeping on these people are so ignorant, I appreciate you going around exposing and mocking it." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Talk about linguistic skills? hahahahahhahaa You just shot yourself in the foot moron. You need an editor. Do you usually embarrass yourself like this? hahahahahahhaaaaaa
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius There are multiple, independent and converging strands of evidence that demonstrate evolution by natural selection. The most recent strands of evidence comes from molecular biology and genetics. When you have disparate bodies of evidence converging on the same conclusion that amounts to a strong evidentiary base. The fossil record is but one strand of evidence.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "The fossil record"
It's actually the ONLY one that counts. If the fossil record shows evolution then we have evolution. If the fossil record shows creation then we have creation and no other biology or genetics is proof of evolution.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
Stephen Jay Gould shot down evolution theory 4 different ways in one simple sentence. “I want to argue that the ‘sudden’ appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it." -Gould
1. Sudden appearance = Creation
2. No evolutionary change = Creation
3. Evolution predicts no evolution
4. "We don't understand evolution theory"
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius You misunderstand Gould. He argues for punctuated equilibria (as opposed to phyletic gradualism) but he nevertheless argues for evolution by natural selection (EBNS). Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is not an alternative to EBNS, rather it is a school of thought _within_ EBNS. PE is not compatible with creation because PE is predicated on EBNS. PE is not a standalone theory that is independent and opposed to EBNS as you seem to think.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The fossil record shows evolution as does the genome. All sources of evidence "count" -- if they are relevant then they "count".
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "The fossil record is but one strand of evidence"
It's the only one that counts. Without the fossil record you have nothing.
EVOLUTION FAILS
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Not so and this comment shows a lack of even cursory understanding of molecular biology and molecular genetics.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate "The theory is principally concerned with speciation and an explanation of it"
NOPE, evolution is all about politics, religion, and a creation story for atheists. The rest is hogwash.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Nonsense! Evolution by natural selection isn't "a creation story for atheists" because it says nothing of abiogenesis, i.e. the origin of life. It starts with life as a given and shows the origin of diversity and eventually of species.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Who are the proponents and researchers of Abiogenesis? Are they mostly creationists? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Think much?
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Abiogenesis is not a component of evolution by natural selection (EBNS), it is entirely independent of it. For this reason my point still stands that EBNS cannot and does not serve as "a creation story for atheists". Further, theories of abiogenesis pre-date Darwin. It is irrelevant to your argument that creationists do not employ abiogenetic theories. Your contention that "evolution is all about politics, religion, and a creation story for atheists" is wholly wrong.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePinhead, "Also, the idea of monkeys becoming humans is not part of the theory" OH yes it is. I understand the theory perfectly well. YOU clearly don't. Why do you think they called it the Scopes Monkey Trial? Why do you think they made all those pictures of a monkey growing taller and becoming a man? Why do you think that every evotard on YouTube claims that we are apes? Why are they still looking for the half-man half-monkey fossil?
EPIC FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Humans have a common ancestor with apes but didn't evolve from them. Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the genus Homo which are not "monkeys". You are referencing other misunderstandings of evolution by natural selection in an attempt to corroborate your own misunderstanding. No-one is looking for "the half-man half-monkey fossil" -- there is no such thing.
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate You can claim the theory whatever you want it to be since there are so many different theories. BUT it's STILL all about monkeys evolving into men. "No-one is looking for "the half-man half-monkey fossil" -- there is no such thing." You're right there's no such thing but they are STILL looking for it (i.e. Lucy, Ardi, etc.). The only one misunderstanding evolution is YOU. Common ancestor =/= immediate ancestor which are fully developed humans. Most of which are bigger, smarter.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Well, no, "monkeys evolving into men" is a caricature of evolution by natural selection. You can't base you argument on a caricature. Monkeys and men have a common ancestor, that is what evolutionary biology tells us. Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the Homo genus. These are neither monkeys nor "men".
PiotrThePrimate 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PiotrThePrimate "Monkeys and men have a common ancestor, that is what evolutionary biology tells us." OH evo biology tells you that? hahahahaa So if evo bio is so smart ask it what the name of the common ancestor is.
"Our immediate ancestors are the other members of the Homo genus. These are neither monkeys nor "men"" So what are they dummass?
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "So what are they dummass?" Primates "dummass".
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate as you probably know by now, MaximusArurealius is a complete troll. you can find him/her all over videos about evolution behaving the same way. sometimes i think he's not even a creationist but has just found the ultimate topic to get people riled up about.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan Thanks for the moral support Bill. I'm not riled up. It doesn't really matter if Minimus is a troll. It would matter if this were a private correspondence -- because my energy would be wasted -- but since it is public it may be consumed by others besides Minimus. My engagement with some of the creationist factoids and canards may help other agnostic-atheists. To that end I am happy to offer what I can.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago