@taratorah - If you believe in the Torah, you might want to look at Ex 20:16. You see yourself as an exposer of false cults, yet you are the accuser of the brethren. Russ is a brother in Christ, who has commended himself to many by his sound speech. You on the other hand are bearing false witness.
The person was purposely disrupting an event that many people attended in order to see the biblical view (as opposed to your secular view which is forced on them every day of their lives). Like you, he couldn't stand it
@RussMiller1000 Yes, he couldn't stand your willful ignorance in order to sell a few DVD's and bus tours to take a few dollars from little old ladies.
I hope he corrected your ineptitude as well as is done on here.
@CreationMinistries it was not a comparrison to 'random chance' it was an analogy of how a single cell creature changes over time to become multicellular. And now, don't quote me on this but prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor which eiter is or was related to the first proto bionts.
@Bardlettt Since there were only about 6,000 kinds I can't say. How long are we we to wait til Darwinists find some viable evidence of life evolving from a sterile rock? Or an actual example of bacteria turning into jellyfish; or donkeys; or people?
@CreationMinistries 6000? I don't remember reading that in the Bible. What's a Darwinist? Is that like an evolutionary biologist? Because they're not the ones trying to prove abiogenesis, that's chemists. I guess you couldn't find your answers because you're looking in the wrong field of study. Why would anyone think a bacteria would turn into a jellyfish? That's silly, and I certainly hope you don't think that's evolution; it would make you seem very uninformed indeed.
@CreationMinistries bacteria wouldn't have turned in to any of the above because they are eukaryotes. Also I am making a video on this right as we speak.
@CreationMinistries That is an utter lie, what i said is that bacteria (which are prokaryotes) would never turn in to a eukaryote. Also if you don't think that a single cell creature can turn in to anything else you might as well forget about zygotes which turn in to a human after a 9 month gestation period. So Russ, stop lying, we are going to call you out on your BS.
@Cactarpus I do appreciate you allowing any open-minded persons to see your....logic? The zygote is directed by extremely complex genetic instructions. How you compare this to a bacteria cell becoming a biology professor is somewhat beyond any amount of reasoning
@CreationMinistries Wow you cannot understand an analogy? Actually do you even know what the word analogy means? No where in my statement did I say that bacteria would become a 'biology professor,' something which you are certainly not nor ever will be. And how dare you attack MY logic after you have been repeatedly proven wrong and continue to either lie or ignore the points where you are wrong. I bet the response to this comment is something irrelevant and deceitful.
@Cactarpus Sorry to upset you but comparing random chance, non-observed Neo-Darwinism, or any other form of evolutionism, to complex & well designed genetic change is not an analogy, it is a mistake. So where do you believe your prokaryotes & eukaryotes came from?
@CreationMinistries Life wouldn't evolve from a rock actually, life wouldn't even form from a rock. Life would however form from a combination of organic compounds and fatty acids.
Russ- quick question, have you read either Goldschmidt or Eldredge & Gould? Because the former has absolutely nothing to do with fossils, and the papers of E&G have absolutely nothing to do with missing transitions between higher taxa. And PE has absolutely nothing to do with Goldschmidt's macromutational hypothesis. In fact, YOUR story requires hyper-PE for your handful of 'kinds' to micro-evolve into today's diverse terrestrial biota.
My respect for your ability to spill blatant lies with a straight face. Or do you really believe the nonsense you spew ? Maybe you should pick a book other then the Bible and take some time to study the subject of your presentation. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT based on the hopeful Monster hypothesis, but rather an extension of the concept known as allopatric speciation (when species are geographically separated). Please do us all a favour and try to learn something before you open your mouth.
Evolution has always been ignorant of genetics, in this case, their outdated theory just ignores that for evolution to occur you have to fixate one nucleotide at a time and that takes hundreds of generations each, magical quick evolution is not scientific.
@TheScienceFoundation Experiments have dmonstrated beyond doubt that the population required to mutate ONE new beneficial trait is beyond the TRILLIONS, take as an example Lenski's EColi with a population above 20 trillions or the 10^20 Plasmodiums required to develop chloroquine resistance; however, human beings don't have a high fertility rate and deterioration is the rule, prof M Lynch -among others- are investigating this important issue for our own future
@TheScienceFoundation So I base my case on experiments and you respond with a video?
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, creatures like the mammalians never evolved.
Thanks science for experimentation leaves no room for evolutionary imaginations.
@IloveYOUviruses The beauty of Lenski's experiment is that creationists now have experimental grounds for the time and specimens needed to obtain a new beneficial trait. For a presentation on human genetic entropy, Lenski's results are gold ;-)
And as always, experiments beats drawed trees and imaginations, everything but darwinian optimism.
Sadly for you, there's no better evolutionary experiment than Lenski's EColi, so now you can only keep exposing your darwinian fanatism ;-)
@IloveYOUviruses First off, that wasn't even Lenski's experiment, it was Ohno's. Second, there's a reason Sanford hasn't been able to take genetic entropy to task with an actual genetic analysis but only with erroneous computer simulations. Mainly because while mutation is more or less random, selection is not. It's sort of like saying "The odds of rolling 50 sixes is astronomical" when what is really being done is when a six is rolled, it's kept.
@TheScienceFoundation Ohno? lol you are really confused, your lame video was talking about NylonBug and Cit+ EColi, meanwhile you repply with crazy comments and your evolutionary fanatism ignoring the insane number of specimens experimentally required to develop new benefic traits, as I said
experiments beats drawed trees and imaginations, everything but darwinian faith
Sadly for you, there's no better evolutionary experiment than Lenski's EColi, so now you can only keep exposing your fanatism
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
PE was never meant to replace gradualism, mainly because we do have literally mountains of fossils supporting it, but only describe the process of rapid change in smaller populations.
"I like to tell people there is no evidence for evolution"
Pretty sure that bronze age book you're so fond of says something about not lying.
"Let's go back to the 1930's"
To rehash an idea that no one actually supports
"Reinvented hopeful monster just slightly"
No, punctuated equilibrium doesn't even resemble hopeful monster. Nowhere in PE are their proposed major single changes. PE explains that changes move more slowly across the bulk of a main population.
What's funny (and by that I mean sad that the creationists don't understand it) is that punctuated equilibrium and other hypotheses proposing rapid change in smaller populations does nothing to undermine gradualism in any way. The idea of single large generational changes hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time, but it's a fact that in a periphery of a major population that changes do indeed accrue more quickly.
I like how *asking* for *specific* evidence always inspires the evo in question to digress and conduct personal verbal assaults rather than explain why they believe in life from nonlife that somehow came into being and then turned into absolutely every living creature and biological system. It would be nice to see those mechanisms, at least in hypothetical form, backed up by what we know to be scientific fact. The world is a crazy place!
@taratorah "I like how *asking* for *specific* evidence..."
This coming from someone who I've asked personally to present a single piece of actual evidence for creationism at least a dozen times
'It would be nice to see those mechanisms'
Which do you want to see? The ones that form amino acids? The ones that affect their handedness? The ones that form purine bases? The ones that form protocells? The ones that form ribonucleotides?
Specifically....you are getting very, very dull and repetitive! I am not going to play your head games, which is all you are trying to accomplish here.
@taratorah Actually what I was doing was asking you to support your claim that what I said wasn't accurate. I guess to a creationist, being asked to support their claims would be considered 'a head game'
Well, since I've already suggested that you do your OWN homework (since you obviously don't respect the effort that others put into their responses to you -- why should I bother?), how is it that you keep repeating your demands that *I* do your homework? I don't think you understand: I do not CARE if you think I'm a fool. I just don't care. I do my own homework. Keep on "asking me to support (blablabla)"....have at it! But I'm not interested.
To repeat what I have said previously: I only answer commenters such as yourself so that the folks who are on the fence (so to speak) can see the fundamental dishonesty that underlies all evolutionary assumptions, and how atheistic evolution relies on false accusations and mockery to sucker unsuspecting students and casual readers alike into believing you actually *know* something! They can do the research on their own, just as you should.
@taratorah No accusation required, it's demonstrably factual that I've asked you numerous times over numerous videos for evidence supporting creation and that you have failed to even attempt to supply it.
And I will CONTINUE to fail to supply it! You have been graciously given much support by many commenters here, and you act as if you haven't! You continually demand to be shown this support, when you have already SEEN it, and rejected it as ignorance or lies. Of course I will not even attempt to supply you with what you have already been shown, silly! You are here to shore up your insecurity -- not to share actual facts.
@taratorah No, they haven't presented any actual support that stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. You keep confusing the claim being continually made with the claim being supported.
Actually I'm here to make it obvious to everyone that creationists have nothing but willful deception ignorance question dodging and a mountain of fallacy. You're epitomizing that as we speak.
Keep up the great work! People who actively engage their critical thinking skills will be willing to do their OWN homework, and decide on their own, WITHOUT either of us as guru, where the evidence points. They will also be able to detect passive-aggressive, juvenile attempts at manipulation when they see it. Your accusations are hilarious!
@taratorah Thank you for continually demonstrating the point that there is no homework to be done on the side of creationists and that all you have is bare and ignorant assertion.
No accusation necessary, I just keep asking you to support your position and you expose the utter failings of your position for me.
I refuse only because you have shown YouTube that whenever someone is gracious enough to spend the time to show you the proof, you insult them and ignore the facts they provide. You are not here to educate anyone -- only to glorify your imagined wisdom, and lord it over the "ignorant" creationists! Now, you know that this is what I believe. What compels you to imagine that I would want to subject myself to further abuse from you?
@taratorah You're playing a victim because I keep asking you to evidence your assertions. You're trying to make me out to be the bad guy for not allowing you to continually make empty baseless claims.
I ask again, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claims?
YES, I do have evidence! No, I will not waste my time bothering to show it to you. You have made it clear that you do not actually WANT the evidence. You will simply refer to the facts as "empty baseless claims". I am not going to waste my time with that.
" I only answer commenters such as yourself so that the folks who are on the fence"
Ok, please give me evidence of creation i.e. all things willed into existence suddenly.
"can see the fundamental dishonesty that underlies all evolutionary assumptions"
Could you give an example of this as well because from what I have seen it's the creationists who does not understand evolution and therefore has no real way to gauge it.
There's a saying "you can only win a debate with an honest man" and from what I've seen when I debate creationists they hide behind logical fallacies and outright lies. Here I’ll do you a favor then you want evidence for evolution go look up Nested Hierarchies. Not possible if creation were true.
If creation is true, and you are dealing with an omnipotent Being, then you would be wrong on that last point! But you have excluded that as a possibility (seeing as how you have personally searched out every corner of all known AND unknown universes, and declared authoritatively "There is no God." -- much less an OMNIPOTENT God! ). Hint: "Omnipotent" means "Can do absolutely ANYTHING".
Exactly! You've hit the nail on the head on why the concept of god is not science. You can point to anything and say god just poofed it into existence that way. If an idea cannot be falsified then it follows that it cannot be verified which is why creation fails over evolution. Even if you were right god is a dishonest and he is a terrible designer. Remember this science is about the ideas with the most evidence that are interpedently verifiable. You’re arguing for a supernatural wild card.
So, you're saying you can test for deep time? Because if you can't test for those many billions of years, sticking to strictly scientific principles so that any claim of evolution is falsifiable, then you are merely clinging to a religious belief that has FAR less evidence for it than for special creation! Now, design that test and bring it on! Otherwise, you are just saying that unthinking evolutionary processes just "poofed" everything into existence....a very SLOW poof!
@taratorah We can, of course, test for deep time. There are over a dozen radiometric dating methods using as many different isotopes that all concord the age of the planet, right around 4.545 billion years old.
There can't be any claim with less evidence than creation, as there can't be less than no evidence. Also, you're confusing your unwillingness to even consider evidence for the evidence not existing. Willful ignorance is not an argument.
Sure. How about the distance between stars or the expansion of the universe. All of that is independently verifiable. Now you’re going to say well god just magically did it that way. Well again that is not testable or repeatable a point you did not address.
@sweatytoothmadman I didn't mean to break into your conversation there. It's just that taratorah has dodged about as many of my points and questions as anyone on youtube.
As you know, I don't bother helping people who have proven themselves completely unwilling to examine the facts that are graciously sent to them. You have wasted a LOT of other people's time demanding sources and then dismissing them without a logical explanation.
Come ON! That's like a thief who was caught on camera stealing a truckload of merchandise saying "Just show me ONE thing I've stolen!" You are one serious head gamer!
So, instead of admitting that someone out there is onto your game, you verbally assault people while simultaneously accusing them of doing just that! Nice tactic. Won't work. As I've already mentioned the last 4 or 5 dozen times you've asked that question -- YES! I can support my "claims" with evidence. But you have shown that you will not, or CANNOT understand the evidence. It would be a waste of my time, so give up trying.
@taratorah What evidence have you presented? Name one piece.
And by name one piece I mean actually give an example as opposed to dodging and trying to imply that you've actually presented evidence that has been disregarded, because you haven't.
I'll tell you what, if you can give an instance anywhere on youtube on any video of you giving evidence that was not replied to and rebutted thoroughly, I'll let you pick any video from my channel and I'll delete it.
Well, you know I'm not dodging. You've already been informed a number of times why I won't play your head games. Perhaps it's time to tell yourself "I win!" and find another thread. I'm bored.
As I've explained to you many times, over and over....and over.....I will not supply you with ANYTHING due to the fact that you do not acknowledge information that has been tested and proven (and could be falsified by YOU, if you cared to invest the time and effort), and handed to you on a virtual silver platter. You are not interested in learning, or in applying scientific principles to what you call "science". Enabling your habit would be a waste of everyone's time.
Okay.....you aren't going to understand what I said, ever. For anyone else: concerning the much information that is freely available to people who truly want the facts -- I will not waste my time sharing what I have gathered over the past couple of decades with people who have a track record of insulting and/or ignoring what has been graciously and freely shared with them. You see, THIS is why my accuser has not inspired me to share, and why I will not bother.
@taratorah Of course I have, you're trying to weasel out of supporting your claim with evidence. You keep asserting that I won't accept your data when you haven't actually presented any.
Your last week of comments could be summed up as
"I won't present evidence, because you won't accept the evidence I've never presented"
Which, of course, proves that you not only mock the evidence presented to you in abundance, you claim that people have said what they did not say! Further explanation for you as to why investing time and energy in your basic science education is simply not worth my time.
I have noticed that you do not have respect for others, so I don't expect you to respect anyone at all, no matter how much help people try to give you. Nice attempt at manipulation, though!
And your highly scientific tendency to mock and personally attack other people (in addition to your mockery of actual science) is another great reason to *ignore* your badgering -- as opposed to "dancing"! Good job. You won't see me dancing to your jingle any century soon.
@taratorah You're the one dancing around the simple request for the evidence you claim exists.
Who do you really think is being made to look bad here? I ask you for evidence, you refuse to present it claiming I reject it out of hand, the evidence you never presented.
Interesting definition of "dancing". Especially since I actually *told* you my reasons for not playing your little head games. Does that make you look "good", or "smart"? Hmmmmmm. Well, to each his own, eh?
@TheScienceFoundation So instead of giving you evidence, it seems that taratorah does what she claims you do and condemns you for it. And still fails to provide evidence.
@taratorah Yes my 'head games' of expecting you to support your claims with actual evidence, instead of just asserting over and over that the evidence you haven't presented is being rejected.
No -- you cannot test for deep time. You can look at the expaaaaansion of the universe and draw all kinds of conclusions, but you cannot falsify anything (you know -- testable and repeatable?) Your faith in something that cannot be tested is astounding! And you call creationists insane! We never claim that we CAN test for deep time. You guys DO! I'll be impressed when I see the peer-reviewed research for that. ;)
In order for the universe to operate it has to be big (we know this from physics) much more than a million light years across. It's simply a test of point A to point B and the time it takes to transverse it. When we utilize basic arithmetic we get billions of years.
Since you blocked me like most creationists do I thought I'd respond here.
And here lies the problem you don’t understand the methods of science which follows that you don’t understand the conclusion of science while you tout a supernatural wild card that can be anything you want it to be to rationalize a book written by sheep herders. As I said previously said you can only win a debate with an honest man.
I have never blocked anyone. And, if dishonesty bothers you, you need to take that log out of your eye (so to speak). Evolutionism demands that the possibility of a creative higher power be TOTALLY excluded (and mocked, if possible), and conclusions drawn with only a limited set of options. Totally unscientific and dishonest. Much more honest to say "This is how it appears to me" rather than "This is indisputable scientific FACT", when to do so is completely arrogant.
@taratorah - If you believe in the Torah, you might want to look at Ex 20:16. You see yourself as an exposer of false cults, yet you are the accuser of the brethren. Russ is a brother in Christ, who has commended himself to many by his sound speech. You on the other hand are bearing false witness.
hollywdgarcia 6 months ago
So you've started ejecting people from your events just for calling you on your ignorance Russ?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Nope. You are wrong yet again! Amazing. How do you do it?
The person was purposely disrupting an event that many people attended in order to see the biblical view (as opposed to your secular view which is forced on them every day of their lives). Like you, he couldn't stand it
RussMiller1000 6 months ago
@RussMiller1000 Yes, he couldn't stand your willful ignorance in order to sell a few DVD's and bus tours to take a few dollars from little old ladies.
I hope he corrected your ineptitude as well as is done on here.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
>try to beat evolution with logic
>believe in talking snakes
lol
MoonriseKingdom 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries it was not a comparrison to 'random chance' it was an analogy of how a single cell creature changes over time to become multicellular. And now, don't quote me on this but prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor which eiter is or was related to the first proto bionts.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@taratorah All you have to do is present one evidence to support your claim that is all we are looking for.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
For all who are interested I made a video with annotations on this video
Cactarpus 6 months ago
How long did it take Adam to name all ten million animal kinds?
Bardlettt 6 months ago
@Bardlettt Since there were only about 6,000 kinds I can't say. How long are we we to wait til Darwinists find some viable evidence of life evolving from a sterile rock? Or an actual example of bacteria turning into jellyfish; or donkeys; or people?
CreationMinistries 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries 6000? I don't remember reading that in the Bible. What's a Darwinist? Is that like an evolutionary biologist? Because they're not the ones trying to prove abiogenesis, that's chemists. I guess you couldn't find your answers because you're looking in the wrong field of study. Why would anyone think a bacteria would turn into a jellyfish? That's silly, and I certainly hope you don't think that's evolution; it would make you seem very uninformed indeed.
Bardlettt 6 months ago
@Bardlettt Chemists FTW man!
Cactarpus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CreationMinistries And what is a 'kind' exactly? And how did only 6000 of them produce the genetic variability we see today?
'How long are we we to wait til Darwinists find some viable evidence of life evolving from a sterile rock?'
Here's the only proper response for that request ielmira(.)com/uploads/gallery/album_1/gallery_1_1_2964.jpg
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries bacteria wouldn't have turned in to any of the above because they are eukaryotes. Also I am making a video on this right as we speak.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@Cactarpus Glad to see you know a single celled creature could not have changed into anything else. I completely agree with your conclusion
CreationMinistries 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries And of course anyone literate in cell biology in any way knows that's not what he said at all.
You didn't know that's not what he said at all (or you chose to willfully misrepresent what he said) What does that say about you, Russ?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries That is an utter lie, what i said is that bacteria (which are prokaryotes) would never turn in to a eukaryote. Also if you don't think that a single cell creature can turn in to anything else you might as well forget about zygotes which turn in to a human after a 9 month gestation period. So Russ, stop lying, we are going to call you out on your BS.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@Cactarpus I do appreciate you allowing any open-minded persons to see your....logic? The zygote is directed by extremely complex genetic instructions. How you compare this to a bacteria cell becoming a biology professor is somewhat beyond any amount of reasoning
CreationMinistries 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries Wow you cannot understand an analogy? Actually do you even know what the word analogy means? No where in my statement did I say that bacteria would become a 'biology professor,' something which you are certainly not nor ever will be. And how dare you attack MY logic after you have been repeatedly proven wrong and continue to either lie or ignore the points where you are wrong. I bet the response to this comment is something irrelevant and deceitful.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@Cactarpus Sorry to upset you but comparing random chance, non-observed Neo-Darwinism, or any other form of evolutionism, to complex & well designed genetic change is not an analogy, it is a mistake. So where do you believe your prokaryotes & eukaryotes came from?
CreationMinistries 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries At this point you don't really have to bother with pretending to be interested in actually learning anything.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@CreationMinistries Life wouldn't evolve from a rock actually, life wouldn't even form from a rock. Life would however form from a combination of organic compounds and fatty acids.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
Russ- quick question, have you read either Goldschmidt or Eldredge & Gould? Because the former has absolutely nothing to do with fossils, and the papers of E&G have absolutely nothing to do with missing transitions between higher taxa. And PE has absolutely nothing to do with Goldschmidt's macromutational hypothesis. In fact, YOUR story requires hyper-PE for your handful of 'kinds' to micro-evolve into today's diverse terrestrial biota.
LithodidMan 6 months ago
My respect for your ability to spill blatant lies with a straight face. Or do you really believe the nonsense you spew ? Maybe you should pick a book other then the Bible and take some time to study the subject of your presentation. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT based on the hopeful Monster hypothesis, but rather an extension of the concept known as allopatric speciation (when species are geographically separated). Please do us all a favour and try to learn something before you open your mouth.
plumdrix 7 months ago
Darwin argue a similar theory to Gould’s punctuated equilibrium and for the record P.E. is still gradual.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
Evolution has always been ignorant of genetics, in this case, their outdated theory just ignores that for evolution to occur you have to fixate one nucleotide at a time and that takes hundreds of generations each, magical quick evolution is not scientific.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses And as usual you have that completely backwards, evolution has been vindicated beyond any reasonable doubt by genetics..
'you have to fixate one nucleotide at a time and that takes hundreds of generations'
Was that supposed to make sense?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Experiments have dmonstrated beyond doubt that the population required to mutate ONE new beneficial trait is beyond the TRILLIONS, take as an example Lenski's EColi with a population above 20 trillions or the 10^20 Plasmodiums required to develop chloroquine resistance; however, human beings don't have a high fertility rate and deterioration is the rule, prof M Lynch -among others- are investigating this important issue for our own future
PNAS 2010 107 (3) 961-968
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses 'Experiments have dmonstrated beyond doubt that the population required to mutate ONE new beneficial trait is beyond the TRILLIONS'
Outright fabrication; /watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation So I base my case on experiments and you respond with a video?
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, creatures like the mammalians never evolved.
Thanks science for experimentation leaves no room for evolutionary imaginations.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses The beauty of Lenski's experiment is that creationists now have experimental grounds for the time and specimens needed to obtain a new beneficial trait. For a presentation on human genetic entropy, Lenski's results are gold ;-)
And as always, experiments beats drawed trees and imaginations, everything but darwinian optimism.
Sadly for you, there's no better evolutionary experiment than Lenski's EColi, so now you can only keep exposing your darwinian fanatism ;-)
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses First off, that wasn't even Lenski's experiment, it was Ohno's. Second, there's a reason Sanford hasn't been able to take genetic entropy to task with an actual genetic analysis but only with erroneous computer simulations. Mainly because while mutation is more or less random, selection is not. It's sort of like saying "The odds of rolling 50 sixes is astronomical" when what is really being done is when a six is rolled, it's kept.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation Ohno? lol you are really confused, your lame video was talking about NylonBug and Cit+ EColi, meanwhile you repply with crazy comments and your evolutionary fanatism ignoring the insane number of specimens experimentally required to develop new benefic traits, as I said
experiments beats drawed trees and imaginations, everything but darwinian faith
Sadly for you, there's no better evolutionary experiment than Lenski's EColi, so now you can only keep exposing your fanatism
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
"it's not just a creation believing christian that claims they've got no evidence"
Yes, it is. Well along with anyone who hasn't actually read anything about Gould, Eldridge or their work.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
"Think about what this theory says"
Let's see what Gould himself had to say
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PE was never meant to replace gradualism, mainly because we do have literally mountains of fossils supporting it, but only describe the process of rapid change in smaller populations.
"No evidence was captured in the fossil record"
lol; en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
"I like to tell people there is no evidence for evolution"
Pretty sure that bronze age book you're so fond of says something about not lying.
"Let's go back to the 1930's"
To rehash an idea that no one actually supports
"Reinvented hopeful monster just slightly"
No, punctuated equilibrium doesn't even resemble hopeful monster. Nowhere in PE are their proposed major single changes. PE explains that changes move more slowly across the bulk of a main population.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
'The lack of evidence for Darwinism'
Hahahaha
genome(.)gov/15515096
/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
/watch?v=xIAd8Zx_JKY
/watch?v=_kfLo4Wd6cc
These pieces of data alone put common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
What's funny (and by that I mean sad that the creationists don't understand it) is that punctuated equilibrium and other hypotheses proposing rapid change in smaller populations does nothing to undermine gradualism in any way. The idea of single large generational changes hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time, but it's a fact that in a periphery of a major population that changes do indeed accrue more quickly.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
I like how *asking* for *specific* evidence always inspires the evo in question to digress and conduct personal verbal assaults rather than explain why they believe in life from nonlife that somehow came into being and then turned into absolutely every living creature and biological system. It would be nice to see those mechanisms, at least in hypothetical form, backed up by what we know to be scientific fact. The world is a crazy place!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah "I like how *asking* for *specific* evidence..."
This coming from someone who I've asked personally to present a single piece of actual evidence for creationism at least a dozen times
'It would be nice to see those mechanisms'
Which do you want to see? The ones that form amino acids? The ones that affect their handedness? The ones that form purine bases? The ones that form protocells? The ones that form ribonucleotides?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
From step ONE. All your little digressions don't prove diddly -- I've heard them all before!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah So what, of the things I said, are inaccurate and how so? Be specific.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Specifically....you are getting very, very dull and repetitive! I am not going to play your head games, which is all you are trying to accomplish here.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Actually what I was doing was asking you to support your claim that what I said wasn't accurate. I guess to a creationist, being asked to support their claims would be considered 'a head game'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Well, since I've already suggested that you do your OWN homework (since you obviously don't respect the effort that others put into their responses to you -- why should I bother?), how is it that you keep repeating your demands that *I* do your homework? I don't think you understand: I do not CARE if you think I'm a fool. I just don't care. I do my own homework. Keep on "asking me to support (blablabla)"....have at it! But I'm not interested.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Me asking you to repeat your support would imply you've presented any to start with. You haven't.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
To repeat what I have said previously: I only answer commenters such as yourself so that the folks who are on the fence (so to speak) can see the fundamental dishonesty that underlies all evolutionary assumptions, and how atheistic evolution relies on false accusations and mockery to sucker unsuspecting students and casual readers alike into believing you actually *know* something! They can do the research on their own, just as you should.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah No accusation required, it's demonstrably factual that I've asked you numerous times over numerous videos for evidence supporting creation and that you have failed to even attempt to supply it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
And I will CONTINUE to fail to supply it! You have been graciously given much support by many commenters here, and you act as if you haven't! You continually demand to be shown this support, when you have already SEEN it, and rejected it as ignorance or lies. Of course I will not even attempt to supply you with what you have already been shown, silly! You are here to shore up your insecurity -- not to share actual facts.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah No, they haven't presented any actual support that stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. You keep confusing the claim being continually made with the claim being supported.
Actually I'm here to make it obvious to everyone that creationists have nothing but willful deception ignorance question dodging and a mountain of fallacy. You're epitomizing that as we speak.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Keep up the great work! People who actively engage their critical thinking skills will be willing to do their OWN homework, and decide on their own, WITHOUT either of us as guru, where the evidence points. They will also be able to detect passive-aggressive, juvenile attempts at manipulation when they see it. Your accusations are hilarious!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Thank you for continually demonstrating the point that there is no homework to be done on the side of creationists and that all you have is bare and ignorant assertion.
No accusation necessary, I just keep asking you to support your position and you expose the utter failings of your position for me.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I refuse only because you have shown YouTube that whenever someone is gracious enough to spend the time to show you the proof, you insult them and ignore the facts they provide. You are not here to educate anyone -- only to glorify your imagined wisdom, and lord it over the "ignorant" creationists! Now, you know that this is what I believe. What compels you to imagine that I would want to subject myself to further abuse from you?
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah You're playing a victim because I keep asking you to evidence your assertions. You're trying to make me out to be the bad guy for not allowing you to continually make empty baseless claims.
I ask again, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claims?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
*sigh*
You are not paying attention.
YES, I do have evidence! No, I will not waste my time bothering to show it to you. You have made it clear that you do not actually WANT the evidence. You will simply refer to the facts as "empty baseless claims". I am not going to waste my time with that.
taratorah 7 months ago
" I only answer commenters such as yourself so that the folks who are on the fence"
Ok, please give me evidence of creation i.e. all things willed into existence suddenly.
"can see the fundamental dishonesty that underlies all evolutionary assumptions"
Could you give an example of this as well because from what I have seen it's the creationists who does not understand evolution and therefore has no real way to gauge it.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
Ohhhh, not you too! XD I know who gave you a shout. Sorry -- it's pointless for me to try to feed logic to a closed mind.
taratorah 7 months ago
There's a saying "you can only win a debate with an honest man" and from what I've seen when I debate creationists they hide behind logical fallacies and outright lies. Here I’ll do you a favor then you want evidence for evolution go look up Nested Hierarchies. Not possible if creation were true.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
If creation is true, and you are dealing with an omnipotent Being, then you would be wrong on that last point! But you have excluded that as a possibility (seeing as how you have personally searched out every corner of all known AND unknown universes, and declared authoritatively "There is no God." -- much less an OMNIPOTENT God! ). Hint: "Omnipotent" means "Can do absolutely ANYTHING".
taratorah 7 months ago
Exactly! You've hit the nail on the head on why the concept of god is not science. You can point to anything and say god just poofed it into existence that way. If an idea cannot be falsified then it follows that it cannot be verified which is why creation fails over evolution. Even if you were right god is a dishonest and he is a terrible designer. Remember this science is about the ideas with the most evidence that are interpedently verifiable. You’re arguing for a supernatural wild card.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
So, you're saying you can test for deep time? Because if you can't test for those many billions of years, sticking to strictly scientific principles so that any claim of evolution is falsifiable, then you are merely clinging to a religious belief that has FAR less evidence for it than for special creation! Now, design that test and bring it on! Otherwise, you are just saying that unthinking evolutionary processes just "poofed" everything into existence....a very SLOW poof!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah We can, of course, test for deep time. There are over a dozen radiometric dating methods using as many different isotopes that all concord the age of the planet, right around 4.545 billion years old.
There can't be any claim with less evidence than creation, as there can't be less than no evidence. Also, you're confusing your unwillingness to even consider evidence for the evidence not existing. Willful ignorance is not an argument.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
“So, you're saying you can test for deep time? “
Sure. How about the distance between stars or the expansion of the universe. All of that is independently verifiable. Now you’re going to say well god just magically did it that way. Well again that is not testable or repeatable a point you did not address.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I didn't mean to break into your conversation there. It's just that taratorah has dodged about as many of my points and questions as anyone on youtube.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You sure DID mean to. You SENT him here! XD
As you know, I don't bother helping people who have proven themselves completely unwilling to examine the facts that are graciously sent to them. You have wasted a LOT of other people's time demanding sources and then dismissing them without a logical explanation.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah What facts have been presented that I have been unwilling to examine? Name one specifically.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Come ON! That's like a thief who was caught on camera stealing a truckload of merchandise saying "Just show me ONE thing I've stolen!" You are one serious head gamer!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah So instead of actually presenting evidence I haven't examined, you immediately resort to ridiculous analogies that border on ad hominem.
Can you support your claims with evidence? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
So, instead of admitting that someone out there is onto your game, you verbally assault people while simultaneously accusing them of doing just that! Nice tactic. Won't work. As I've already mentioned the last 4 or 5 dozen times you've asked that question -- YES! I can support my "claims" with evidence. But you have shown that you will not, or CANNOT understand the evidence. It would be a waste of my time, so give up trying.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah What evidence have you presented? Name one piece.
And by name one piece I mean actually give an example as opposed to dodging and trying to imply that you've actually presented evidence that has been disregarded, because you haven't.
I'll tell you what, if you can give an instance anywhere on youtube on any video of you giving evidence that was not replied to and rebutted thoroughly, I'll let you pick any video from my channel and I'll delete it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Oh, goody.
Well, you know I'm not dodging. You've already been informed a number of times why I won't play your head games. Perhaps it's time to tell yourself "I win!" and find another thread. I'm bored.
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Yeah you're not dodging, you're just not answering my question at all.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Aaaaaannnnddddd....(drumroll)....can you tell me WHY? (Hint, I've told you about a dozen times.)
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Because you don't have anything supporting your position.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Close -- I don't have anything to share with people who will not bother to even consider what I have to offer. That routine is old.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah So your argument is that you won't supply evidence because I won't accept the evidence that you haven't supplied.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
As I've explained to you many times, over and over....and over.....I will not supply you with ANYTHING due to the fact that you do not acknowledge information that has been tested and proven (and could be falsified by YOU, if you cared to invest the time and effort), and handed to you on a virtual silver platter. You are not interested in learning, or in applying scientific principles to what you call "science". Enabling your habit would be a waste of everyone's time.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah What information have you presented that I haven't acknowledged?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Okay.....you aren't going to understand what I said, ever. For anyone else: concerning the much information that is freely available to people who truly want the facts -- I will not waste my time sharing what I have gathered over the past couple of decades with people who have a track record of insulting and/or ignoring what has been graciously and freely shared with them. You see, THIS is why my accuser has not inspired me to share, and why I will not bother.
taratorah 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taratorah I understand what you're saying. You're trying to be very elaborate about dodging the question.
So I ask again
What information have you presented that I haven't acknowledged? Name a single solitary example.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@taratorah So have you got that example of information you've presented that I haven't acknowledged?
Just link us to the video the comments are on.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I wonder if they will comment on my video, so far no creationist comments.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You haven't been paying attention.....
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah Of course I have, you're trying to weasel out of supporting your claim with evidence. You keep asserting that I won't accept your data when you haven't actually presented any.
Your last week of comments could be summed up as
"I won't present evidence, because you won't accept the evidence I've never presented"
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Which, of course, proves that you not only mock the evidence presented to you in abundance, you claim that people have said what they did not say! Further explanation for you as to why investing time and energy in your basic science education is simply not worth my time.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah What evidence has been presented?
Thus far your argument has been that I don't accept the evidence that you haven't presented.
If you'd just admit that you're not only wrong but have no idea what you're talking about, it'd be a lot more respectable.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I have noticed that you do not have respect for others, so I don't expect you to respect anyone at all, no matter how much help people try to give you. Nice attempt at manipulation, though!
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah The fact that you think me asking you to support your claims with evidence is 'manipulation' should tell you everything you need to know
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@taratorah Still waiting.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Have a good time!
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah Always :D I rather enjoy watching you being unable to support your claims.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
How do you know I'm unable? Oh, of course! Because I'm unwilling to play your head games! ;)
taratorah 6 months ago
Anyhow, it's great that you're having fun!
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah It's always fun watching fundies dance.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
And your highly scientific tendency to mock and personally attack other people (in addition to your mockery of actual science) is another great reason to *ignore* your badgering -- as opposed to "dancing"! Good job. You won't see me dancing to your jingle any century soon.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah You're the one dancing around the simple request for the evidence you claim exists.
Who do you really think is being made to look bad here? I ask you for evidence, you refuse to present it claiming I reject it out of hand, the evidence you never presented.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation \
Interesting definition of "dancing". Especially since I actually *told* you my reasons for not playing your little head games. Does that make you look "good", or "smart"? Hmmmmmm. Well, to each his own, eh?
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah You gave excuses but it's obvious to anyone reading that you have no evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation So instead of giving you evidence, it seems that taratorah does what she claims you do and condemns you for it. And still fails to provide evidence.
Cactarpus 6 months ago
@Cactarpus Exactly.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@taratorah Anything yet?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@taratorah Anything?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@taratorah Anything on that evidence yet?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@taratorah Yes my 'head games' of expecting you to support your claims with actual evidence, instead of just asserting over and over that the evidence you haven't presented is being rejected.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
No -- you cannot test for deep time. You can look at the expaaaaansion of the universe and draw all kinds of conclusions, but you cannot falsify anything (you know -- testable and repeatable?) Your faith in something that cannot be tested is astounding! And you call creationists insane! We never claim that we CAN test for deep time. You guys DO! I'll be impressed when I see the peer-reviewed research for that. ;)
taratorah 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"No -- you cannot test for deep time."
In order for the universe to operate it has to be big (we know this from physics) much more than a million light years across. It's simply a test of point A to point B and the time it takes to transverse it. When we utilize basic arithmetic we get billions of years.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
Gedanken! :D
taratorah 7 months ago
Since you blocked me like most creationists do I thought I'd respond here.
And here lies the problem you don’t understand the methods of science which follows that you don’t understand the conclusion of science while you tout a supernatural wild card that can be anything you want it to be to rationalize a book written by sheep herders. As I said previously said you can only win a debate with an honest man.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
I have never blocked anyone. And, if dishonesty bothers you, you need to take that log out of your eye (so to speak). Evolutionism demands that the possibility of a creative higher power be TOTALLY excluded (and mocked, if possible), and conclusions drawn with only a limited set of options. Totally unscientific and dishonest. Much more honest to say "This is how it appears to me" rather than "This is indisputable scientific FACT", when to do so is completely arrogant.
taratorah 7 months ago